Conquer Club

I recently responded to another CC members post about truce breaking "I think if you make a truce you should honor it. When making a truce you should structure it so that you can honor it and hopefully it will favor you..."Blah blah blah. Something like that.

A few other people argued that it is part of the game (which I do NOT disagree with) but I took the position that I did not favor truce breaking and suggested ways to keep the truce and still have a chance to win.

After some reflection of my game play I realize I've participated in some shady business that could be in the same ballpark as truce breaking. Once during a fog game I may have revealed how many units an opponent had and hinted where this stack might be. Players in the game called me on it and I avoid playing this way now. The realization: why was I so against truce breaking but sort of okay with revealing information during a fog game.

I tried to rationalize it by Truce breaking is unchivalrous and dishonest. However hinting about stacks during a fog game e.g. "careful red, blue is stacked and could be a problem for both of us" is strategy. Revealing information about another opponent could be a straight out lie and used to deceive someone. The later I would consider dishonest so I probably would not do that. The first example about revealing "some" information does not break my CC moral code. Many would argue that this type of play is against CC etiquette.

Are both truce breaking and revealing information just strategy?

Are they in the same ball park?

Thoughts?

Truces are going to have to be broken eventually anyways. I don't actively pursue them, but if I am offered one, I set rules for how many rounds and stipulate a 1 round warning of ending it.

In terms of fog revealing, it might be a bit dishonorable, but it's not against the rules. I don't do it, but would understand if someone did it to me because I was the dominant player.

But would you make a truce to and then break it. Or do you make truces with the intention of breaking them as a strategy. Is that the same thing as revealing info in fog?

Thx

Im against both of them, I mostly play fog of war and informations I gathered are used just for my purpose, I never share them with anyone, cause I think it is cheating. Truce breaking without warning or making truce with intention to break it for your own advantage is also wrong in my opinion. Im not doing much of truces but when a guy offered me one and said "truce for 2 turns" I was ok with it. We all know the truce has to be broken one day, so just set a ammount of turn or give him 1 turn warning.

SIDI wrote:I recently responded to another CC members post about truce breaking "I think if you make a truce you should honor it. When making a truce you should structure it so that you can honor it and hopefully it will favor you..."Blah blah blah. Something like that.

A few other people argued that it is part of the game (which I do NOT disagree with) but I took the position that I did not favor truce breaking and suggested ways to keep the truce and still have a chance to win.

After some reflection of my game play I realize I've participated in some shady business that could be in the same ballpark as truce breaking. Once during a fog game I may have revealed how many units an opponent had and hinted where this stack might be. Players in the game called me on it and I avoid playing this way now. The realization: why was I so against truce breaking but sort of okay with revealing information during a fog game.

I tried to rationalize it by Truce breaking is unchivalrous and dishonest. However hinting about stacks during a fog game e.g. "careful red, blue is stacked and could be a problem for both of us" is strategy. Revealing information about another opponent could be a straight out lie and used to deceive someone. The later I would consider dishonest so I probably would not do that. The first example about revealing "some" information does not break my CC moral code. Many would argue that this type of play is against CC etiquette.

Are both truce breaking and revealing information just strategy?

Are they in the same ball park?

Thoughts?

Here's my feeling. As Coach Herm Edwards infamously said..."WE PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!". Therefore, using any and all tools at your disposal is your DUTY to the strategy of the game. I consider revealing information and putting out misinformation to just be tools within your toolbox. And I do both often enough that nobody knows what the hell I'm talking about. If someone gets all pissed off about it, well...that's really their problem. I do hold truce-breaking in a bit different light in that there is an inherent "giving your word" applied to it. And yet, at the same time...WE PLAY TO WIN THE GAME, so you use it to your advantage.

If you're not using every tool in your toolbox, you are only hurting yourself.

Now, having said all of that...do I get mad for a bit when it happens to me? SURE...that's human nature. My game got nicked, and I'm competitive enough to get mad about it (at that moment). But if I examine the situation honestly, I'm really only mad because my own strategy didn't account for whatever happened to happen.

Wolfikos wrote:Im against both of them, I mostly play fog of war and informations I gathered are used just for my purpose, I never share them with anyone, cause I think it is cheating.

No, it absolutely is NOT cheating. Not at all. It might be considered dirty play or disrespectful, but it is NOT CHEATING.

I agree with Woodruff. Only make a truce knowing the opponent can break it. Usually if that happens to me though, I attack the f*ck out of him/her to make sure they never do it again. I always keep my truces though.

Avoid making truces.

If you happen to make a truce KEEP it.

If someone makes a truce in a large game make a truce with everyone else and crush them.

If someone breaks a truce with you or whoever they truce with foe the back stabber.

I don't play FOW, so I won't speak to that, but as far as truces are concerned, Wolf puts it best. They are absolutely part of the game--choosing to make or not make them, hold or break them, lie or tell the truth, are all part of your strategy. You telling me in a live game, when one guy has South America, and another has Oceania, it's not right for them to say "you don't attack me, I won't attach you" in order to preserve their bonuses? Or when one guy gets way too strong, the others don't say "hey we gotta work together to knock him down--don't attach each other"?

And keep in mind that the players not in a truce are allowed to lobby those in the truce, to make them see the ill of their ways, or even threaten them, in order to break their truces. All part of the fun.

These discussions sometimes remind me of the show Survivor--in the first season, most of the players just sat around, being polite, not working with anybody. One guy (Hatch) set about to make alliances, truces, etc. Guess who won? And guess how the game is played now?

If people think its cheating, then their should be a mechanism to disable chat in a game, and you can play in silence.

Everyone play their own way, we all know that those who will use game weakness /in freestyle games for examples/ those who will make truces and then break them to crush everyone, they have better odds to win, but Im not really enjoying it, Im new in this game, played just 26 games so my view on it may change after some hundreds of game (wont happen fast tho cause of freemium) but I do respect more those who win because they play great then those who used all game weakness and made truces, broke them to backstabb and won.

As many players, that much opinion we can get, but I do think that when it comes to strategic games, honour is in the first place.

jpreno wrote:I don't play FOW, so I won't speak to that, but as far as truces are concerned, Wolf puts it best. They are absolutely part of the game--choosing to make or not make them, hold or break them, lie or tell the truth, are all part of your strategy.

I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that's not what Wolfikos was saying.

One thing I've come finally to like about CC is the rating system. If I see something even as low as my rating I tend to check out the specific issues with the player. If I see 'backstabber' or whatever, well...I'm gonna take that into account. And if I have a choice between being peaceful or hitting that player, well its probably going to have to be a hit.

So CC has an in-built checking system on immoral play. Get a low rating (and they often come from this kind of behavior) and other players will deal with you differently. Your win percentage in these kinds of games will go down.

Saying that THIS player should be highlighted for immoral play...

Game 8260908

The game is balanced precariously, with yellow near the winning line but not quite there yet. He has to defeat SA and me in Europe. I organise a 'board push' and lead the way with a big hit. Orange however, BREAKS SA spitefully, on the basis of if I'm dead you are all dead. We may have lost anyway, but orange ended it right there.

There should be a special tag for that.

With regards to fog I don't like it, BUT if I did play I would think spouting misinformation should be a key part of it. Therefore, at least to me, that's absolutely fine.

Breaking truces...well it is something you have to accept may happen and as it is sadly quite difficult to find out the location of the miserable little shit, hire a hitman (in a foreign land no less) and have him splatter, like a ripe strawberry, all over sidewalk from a very tall building, then that's about all one can do.

2011-01-28 16:22:29 - Mr Changsha: yellow deploys 22, the board...47.
2011-01-28 16:23:11 - Mr Changsha: the trouble is borders are being left strangely weak (Africa + SA).
2011-01-28 16:24:24 - Mr Changsha: finally orange, you've left yourself no position to attack yellow from anyway. I could do a little damage, but why should i when you haven't positioned yourself to back me up?
2011-02-09 13:11:36 - Mr Changsha [self]: snap :: 14~CbBcCbGcBdCbCdFiBhBdBdBhXhBhNhBhBhCfCfBhCfDdCfEfCfCfBfBfBfBfBfBfBfBeFeFbBbBbFbBbBbSbBbBbRbDhBbBbCbBdBdBgBgDeBgHeBeBeDeCfCfDdFeDhHeBeEeBeDeBeOeBeBePeIeBhOeDeBeBeBeBeBeBeBeBeBeHeBeBeBeBeBeBgBgBeBeBeBeBgBgBgCcBdGcCeBhBiJdIgBiDbBi
2011-02-10 02:43:36 - Nullificator: Orange, let me have SA so I can fight Yellow.
2011-02-10 15:22:27 - Mr Changsha: at this point if you are facing yellow hit him. I will be sending 27 from Finland. yellow still has to deal with pink. Basically if you are facing yellow you gotta hit him now.
2011-02-10 15:23:32 - Mr Changsha: I would admit I underestimated how slowly every one (but yellow) developed. It is rare for him to have got a way like this. well played though yellow.
2011-02-12 01:13:12 - ThePolishHammer: good game yellow ... and no pink you will not just have south america as im destroyed by yellow you can come down with me
2011-02-12 01:13:59 - ThePolishHammer: you also developed slowly red you had a big command in just west europe but never advanced east
2011-02-12 02:47:27 - Nullificator: Orange, you are handing the game to Yellow. Why do you play this game?
2011-02-12 16:07:48 - Mr Changsha: Orange, with what? I had to get green out of scand. first. That's basic. And my dice blew horribly.
2011-02-12 16:14:44 - Mr Changsha: but orange, the hit on pink, I mean.
2011-02-12 16:15:36 - Mr Changsha: saying I can't win no one can is the lowest form of Risk behavior. Cheapens yellow's (probable win)
2011-02-12 16:15:59 - Mr Changsha: expect some foes.
2011-02-12 16:25:56 - Nullificator: Red, couldn't agree more. Orange, should we meet in a future game, I will take your actions in this game into account. You earn reputations in this game.

Woodruff wrote:

jpreno wrote:I don't play FOW, so I won't speak to that, but as far as truces are concerned, Wolf puts it best. They are absolutely part of the game--choosing to make or not make them, hold or break them, lie or tell the truth, are all part of your strategy.

I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that's not what Wolfikos was saying.

You're right--I should have said Woodruff. Sorry for the confusion

I have a question, what is the view on threatening a player to get what you want? ie see this game here Game 8185813
If i don't get that bonus i am going to lose the game due to my lack of troop reinforcement numbers, but if i attack cyan outright we will both probably lose to grey, he has a big stack in columbia, which i desperately need, but i have the larger stack and could take him down....i know it's a dick move and might get me foed but we play to win and i need that bonus. So basically whats everyone's viewpoint on armtwisting another player like that?

Mr Changsha wrote:One thing I've come finally to like about CC is the rating system. If I see something even as low as my rating I tend to check out the specific issues with the player. If I see 'backstabber' or whatever, well...I'm gonna take that into account. And if I have a choice between being peaceful or hitting that player, well its probably going to have to be a hit.

So CC has an in-built checking system on immoral play. Get a low rating (and they often come from this kind of behavior) and other players will deal with you differently. Your win percentage in these kinds of games will go down.

Saying that THIS player should be highlighted for immoral play...

Game 8260908

The game is balanced precariously, with yellow near the winning line but not quite there yet. He has to defeat SA and me in Europe. I organise a 'board push' and lead the way with a big hit. Orange however, BREAKS SA spitefully, on the basis of if I'm dead you are all dead. We may have lost anyway, but orange ended it right there.

There should be a special tag for that.

With regards to fog I don't like it, BUT if I did play I would think spouting misinformation should be a key part of it. Therefore, at least to me, that's absolutely fine.

Breaking truces...well it is something you have to accept may happen and as it is sadly quite difficult to find out the location of the miserable little shit, hire a hitman (in a foreign land no less) and have him splatter, like a ripe strawberry, all over sidewalk from a very tall building, then that's about all one can do.

2011-01-28 16:22:29 - Mr Changsha: yellow deploys 22, the board...47.
2011-01-28 16:23:11 - Mr Changsha: the trouble is borders are being left strangely weak (Africa + SA).
2011-01-28 16:24:24 - Mr Changsha: finally orange, you've left yourself no position to attack yellow from anyway. I could do a little damage, but why should i when you haven't positioned yourself to back me up?
2011-02-09 13:11:36 - Mr Changsha [self]: snap :: 14~CbBcCbGcBdCbCdFiBhBdBdBhXhBhNhBhBhCfCfBhCfDdCfEfCfCfBfBfBfBfBfBfBfBeFeFbBbBbFbBbBbSbBbBbRbDhBbBbCbBdBdBgBgDeBgHeBeBeDeCfCfDdFeDhHeBeEeBeDeBeOeBeBePeIeBhOeDeBeBeBeBeBeBeBeBeBeHeBeBeBeBeBeBgBgBeBeBeBeBgBgBgCcBdGcCeBhBiJdIgBiDbBi
2011-02-10 02:43:36 - Nullificator: Orange, let me have SA so I can fight Yellow.
2011-02-10 15:22:27 - Mr Changsha: at this point if you are facing yellow hit him. I will be sending 27 from Finland. yellow still has to deal with pink. Basically if you are facing yellow you gotta hit him now.
2011-02-10 15:23:32 - Mr Changsha: I would admit I underestimated how slowly every one (but yellow) developed. It is rare for him to have got a way like this. well played though yellow.
2011-02-12 01:13:12 - ThePolishHammer: good game yellow ... and no pink you will not just have south america as im destroyed by yellow you can come down with me
2011-02-12 01:13:59 - ThePolishHammer: you also developed slowly red you had a big command in just west europe but never advanced east
2011-02-12 02:47:27 - Nullificator: Orange, you are handing the game to Yellow. Why do you play this game?
2011-02-12 16:07:48 - Mr Changsha: Orange, with what? I had to get green out of scand. first. That's basic. And my dice blew horribly.
2011-02-12 16:14:44 - Mr Changsha: but orange, the hit on pink, I mean.
2011-02-12 16:15:36 - Mr Changsha: saying I can't win no one can is the lowest form of Risk behavior. Cheapens yellow's (probable win)
2011-02-12 16:15:59 - Mr Changsha: expect some foes.
2011-02-12 16:25:56 - Nullificator: Red, couldn't agree more. Orange, should we meet in a future game, I will take your actions in this game into account. You earn reputations in this game.

Looks like you've met my brother (PolishHammer)

Army of GOD wrote:

Mr Changsha wrote:One thing I've come finally to like about CC is the rating system. If I see something even as low as my rating I tend to check out the specific issues with the player. If I see 'backstabber' or whatever, well...I'm gonna take that into account. And if I have a choice between being peaceful or hitting that player, well its probably going to have to be a hit.

So CC has an in-built checking system on immoral play. Get a low rating (and they often come from this kind of behavior) and other players will deal with you differently. Your win percentage in these kinds of games will go down.

Saying that THIS player should be highlighted for immoral play...

Game 8260908

The game is balanced precariously, with yellow near the winning line but not quite there yet. He has to defeat SA and me in Europe. I organise a 'board push' and lead the way with a big hit. Orange however, BREAKS SA spitefully, on the basis of if I'm dead you are all dead. We may have lost anyway, but orange ended it right there.

There should be a special tag for that.

With regards to fog I don't like it, BUT if I did play I would think spouting misinformation should be a key part of it. Therefore, at least to me, that's absolutely fine.

Breaking truces...well it is something you have to accept may happen and as it is sadly quite difficult to find out the location of the miserable little shit, hire a hitman (in a foreign land no less) and have him splatter, like a ripe strawberry, all over sidewalk from a very tall building, then that's about all one can do.

2011-01-28 16:22:29 - Mr Changsha: yellow deploys 22, the board...47.
2011-01-28 16:23:11 - Mr Changsha: the trouble is borders are being left strangely weak (Africa + SA).
2011-01-28 16:24:24 - Mr Changsha: finally orange, you've left yourself no position to attack yellow from anyway. I could do a little damage, but why should i when you haven't positioned yourself to back me up?
2011-02-09 13:11:36 - Mr Changsha [self]: snap :: 14~CbBcCbGcBdCbCdFiBhBdBdBhXhBhNhBhBhCfCfBhCfDdCfEfCfCfBfBfBfBfBfBfBfBeFeFbBbBbFbBbBbSbBbBbRbDhBbBbCbBdBdBgBgDeBgHeBeBeDeCfCfDdFeDhHeBeEeBeDeBeOeBeBePeIeBhOeDeBeBeBeBeBeBeBeBeBeHeBeBeBeBeBeBgBgBeBeBeBeBgBgBgCcBdGcCeBhBiJdIgBiDbBi
2011-02-10 02:43:36 - Nullificator: Orange, let me have SA so I can fight Yellow.
2011-02-10 15:22:27 - Mr Changsha: at this point if you are facing yellow hit him. I will be sending 27 from Finland. yellow still has to deal with pink. Basically if you are facing yellow you gotta hit him now.
2011-02-10 15:23:32 - Mr Changsha: I would admit I underestimated how slowly every one (but yellow) developed. It is rare for him to have got a way like this. well played though yellow.
2011-02-12 01:13:12 - ThePolishHammer: good game yellow ... and no pink you will not just have south america as im destroyed by yellow you can come down with me
2011-02-12 01:13:59 - ThePolishHammer: you also developed slowly red you had a big command in just west europe but never advanced east
2011-02-12 02:47:27 - Nullificator: Orange, you are handing the game to Yellow. Why do you play this game?
2011-02-12 16:07:48 - Mr Changsha: Orange, with what? I had to get green out of scand. first. That's basic. And my dice blew horribly.
2011-02-12 16:14:44 - Mr Changsha: but orange, the hit on pink, I mean.
2011-02-12 16:15:36 - Mr Changsha: saying I can't win no one can is the lowest form of Risk behavior. Cheapens yellow's (probable win)
2011-02-12 16:15:59 - Mr Changsha: expect some foes.
2011-02-12 16:25:56 - Nullificator: Red, couldn't agree more. Orange, should we meet in a future game, I will take your actions in this game into account. You earn reputations in this game.

Looks like you've met my brother (PolishHammer)

Seriously? Well if so can you tell him from me that he has all the strategic (and positional) sense of a homo-dog in heat?

Thanks in advance,

Mr C

Mr Changsha wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

Mr Changsha wrote:One thing I've come finally to like about CC is the rating system. If I see something even as low as my rating I tend to check out the specific issues with the player. If I see 'backstabber' or whatever, well...I'm gonna take that into account. And if I have a choice between being peaceful or hitting that player, well its probably going to have to be a hit.

So CC has an in-built checking system on immoral play. Get a low rating (and they often come from this kind of behavior) and other players will deal with you differently. Your win percentage in these kinds of games will go down.

Saying that THIS player should be highlighted for immoral play...

Game 8260908

The game is balanced precariously, with yellow near the winning line but not quite there yet. He has to defeat SA and me in Europe. I organise a 'board push' and lead the way with a big hit. Orange however, BREAKS SA spitefully, on the basis of if I'm dead you are all dead. We may have lost anyway, but orange ended it right there.

There should be a special tag for that.

With regards to fog I don't like it, BUT if I did play I would think spouting misinformation should be a key part of it. Therefore, at least to me, that's absolutely fine.

Breaking truces...well it is something you have to accept may happen and as it is sadly quite difficult to find out the location of the miserable little shit, hire a hitman (in a foreign land no less) and have him splatter, like a ripe strawberry, all over sidewalk from a very tall building, then that's about all one can do.

2011-01-28 16:22:29 - Mr Changsha: yellow deploys 22, the board...47.
2011-01-28 16:23:11 - Mr Changsha: the trouble is borders are being left strangely weak (Africa + SA).
2011-01-28 16:24:24 - Mr Changsha: finally orange, you've left yourself no position to attack yellow from anyway. I could do a little damage, but why should i when you haven't positioned yourself to back me up?
2011-02-09 13:11:36 - Mr Changsha [self]: snap :: 14~CbBcCbGcBdCbCdFiBhBdBdBhXhBhNhBhBhCfCfBhCfDdCfEfCfCfBfBfBfBfBfBfBfBeFeFbBbBbFbBbBbSbBbBbRbDhBbBbCbBdBdBgBgDeBgHeBeBeDeCfCfDdFeDhHeBeEeBeDeBeOeBeBePeIeBhOeDeBeBeBeBeBeBeBeBeBeHeBeBeBeBeBeBgBgBeBeBeBeBgBgBgCcBdGcCeBhBiJdIgBiDbBi
2011-02-10 02:43:36 - Nullificator: Orange, let me have SA so I can fight Yellow.
2011-02-10 15:22:27 - Mr Changsha: at this point if you are facing yellow hit him. I will be sending 27 from Finland. yellow still has to deal with pink. Basically if you are facing yellow you gotta hit him now.
2011-02-10 15:23:32 - Mr Changsha: I would admit I underestimated how slowly every one (but yellow) developed. It is rare for him to have got a way like this. well played though yellow.
2011-02-12 01:13:12 - ThePolishHammer: good game yellow ... and no pink you will not just have south america as im destroyed by yellow you can come down with me
2011-02-12 01:13:59 - ThePolishHammer: you also developed slowly red you had a big command in just west europe but never advanced east
2011-02-12 02:47:27 - Nullificator: Orange, you are handing the game to Yellow. Why do you play this game?
2011-02-12 16:07:48 - Mr Changsha: Orange, with what? I had to get green out of scand. first. That's basic. And my dice blew horribly.
2011-02-12 16:14:44 - Mr Changsha: but orange, the hit on pink, I mean.
2011-02-12 16:15:36 - Mr Changsha: saying I can't win no one can is the lowest form of Risk behavior. Cheapens yellow's (probable win)
2011-02-12 16:15:59 - Mr Changsha: expect some foes.
2011-02-12 16:25:56 - Nullificator: Red, couldn't agree more. Orange, should we meet in a future game, I will take your actions in this game into account. You earn reputations in this game.

Looks like you've met my brother (PolishHammer)

Seriously? Well if so can you tell him from me that he has all the strategic (and positional) sense of a homo-dog in heat?

Thanks in advance,

Mr C

Haha I'm pretty sure we've all told him that already. Don't worry, next time he calls me drunk to discuss CC strategy, I'll redirect him to your phone number.

jefjef wrote:Avoid making truces.

If you happen to make a truce KEEP it.

If someone makes a truce in a large game make a truce with everyone else and crush them.

If someone breaks a truce with you or whoever they truce with foe the back stabber.

That is more or less my philosophy. Glad to hear others think the same way.

Someone mentioned to win at all costs, or use any tool/trick that helps you win. Fair enough all is fair in war. I think this is a very short term gain. I think in the long run unless you are "Kiron" it will be difficult making truces then breaking them for the game. Assuming your competition even pays attention to the feedback comments. I don't know how we gets away with it.

I would recommend that you read feedback if you someone offers you a truce and if you are thinking about offering a truce. Weigh your options and choose what is best for you or your team.

Happy conquering.

i feel so special to be singled out

Kiron wrote:i feel so special to be singled out

Your article about breaking truces was the article I was referencing at the beginning of this thread.

For the record Kiron I'd like to play with you as a team. I wouldn't trust in a free-4-all. I don't understand how people continually make truces with you then get raped afterwards.

Either way props to you.

I honor truces as stated (with expiration rounds in mind).

I don't reveal position/strength in foggy matches and loathe those who do. I disagree with my friend Woodruff in this matter. It is NEVER the DUTY of another player to read the game log for another opponent. Not against the rules, just sort of defeats the purpose of having fog in the first place. If you don't like fog, then don't play fog.

In my opinion:-

Truce breaking and backstabbing is all part of the game and not bad etiquette. However while it may be successful in the short term it may well be a poor long term strategy. It won't take long to earn a reputation as an untrustworthy backstabber as other players get to know what you're like and it is also reflected in your ratings. This will harm your chances in many future games as fewer and fewer players are willing to make truces with you. In fact if you're know to be a dirty player then more than likely everyone else will just gang up on you from the start. Honoring truces is the much sounder long term play.

Revealing others players strength and location during a fog game is very bad etiquette. It defeats the whole point of playing FOW. A major part of the skill is about figuring out where other players troops are and how many they've got from the limited information in the game log. It is absolutely fair enough though to draw everyones attention to public information in the game log. If for example somebody collects a big territorial bonus or reinforces a large army.

Woltato wrote:In my opinion:-

Revealing others players strength and location during a fog game is very bad etiquette. It defeats the whole point of playing FOW. A major part of the skill is about figuring out where other players troops are and how many they've got from the limited information in the game log. It is absolutely fair enough though to draw everyones attention to public information in the game log. If for example somebody collects a big territorial bonus or reinforces a large army.

I agree that breaking truces in the long term will probably hurt your future games.
I also agree revealing specific territories and troops numbers is bad etiquette. Although I've been guilty of that. Sorry.

Depending on who you are playing FOG games with, sometimes it seems everyone needs a heads up that player X is receiving the largest bonus, most territories, or strategics a significant number of troops because I assume not everyone pays attention to those details.
This often reflects in game play of lower ranked players. Or I assume they are not paying attention to these game details because otherwise I do not understand the moves they make.

I have not really had games where opponents straight up deceive about other players strengths. Perhaps use misleading words like "stacks" or "largest visible army" even though that stack is equal to your own or only ahead 1. Anyone encounter games like that?

SIDI wrote:

Woltato wrote:In my opinion:-

Revealing others players strength and location during a fog game is very bad etiquette. It defeats the whole point of playing FOW. A major part of the skill is about figuring out where other players troops are and how many they've got from the limited information in the game log. It is absolutely fair enough though to draw everyones attention to public information in the game log. If for example somebody collects a big territorial bonus or reinforces a large army.

I agree that breaking truces in the long term will probably hurt your future games.
I also agree revealing specific territories and troops numbers is bad etiquette. Although I've been guilty of that. Sorry.

Depending on who you are playing FOG games with, sometimes it seems everyone needs a heads up that player X is receiving the largest bonus, most territories, or strategics a significant number of troops because I assume not everyone pays attention to those details.
This often reflects in game play of lower ranked players. Or I assume they are not paying attention to these game details because otherwise I do not understand the moves they make.

I have not really had games where opponents straight up deceive about other players strengths. Perhaps use misleading words like "stacks" or "largest visible army" even though that stack is equal to your own or only ahead 1. Anyone encounter games like that?

Yes. A major once got others to push into my bonuses by playing "weak". He let me keep a bonus I wasnt intent on keeping, I left a 1 there and he could easily take it. He did not, however. He announced in chat that I was really really strong and certainly armies ahead of everyone else. I wasnt, but the others believed it and he got them to attack me after a few rounds.

I see JelleR. How creative and deceitful of your opponent. I hope you left appropriate feedback afterwards. I figured it must have happened in a FOG game at some time.

That player might earn a bad rep doing that. You can only cry "wolf" so many times before people smarten up.

Happy conquering.