Howsit guys,
Before things get out of hand, I just want to establish normal protocol, or majority feeling. I'm currently in a game where I have a truce with another new player, a truce made from one territory to another territory only, a truce made when there were 4 players in the game. A player has since been eliminated and since the elimination I have broken up another of my "ally's" continents. The third player doesn't seem too happy about the truce still being in place, despite this. Before the situation escalates, what is the suggested action in this situation.
truce's, alliances, whatever you call them are made for strategic reasons. This is a game about winning and conquering, if you believe that a truce will help you do that, then do it. As for the third opponent, he may not like it, but it is one of the possibilities of the game, unless there are some groundrules against it from the beginning. Truces/treaties are made all the time in real life, so it is just part of it.
Announce when the truce is over, if that doesn't work then keep the truce & take out the moaning player & then there's no problem
The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving on. Ulysses S. Grant
The best defense against the atom bomb is not to be there when it goes off.
Dont make truces and you wont piss anyone off...try and win on your own, it can be satisfying. Play doubles or triples if you like the warm-fuzzy feeling of a partner.
*expecting interesting replies*
LOL!!! Qeeee....you out there??
"Gypsy told my fortune...she said that nothin showed...."
well, for those that do like to use the truce or alliance, yes, def. announce when it is over. I can imagine it kinda sucks to think you are in one and then get attacked by that "partner."
the idea of a truce is not as satisfying as winning on ur own.....yes there are truces in real life.....but people end up violating it or someone else gets pissed off and it ends up gettin u all worked up over nothing. truces take out the fun of the game.......u can play doubles if u want someone to partner with.
The only way an alliance that I am in ends is in a back-stabbing. Alliances are gay enough in the first place and are only made gayer by going for a nice ending. And its even better if the guy Im playing is all serious and pissed off, then i can laugh at him while Im raping his territories.
Erm I rather suspect that I am the other player in this truce! Indeed I was the one that proposed it!
I suggested the truce because quite simply it made life easier for me, looking at the current map to continue it would really be to your advantage because you are facing a rather nasty threat from the remaining third player.
Everyone has their own opinions on truces and alliances, I think they are as natural to the game as placing armies and attacking countries. I know not everyone thinks like this but its just subjective personal opinion, if at the start of the game the person who set it up announced 'no alliances and no truces' then I would honour that.
Obviously the third player may not be happy about this, if we ended our truce it would make life a lot easier for him!
If it makes you really uncomfortable then we can end the truce now, I don't need a one turn warning. It's your call.
(I also feel that betrayal is an acceptable part of the game, I don't intend to ever backstab because then no one would ally with me and I would get negative feed back or be called a 'cheat' but anyway).
Alliances, non-agression pacts, etc..... Not A part of the game if you ask me, someone always goes all gay and acts butt-hurt at the end. They should be able to be broken anytime their usefullness dissappears.
*drops himself down to the general level of the thread*
Well what you all seem to be forgetting is:
Anyone who doesn't want to form an alliance, is gay/a poopoo head.
Anyway, I actually haven't formed an alliance in about 20 odd games I'd say, but they are useful. Stop turding on them just because you personally can't handle them.
Frigidus wrote:but now that it's become relatively popular it's suffered the usual downturn in coolness.
Joe McCarthy wrote:The only way an alliance that I am in ends is in a back-stabbing. Alliances are gay enough in the first place and are only made gayer by going for a nice ending. And its even better if the guy Im playing is all serious and pissed off, then i can laugh at him while Im raping his territories.
wfd336 wrote:Alliances, non-agression pacts, etc..... Not A part of the game if you ask me, someone always goes all gay and acts butt-hurt at the end. They should be able to be broken anytime their usefullness dissappears.
... but it IS a part of the game, although giving notice is the polite thing to do and helps reduce those bruised feelings...
The French fleur is a cool avatar wfd.... Did you know the original game of Risk comes from France? mais oui (yes)... all this makes me wonder if wfd stands for "wicked french dude", n'est pas?
Joe...if you refer to the "nipple-boy" comment, I was referring to the Kernal who relied right before me..it is a long standing joke..look at the feedback I left for him ages ago...
As for a game, I always look forward to playing new folks - I am going hunting for a week here in a few but will defiantely PM you upon my return!
Secondly, thanks for the note Qeeeeeeester (from poopoohead)!
Lastly, that was an interesting point re: this being a game nee francaise. Parles-tu la langue, ma cherie?
"Gypsy told my fortune...she said that nothin showed...."
The only people who offer truces are those in a position of weakness seeking a postponement of execution. Evaluation their offer and see if their goals coincide with your own, then plan how you will defeat them, if you can both see their goal and their eventual defeat, take the offer. Never accept a truce that will lead your opponent to strength.
