Truces / Alliances

[JCUGoose]

I don't like playing a standard game when other players make truces or alliances. I feel like this completely changes the dynamic of the game, and while it can make it more exciting, it can also ruin it if other players aren't able to make their own truces and alliances.

If I want to play a game with teams, I sign up for a team game, but when I want to play a free for all, I do standard. I feel the standard game is quickly ruined when alliances are brought into it.

Of course, I'm new to the online game, so I am wondering what everybody thought about this.

[GrazingCattle]

I like them when other people start them off. Otherwise I can roll with out a partner. What really frustrates me is in 3 man games people making an alliance to take the WEAKEST player out of the game.

[b.k. barunt]

The better players pretty much stick to tacit alliances and truces. To do this you have to learn to read the board, read other players and anticipate their moves and reaction to your moves, etc., so some players take the easier route and go for spoken agreements. I play mostly public singles games, so i see a lot of different players, and most of the ones who try to make spoken truces and alliances are noobs.

[glide]

In my humble opinion....both truces and alliances open the door for too many opportunities to cheat. Well, perhaps cheat is the wrong word. How about "unfairly manipulate the game in their favor from the start"? Oh wait.....I know.......I'll say it this way:
"If you want to play doubles or triples....do so. Truces and Alliances are for pussies!"

Eek......did I say that right out loud?

[qeee1]

Alliances are fair game. Adjust your strategy to counter them or fail because you're not good enough.


Don't complain because your strategy isn't good enough to deal with them.

[sfhbballnut]

The board game is all about good diplomacy and that's definatly part of our game as well. Its part of the game and adds a lot to strategy. Full on alliances are rare, but should be used to bring down the strongest player, while single border treaties are very good for helping both player get stronger

[ganguscalm]

just my opinion....I think if you want truces , you should stick to doubles and triples games

[protector_6]

in my eyes. standard game is like the world. You are ur own empire/country. your neutral at the start. but as in the real world, alliences and truces come and go, change in an instant. Also for doubles and triples, you sometimes have someone who takes things from you and doesn't know... so you lose territory not only from your enemies but by your teammate(s). Standard game is like real world. You have partial truces/treaties. It's complicated like the real world. Think in that aspect. Real world thinking. You are againts many, you make diplomatic agreements to help yourself. I do agree with 3 people you shouldn't but in a game of at least 4 in standard it will happen. And you just have to make your own agreements too.

[Optimus Prime]

I've never had much of a problem with truces. It seems most folks I've played with tend to make border truces, rather than an all out alliance. That's not so bad in my mind.

[neddiedrow]

I've never had much of a problem with truces. It seems most folks I've played with tend to make border truces, rather than an all out alliance. That's not so bad in my mind.

Sums it up for me as well.

[Begbie]

In my humble opinion....both truces and alliances open the door for too many opportunities to cheat. Well, perhaps cheat is the wrong word. How about "unfairly manipulate the game in their favor from the start"? Oh wait.....I know.......I'll say it this way:
"If you want to play doubles or triples....do so. Truces and Alliances are for pussies!"

Eek......did I say that right out loud?

I agree with this guy (bear). Double and triples are where that should happen. In my (limited) experience new players are more likely to propose truces - more experienced players can see which players/sitiations are threats and rather than agree to team up, they can avoid improving or weaken the dominant players position without a formal truce/pact. Truces cause more arguments than they are worth - and yeah - they are for pussies.

[b.k. barunt]

Alliances are fair game. Adjust your strategy to counter them or fail because you're not good enough.


Don't complain because your strategy isn't good enough to deal with them.

Missing turns to get double armies in a no cards game is also "fair game". Do you employ that as well?

[Molacole]

this is why I don't play standard games. They seem to be more about making truces then using strategy.

[iAnonymous]

this is why I don't play standard games. They seem to be more about making truces then using strategy.

Truce is a strategy, actually.
But I don't like it, the odds of someone breaking it without warning or mindlessy arguing about something that you did that violated the terms, etc.

[Kyle Trite]

Alliances are fair game. Adjust your strategy to counter them or fail because you're not good enough.


Don't complain because your strategy isn't good enough to deal with them.

Unless you have a insane amount of armies or really good dice it is nearly impossible to win against an alliance no matter how good your strategy is, don't underestimate the power of teamwork.

[MeDeFe]

An alliance (or NAP) that aims towards taking down a big threat is fair, it's what any rational player should do anyway. Taking out another player is a different matter, though. Alliances like that will always end with one surviving player so much stronger than the other that there can only be one outcome, and you're left to wonder why some people like to finish second when only the winner gets the spoils.


As for border truces, they happen all the time, often by a silent agreement not to deploy any more armies on that border but build up a backup force in the hinterland instead to retaliate with if the other should attack. Sometimes you have to suggest it, though.

[IronE.GLE]

I don't mind truces or alliances as long as they are clearly defined and have are limited to a clearly defined turn limit. Open truces or alliances from the very start are BS.

I do agree with some of you that you shouldn't HAVE to actually form an alliance to knock the strongest player down a few pegs, but unfortunately not everyone can see past their current move. In these cases it is vital to form a truce in order to keep the guy from continually taking your bonus away while letting the stronger players continue to build up.

As a general rule, I don't like to participate in alliances, but I have used them when it is clear to me that someone will essentially hand the game to someone else because they can't see what's coming.

[/url]

[qeee1]

Alliances are fair game. Adjust your strategy to counter them or fail because you're not good enough.


Don't complain because your strategy isn't good enough to deal with them.

Missing turns to get double armies in a no cards game is also "fair game". Do you employ that as well?

no, but if I see anyone missing a turn I adjust my plan accordingly.

Alliances are fair game. Adjust your strategy to counter them or fail because you're not good enough.


Don't complain because your strategy isn't good enough to deal with them.

Unless you have a insane amount of armies or really good dice it is nearly impossible to win against an alliance no matter how good your strategy is, don't underestimate the power of teamwork.

What I meant was usually there's a reason for an alliance, or you can argue against it, persuade one of the players to back out, or form a counter alliance with another player. Or you just shouldn't have annoyed everyone in the first place. One or two situations where an alliance will be made against you with no reason for it, but it's extremely rare. It's never happened to me. What you should rant about there is noobishness in the making of the alliance, not the alliance itself, the same way you'd rant against a noob who suicided for no reason. It's not the attacking you're criticising it's the pointlessness of it.

[RobinJ]

I've really had enough of all these threads about alliances and truces! Everyone must have posted virtually the same thing about a million times in response to these threads. Personally, I support truces but I'm too bored to explain further!

[b.k. barunt]

Pardon me for asking the obvious, but if these threads bore you, why are you here?