truce

[YoBFelip]

why not have an icon for or against truces. truces , yes/ no. I have had to many games where I lost becauce of a truce.

[decoulombe]

This should go into the suggestions/ bug reports forum.

[oVo]

There is a game chat space provided with every game for discussing alliances, truces and demilitarized zones.

[James Julius]

I have just signed on to play my first game. Already I have sent two pm's offering deals to other players.

So now I am to understand that this is illegal? Alliances must be announced in chat for all to see?

It seems to me that truces, alliances and secret negotiations should be part of the game.

Do I have this straight, or am I missing something?

Please advise.

[Godd]

I have just signed on to play my first game. Already I have sent two pm's offering deals to other players.

So now I am to understand that this is illegal? Alliances must be announced in chat for all to see?

It seems to me that truces, alliances and secret negotiations should be part of the game.

Do I have this straight, or am I missing something?

Please advise.

From the rules page>>
Rule #2: No secret alliances
Any form of collusion between opponents must be announced beforehand in the game chat, in English or in a language all players understand. Secret alliances can be hard to prove, but if you suspect one you should leave the players in question negative feedback. If the players have a history of suspected secret alliances consider reporting it following the instructions at the top of the Cheating & Abuse Reports forum.

[James Julius]

Yes, reading the rules is a great idea!

But I agree with phillipm that this should be an "on/off" option.

I'm going to put it in the suggestion box, but first I have to go back to my game chat and turn myself in!

[oVo]

If you prefer "sekrit plans" join a doubles game and you and your partner can legally do all the covert ops you like. Otherwise to be on the up and up, keep your negotiations on the table and use the game chat.


You can PM someone and ask them to check the game chat before making their next move
because you have an offer for them to consider.

[James Julius]

Thanks, but what I am really looking for is not doubles. I would like the freedom to negotiate secretly with any other player, including lying and back-stabbing.

In doubles and triples, you are playing on a "team" right?

[Blitzaholic]

This should go into the suggestions/ bug reports forum.

agreed

[wilderbeast]

Guys truces are part of the game and heres why.

- Everyone joining the game wants the same chance to win that you do.
- 1 Game leader means little chance for ANY of the other individuals to win
- A truce between players allows for the 1 game leader to be targetted by all, restoring a balance.

That being said you need to carefully decide when you want to take the lead in a game for this exact reason. If its round 3 and you've taken europe, you cant expect that others wont have a truce against you.

On the other hand, if there is another game leader, you should have the wisdom to offer truces to others. None of this "noble" junk. The noble thing to do in a game is win while respecting your word. When offering deals, choose your words and times wisely. Offer deals that will demote the game leader and yet further your chance to win at the same time. If you look ahead this becomes easy to do. Often you'll run into an equally qualified player who will see past the deal that your offering and re-negociate a deal that demotes the current game leader and gives HIM more of an advantage.

It comes down to numbers and directing players. If player A isnt attacking me, but player B, I'm still good, even if its not my round because its almost assured player B will attack player A next round.

Furthermor, to refuse to use diplomacy is to slap the game leader in the face saying: You can only win if you get a lucky start.


Now, how about the game leaders position in this whole debacle? The game leader (as said before) must carefully choose when they take a clear lead, If you dont make yourself a target early, odds are you will not have a truce against you and everyone's eye on you early. When you take a lead, take it little by little, dont jump out for a 5 man bonus right away. If you move gradually and little by little, you can have a firm ground to counter deals being offered against you. Often players offering deals are looking to divert attention away from a small bonus they already hold (IE Australia or SA in the classic map). A player hovering around europe but without taking it can easily counter the claims and offer reasons why one of THEM is the threat and he isnt. Once he takes europe however, he loses his "diplomatic footing" to offer reasons why they shouldnt team against him, once that is gone, he relies on might to defend his newly aquired area.

This is all part of the game, to be disheartened because you lost the game to a truce is regular at first, but you work on it next game, you come out of your shell, start realizing patterns in games and get used to directing attention to certain players, use diplomacy more and more often. In doing so respect your word. You may get away with lying once or twice and going back on your terms but it will earn you a bad name. If you make a deal, work on a way that will advance your empire but in a way that you can respect your end of the offered deal. If you dont think about it enough, you could wind up giving your co-dealer a very strong position and remember, you have to play him after the game leader is gone (this is another fact the game leader can use to try to stop teaming against him)

[oVo]

Well James, the game chat is perfect for you then. Agree to a truce then kick his ass and all your desires will be fulfulled, if lying and backstabbing is what floats your boat.

[James Julius]

why not have an icon for or against truces. truces , yes/ no. I have had to many games where I lost becauce of a truce.

Now I see that I have misunderstood the original post. phillipm is talking about legal public chat truces.

Wilderbeast is talking about legal public chat truces too.

I think I am the only one talking about making secret alliances legal. Sorry if I was off point.

[James Julius]

Well James, the game chat is perfect for you then. Agree to a truce then kick his ass and all your desires will be fulfulled, if lying and backstabbing is what floats your boat.

Ha! Only when I am playing war games! Other than that I'm an honest guy.

I guess I'm just accustomed to playing "Diplomacy" a game in which treachery is a virtue. But I can see now that "public chat only" negotiation simulates an actual over the board game of Risk better. No one can make secret deals over the board.

If I understand correctly, oVo and phillipm are saying they are against even publicly made truces. I would have to agree with Wilderbeast in that case.

But I was talking about an even sneakier level, using private messaging to form secret alliances. I have put it in the suggestion box as Secret Negotiation On/Off?

[MeDeFe]

Secret deals open the doors for abuse and roll out a red carpet as well. There are already players who announce an alliance in the chat before even taking a turn. Now imagine if they could do that by PMs: "I help you win one, you help me win the next", and noone will be the wiser. All it takes is a tiny "miscalculation" in an escalating game and one of the two ends up with 2 or 3 sets and can decide the game in his favour. No thanks, the very least that should be known to all is when 2 players are negotiating some sort of truce, border treaty, NAP or alliance.

[oVo]

No, you misunderstood me.
I am totally in favor of truces when declared in the game chat.
They are very much a part of the game and I dispise backstabbers and those who coordinate attacks via PM as I will never commit either of those actions. I have been in games with players who have coordinated moves outside of the game and it really sucks.

[James Julius]

O.K. oVo, I understand you perfectly now.

Thanks to everyone for your responses. Also got some in the suggestion box. I understand the concept of public chat negotiation much better now.

[The Weird One]

They are very much a part of the game and I dispise backstabbers and those who coordinate attacks via PM as I will never commit either of those actions. I have been in games with players who have coordinated moves outside of the game and it really sucks.

could you specify what exactly falls into the realm of 'backstabbers' please?

[oVo]

In my mind a backstabber in the game is someone who goes back on their word. Such as a player who agrees in the game chat to a truce until round 20 but attacks you in round 18. Simply put, it is someone who can't be trusted because their actions don't match their words.

If I make a truce, I'm good for it until it's terms are met regardless of what happens in the game.

[LSU Tiger Josh]

why not have an icon for or against truces. truces , yes/ no. I have had to many games where I lost becauce of a truce.

Ironic that Phillip is the one talking about this, but in a recent multiplayer game where I offered to leave his SA alone if he left Africa alone he never responded, but also did not attack my Africa. After I wiped out the rest of the players and was left with him I somehow got a 2 for fair play and 3 for the third category despite being the only one saying good game to everyone that I eliminated lmao. Phillip you are a hypocrite.

[LSU Tiger Josh]

In my mind a backstabber in the game is someone who goes back on their word. Such as a player who agrees in the game chat to a truce until round 20 but attacks you in round 18. Simply put, it is someone who can't be trusted because their actions don't match their words.

If I make a truce, I'm good for it until it's terms are met regardless of what happens in the game.

I agree with this. If you have an agreement, you should stick to it until the terms are set to expire, your other party is the only player left, or they broke the treaty against you.

[War Dog]

hate it when people dont answer ur proposal becuase when u attack them they say we had a truce!