Conquer Club

I understood that truces cannot last the entire game.

Instead, they must be explicitly stated in game chat for a set period of time.

I also thought I read this somewhere in CC, but I have been unable to locate that rule.

Feedback?

Thanks,

Mike

There is no rule. Every truce is different.

Usually a truce is given with a 1 or 2 round notice. It means that if you want to break the truce, you tell to your opponent you want to stop the truce, and 2 round after you can attack each other.
Sometimes people decide a truce until a defined round, like truce until round 30.
And you can also chose to have a truce for a defined number of rounds if you want.
Some people even do truce until another player is eliminated.

I liek to agree that whoever breaks a 2 round notice truce gets attacked first after 2 rounds. Otherwise, one specific player gets the advantage no matter who breaks the truce

My approach has always been that whoever notifies the truce is ending gives the other player the opportunity to move first. So for example if I give 2 turns notice, then my opponent attacks the second turn following my notice. The alternative is the player who declares and end to the truce being the first to get to attack. What is everyone's thoughts?

TRRoosevelt wrote:I understood that truces cannot last the entire game.

Instead, they must be explicitly stated in game chat for a set period of time.

I also thought I read this somewhere in CC, but I have been unable to locate that rule.

I was reading that last night on the D12 site, lol, so I'm guessing you're thinking of there. We don't have that rule on CC. Here, we don't have specific rules about how you set your truces, except one: ALL communication must be in game chat. There is to be absolutely no discussion via private messages, wall posts, or anything else. Everything about the deal must be in game chat.

Truces are for pansies.

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Truces are for pansies.

-TG

They're nihilists.

In some ways I think truces are a grey area. It shouldn't be allowed to happen for the entire game, but it does, sadly. I honestly think that people who play that way are unskilled and the only way they have a chance of winning is teaming up with someone until there are two left. When I was a low ranking player, I used to foe these types and rate them accordingly. It's almost always low ranks who do an all-game truce though from my experience. Imo, it is perfectly fine to make a truce if it has conditions and a definite end. That kind of thing doesn't bother me as much. lol.

The rule on truces is; there is no rule on truces.
If you would like a guide to go by, it would be wise to think of a truce much the same as you would an armistice, cease fire.

Having a truce does not mean you can (or should) leave your (flank unguarded) borders vacant.

A truce can be a save all or break all.
Players will use it to there advantage (and should)...better win if you break a deal!

I would guess, a player (good player) that breaks treaty's has a greater win percentage than a player that does not (ever) break treaties.
Use a treaty to gain an advantage, not just a save all situation.

I was just in a game where somebody requested a ''little'' truce.
I did not respond; I pulled my units off of his border...in so doing he thought that was enough; acknowledging the commencement of the (requested, not confirmed) truce?
Two turns later he was sweeping the board, naturally I attacked.
Of course he started bitching (rating of 4.0) about me being a truce breaker?
There is no declaration when you have an unspoken (even if only 'one' party decides to speak of truce) truce.

Many risk players do not like or understand diplomacy.
Watch whom you make a treaty with.
Don't make treaties if you are not set up (thinking, prepared) for a backstabbing.
Treaties serve two purposes...peace or surprise attack.

Try to be the first one to break a truce...that way you should always be prepared.
truces (cease-fire; armistice) are never meant to last.

If a player has more than three backstabbing (boxes marked) in his ratings, do not even consider him a candidate for a truce (unless you have a good position to backstabb him)

I try not to beak any truces that I might make.
I might be inclined to make ( 'break' ) a truce when somebody else purposes a truce (depending on his current rating), Knowing he is up to no good.

If you can, go for an unspoken treaty (understanding) these are not meant to last and you do not have to declare them in chat (keeping silent).
Many players out there do not like it when players make (purpose) treaties...in so doing you might be provoking them.
If somebody proposes a truce, go with it (if you like) but say nothing.

I was playing a game where my neighbor and I had been peaceful the entire game (about 9 turns), then he decides to mention truce (in chat), I said nothing ( I did not attack him). He then attacked me, makes no sense, he knew I was friendly.
I them proceeded to go up in him!
I am sure he wanted more of a secured sense of protection (his requesting a treaty). When I did not respond (I felt declaring a treaty in chat would hurt my position) he decided that (my silence) was an act of aggression (I guess).
Point being; Learn how diplomacy works, read your opponent.
Attacking right after you request a truce (makes no sense what so ever) is much the same as breaking a truce...even worse!
Diplomacy ( truce, treaties) has different meaning (understanding) for all players involved. I can guarantee that every player involved in a truce is looking, searching for a loophole in order to screw (any reason to break the treaty...justified by them) the other guy.
Some know how to use it (diplomacy) others do not. Many players will not even consider mastering it (diplomacy)...yet they use it...much to their own demise.

Diplomacy is a must on some of CC game boards.

Anybody ever play the game Diplomacy?

It is a game played on lies and deceit (full of it).
All players had to use deceit and lie their asses off in order to gain position.
I never liked the game (cause of the lying).
A priest use to come and join us in a game of Diplomacy...he never lied; he won the game more times than not.
Never could figure that one out.
That being the only reason I played the game...trying to understand how he was able to do it.

The only rule about truces that matters: if you're stupid enough to enter into one, don't go crying about it when you get fucked over by the other player (or anyone else who attacks you because they don't like your truce).