Conquer Club

In a recent game another player offered me 'peace till the end, last two standing'. I accepted as one player looked like running away with it and I gained some territory as well. Later in the game my ally took two provinces from me without prior agreement and as the player was aggressive I took the opportunity to open a can of whoop ass on him.
He objected and has been very rude since on the basis that 'everyone knows that taking provinces that don't make a bonus does not break a truce'.
I take my reputation seriously and want other players opinion on this, was I wrong?
Is it accepted practice to take allied players provinces in this way?

All opinions valued.

Thanks.

post a game link or number...-eJn

Yes, you're wrong. Taking regions that aren't part of a bonus isn't considered breaking a truce. But it's fine, just say you didn't know. And being rude about it is wrong. ( concerning you're opponent).

Thanks but now confused, I have never come across this before. If I have peace with an ally it is tactical, we were both taking out an opponent and it was a bit of a land grab, I took two provinces to prevent my ally from getting a bonus to enhance my end game chances against him, but now you are telling me it is acceptable for him to attack me and that it does not break the agreement?
I do not understand, taking an allies provinces reduces their reinforcements even if no bonus, how does this make any sense?

Game number is 14513815.

too many want to have their cake and eat it too. If you form a truce make sure the terms are clear. different players have different interpretations of a truce/peace/alliance.

It means prepare for war.

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:It means prepare for war.

-TG

Exactly!

Players will be conniving little bastards every chance they get.
Viewing a players ratings might give you a better understanding of what it means to make peace with said player.
You are not wrong in your idea of peace, players have different idea's of what peace represents (in this game).

Example: Donelladan peace (truce) might differ from your own...you don't want to experience Donelladan peace!

That is why you should discus the terms before you commit to a truce, or if you want to be sneaky and leave an opening for yourself don't bother discussing a thing...just agree, then you are open to adopt any understanding you wish.
Anybody who attacks (for any reason) a player whom they have a truce with can manipulate the other party into attacking them...if allowed to attack (for any reason) in a truce.
Just becuz the lifers think It OK to attack if a bonus is not involved (a bonus is always involved) does not mean it is right or that it should be played, understood or excepted as a given.
Your own understanding of a truce is relevant and OK do run with.
F*ck the rude bastards who tell you otherwise...they are not allowed to dictate the conditions of their truce anymore than you are yours.

You can always tell the treaty breakers, they are the guys who get rude when you brake said treaty before they do...always pushing the limit seeing what they can get away with.

When you make a treaty always try to be the first one to break it.

Thanks all for your opinions.

Clearly the lesson learned by me it to be clear, the problem is I don't think the other player will ever except his part in the misunderstanding, won't change and will continuing abusing people who dare to have a different perspective.

Oh well, I value my reputation and know he will give me a bad review but cannot do anything about that.

Time to move on.

Once again many thanks for all opinions given.

thats a bad endword,man!believe me;most good players think like Donelladan and i even think it was stupid of you taking revenge that hard (allthough you were not sure what is a truce exactly).Maybe for you its better not making truces at all,just say you will cooperate as much as you can,dont promise nothing...

Diplomacy is the key.
DO not be hasty in your reaction when somebody breaks a treaty.
Seeking revenge is only going to create more problems and not win you the game.


As JCR said '' different players have different interpretations of a truce/peace/alliance''.
Don't hold it against them.
It is better to bite your tongue and plot against the sneaky bastard.
When you strike, at that time you can inform him that there was a violation of the treaty (many turns ago).

If you have an ally that is attacking a few of your terits while waging War against a common foe, let it be (play his game).
When he is no longer useful in waging War against your foe...strike.
Everybody who enters into a treaty is going to look for a loophole and try to take advantage...getting the jump on the other guy.
Play along, allowing him to call the shots, all the while you love the peace he offers you.

Wasn't hasty, thought a lot about it, but based on how he had played the game so far, attacking someone because they put troops on his border for one, I determined that if I hit him, I would have to hit him hard. My post was to determine whether in other players opinion "peace until the end game, last two standing" would allow my ally to take strategic provinces of me without breaking the agreement. I do not buy that it is ok if they don't break bonus as that is baloney. All provinces contribute to troop numbers, either positively for your self or positively for an opponent, ally or enemy. Alliances are always temporary as only one player can win and I believe that peace offered until last two standing means exactly what it says.

Osok68, you say I should be clearer or not make truces but it takes two to tango, my ally should have made it clear or checked before attacking me.

Anyway, made my peace with him now, agreed to disagree.

My conclusion is there are no rules in making alliances and nothing should be assumed. Unless stated it us not part of the agreement and as nothing was agreed about taking provinces not part of a bonus then that was not in the agreement.

On that basis I was wronged and was within my rights to attack.

your first post looked like a question,but actually you just wanted a conformation that you were done wrong.Last thing i will say about it is that its right that truces can be broken,thats just part of the game.But by doing so players will remember that and you will be punished for it in next games.I dont like truces,but if you make a peace-truce with me,you can take my regions,if they are no bonusses or big stacks and thats common,its good advice,up to you to take it,no hard feelings

Your peace treaty was very badly negotiated. "Peace till the endgame, last two standing" leaves way too much space for interpretation. I always make it a point to specify the number of turns I wish to have a no-attack treaty with my ally, and/or which continents we can each hold for ourselves, and/or which enemy to take out before we start killing each other. From what I see the player who offered peace to you quite clearly was already aiming from the offing to deny you any future victory or even a significant territory bonus for you to aid him as your ally (how is he going to expect you to have sufficient troops to help him bushwhack your mutual enemies if you don't have your territorial bonuses?). Allying with him was a big mistake. He is wrong for being rude with you and being conniving enough to set up such a skewed form of peace treaty with you. But you are also naive enough to believe him and not immediately hedge/break the treaty the moment he went for your territories without so much as a warning or by-your-leave sough from you. Generally it is ok to take your ally's territory if they are not in his continental bonus, but it is very bad etiquette to not even announce your intention to you first so as to prevent any misinterpretation.

My initial post was a question. The other player said it was common but I had never come across it. I now accept that to some players it is implied. So will always make it clear in future agreements that I do not accept it, personally I believe it is up to the person wanting to attack to make sure of their position else they may get more than they bargained for.
And I meant it when thanking for all opinions, even those that disagree with my position, without the feedback I would still naively believe that making a peace agreement would mean that the other player would not attack me. Lesson learnt.

nice endword,good luck!

Narkasurthedemon wrote:My initial post was a question. The other player said it was common but I had never come across it. I now accept that to some players it is implied. So will always make it clear in future agreements that I do not accept it, personally I believe it is up to the person wanting to attack to make sure of their position else they may get more than they bargained for.
And I meant it when thanking for all opinions, even those that disagree with my position, without the feedback I would still naively believe that making a peace agreement would mean that the other player would not attack me. Lesson learnt.

Why limit yourself to the simple understanding...it is the same for all players, why not use it to your advantage?
Given enough time, you will assimilate (learn to adapt).

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:It means prepare for war.

-TG

Peace in a war-game is at least strange.
If possible I try to prevent it, more often agreements to join forces for a specific goal. This includes making clear that all involved parties shouldn't get other benifits from the agreement, but some attack between parties is still possible.
Also possible partly peace; most often it is still ok to take regions that are not part of a bonus.

I also consider a real peace as not attacking any region of your partner.
In case he thinks he can take a region from me, because it is not part of a bonus. I would make very clear that this is not what we agreed and if possible I would directly break as many bonusses of him as possible. Actually it happend for only once and the other players in the game did agree with me.
I tink it is reasonable to expect a bad rating, simply because you broke one of more bonusses of a person with whom you had peace. Simply don't forget to give the involved persons also a bad rating after the game. Afterwards you might discuss by PM to skip both the bad rating. If coincidently you didn't get a bad rating, you might still consider to skip your bad rating.

Simply don't let other people decide for you, how you should define peace. In case your partner has another definition, also he did a bad job by not defining what the real conditions of the peace are. So in case he breaks the rules that you think you made, you might react on it in a way that you think fits the situation.

thats a lot of 'simplys',brother,its scary....

Tried to make my peace, have not received rating from him yet. Tried to be as honest as possible when I rated him, he is a good player, we just fell out over his attacks on me my strong reprisal. I did not like the abusive chat after our disagreement but he did later apologise for that.

Still think it odd how many experienced players think it ok to attack when agreed not to just because it does not break bonus, feel as if I am missing something.

i told you;its because of the bigger plan,if he gets easy spoils he can attack your both enemy harder...