Dukasaur wrote:"Oathbreaker" or something of that nature should be one of the available tags. "Cheap tactics" probably covers it, sure, but it could also mean a lot of other things too.
What about "Backstabber"? That's already one of the options - seems pretty obvious to me.
A couple of reasonably decent players in one of my recent games made a straight truce (no terms at all) on about round 4. They were obviously responding to a dangerous-looking Oceana and repositioned accordingly. One chap wrote "Truce, gray?" and the other replied with a rather curt "OK."
It seems to me that in this situation the actual truce is designed to be broken, for unless one is just going to roll over and die they will fight in the end. If one tries to get around this by suggesting a cheeky "2 Rounds and the truce is over." break, usually with just enough time to secure the key front and then line the rest up for the big finish, then the other should immediately hit with everything...obviously.
I'm often offered early truces and almost always respond with some variation on "If you keep your borders with me respectable I'll have no reason to hit." This is usually the truth as I more than likely already balls-deep in some other unlucky player and am thus looking for a cheap front. By employing this tactic with a truce offer I almost always get all the benefits of a truce, without actually having to commit to the relationship.
In my early CC days I got into a serious truce (last time I believe) in a standard speed. Immediately after making the truce another player quite unexpectedly suicided on a fourth player and suddenly the game was completely changed. If I didn't break the truce I was finished, if I broke it I had a maybe 30/70 chance of winning. I pondered it for maybe a minute and concluded that as the scenario had entirely altered, and had done so quite apart from me or the chap that I had the agreement with, and that I was obviously dead if I didn't act, that I better push on. So i did, got shitty dice, lost and then got a ton of abuse... a fair bit of which I agreed with.
Since then I have stayed away from formal truces and stuck with 'informal agreements'.
JBlombier wrote:My belly has never been yellow. Does this have any influence on any truce I have made/will make?
Yellow belly=Coward.He was implying anyone who has made a truce is a coward. So JBlombier are you saying you never ever agreed to a truce ? If the answer is no.Then your belly prob' is not yellow..Overwise take another look lol.
I stand on my own 2 feet. If someone is doing better than I, then they deserve the game; they don't deserve to get screwed by a couple of wimps.
Just saying ;o) Obviously you and I will never play together.
JBlombier wrote:I've made plenty of truces and won many game because of it. That doesn't make my belly yellow, it makes me a master in diplomacy. Just saying.
"Gypsy told my fortune...she said that nothin showed...."
Why wouldn't we? I'd just get all the others to attack you and sweep the board. But if it was really that easy, I'd be conqueror by now. Diplomacy can be a very interesting part of the game.
And surely we could play teamgames against each other. There are tons of options you can play if you don't like truces.
Truces HAVE to be broken, unlike in the game of Diplomacy. Here, only 1 can win the game (unless its teams), so inorder for someone to win, a truce HAS to be broken!
I'm curious though as to how someone can expect someone to not break a truce. Is it through a warning that its considered "officially ending" the truce or how?
General truces have to end at some point. They do not have to be broken. You can specify them for a specific number of rounds, such that they automatically end after X rounds. You can make an indeterminate amount of time truce, in which you agree to announce the end of the truce one full round prior to attacking, so that both parties have time to prepare. Or you can specify a specific goal, such as a truce until such time as the player currently in the lead holds less than X regions.
In addition, you can make truces that cover only a specific border or area, such that they never have to end. If I say that I will not attack from North America into South America, then I can still end the game by swinging around from Africa. When I employ specific truces, this is the category they typically fall in to. Used to allow you both to reduce your borders by 1, and still fight each other normally elsewhere.
KoolBak, truces do not make you yellow bellied. That is solely an individual assessment, and applying a generalization like that only points out your own ignorance. Different situations require different actions. Diplomacy is always important in war, and as such it should be in a game of war as well. Do not accuse others of being wimps, just because you are incapable of playing that way yourself.
QoH wrote:Truces HAVE to be broken, unlike in the game of Diplomacy. Here, only 1 can win the game (unless its teams), so inorder for someone to win, a truce HAS to be broken!
Uh...only one can win the game in Diplomacy also, you realize. In Diplomacy now...THERE truces are made to be broken.
Ah...Diplomacy...the beautiful game.
QoH wrote:I'm curious though as to how someone can expect someone to not break a truce. Is it through a warning that its considered "officially ending" the truce or how?
Depends on what is agreed to when it is created, I would imagine.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Well, about dip... You CAN share a draw, but i believe that there should be no draws unless forced by a stale mate. Each and every player should try for the solo.
To me, here, a truce should only be agreed to to take down. A leader, and that truces should always be shifting until the opportune moment when you can break the truce and win it all...
In the game Diplomacy? By simply agreeing to it. It's a rather frowned-upon strategy, but it does happen from time to time.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Calling me ignorant for expressing my OPINION....beautiful. How very ironic.
I believe in the sacred bonds of marriage too. An opinion. Please let me know which nasty adjective you'll use for this particualr opinion.....archaic? Stupidly old fashioned? Simple?
Oh wait....I wont be able to see your reply. Darn.
Later, wimp. lol
"Gypsy told my fortune...she said that nothin showed...."
Calling me ignorant for expressing my OPINION....beautiful. How very ironic.
I believe in the sacred bonds of marriage too. An opinion. Please let me know which nasty adjective you'll use for this particualr opinion.....archaic? Stupidly old fashioned? Simple?
Oh wait....I wont be able to see your reply. Darn.
Later, wimp. lol
Just for those who are not idiotic enough to foe left and right, I wanted to point out that I was not calling him ignorant for expressing his opinion - I was calling his opinion ignorant. There are plenty of opinions in this world that is ignorant, and I think his generalization about everybody who uses a particular strategy being yellow bellied is one of them. Any kind of generalization like that I consider to be ignorant, because there are always varying factors to consider in any situation.
I have no idea how marriage entered the picture.
Out of curiosity, if someone who is not foed by KoolBak, if there is in fact anybody who isn't, quotes this post, will KoolBak see it? I assume that he would.
Calling me ignorant for expressing my OPINION....beautiful. How very ironic.
I believe in the sacred bonds of marriage too. An opinion. Please let me know which nasty adjective you'll use for this particualr opinion.....archaic? Stupidly old fashioned? Simple?
Oh wait....I wont be able to see your reply. Darn.
Later, wimp. lol
Just for those who are not idiotic enough to foe left and right, I wanted to point out that I was not calling him ignorant for expressing his opinion - I was calling his opinion ignorant. There are plenty of opinions in this world that is ignorant, and I think his generalization about everybody who uses a particular strategy being yellow bellied is one of them. Any kind of generalization like that I consider to be ignorant, because there are always varying factors to consider in any situation.
I have no idea how marriage entered the picture.
Out of curiosity, if someone who is not foed by KoolBak, if there is in fact anybody who isn't, quotes this post, will KoolBak see it? I assume that he would.
When I play risk with friends on the actual board.We always agreed before the game starts.No Truces or Alliances unless we are playing 2v2.Since we have been playing for over 20 years.We no longer have to ask.It's became an unwritten rule. We also have friendly borders without having to ask.Since dice are truly random this is really the only way to play.This is an unwritten general rule when playing Risk2(Hasbro) online too. Since this is not an option on ConquerClub. I don't think we can always choose not to get into a boarder truce or an alliance without giving the game away on C.C.When ever possible I will not get into any sort of truce.This does not make me ignorant either.Its a different style and an honorable way to play. So when in Rome we do as the Romans do. This does not in anyway make it right.
It is your own responsibility to research the history of the player you are making a deal with. Kiron's feedback page is littered with backstabber and cheaptactics. I would not make any deals with such a player.
I think if you make a truce you should honor it. When making a truce you should structure it so that you can honor it and hopefully it will favor you. A general "truce?" Is impossible to keep because you will have to break it (assuming the two players make it to heads-up). If you both agree to a "two-turn notice" then I think both parties should honor the agreement. If you agree to take another player out then battle it heads up, then honor that. The more specific the terms the easier it is to honor the truce.
Truce-breaking is part of the game but I avoid it. I don't like it. I try to avoid players that do it. I'll leave feedback that reflects that players play incase we cross paths in the future.
SIDI wrote:It is your own responsibility to research the history of the player you are making a deal with. Kiron's feedback page is littered with backstabber and cheaptactics. I would not make any deals with such a player.
I think if you make a truce you should honor it. When making a truce you should structure it so that you can honor it and hopefully it will favor you. A general "truce?" Is impossible to keep because you will have to break it (assuming the two players make it to heads-up). If you both agree to a "two-turn notice" then I think both parties should honor the agreement. If you agree to take another player out then battle it heads up, then honor that. The more specific the terms the easier it is to honor the truce.
Truce-breaking is part of the game but I avoid it. I don't like it. I try to avoid players that do it. I'll leave feedback that reflects that players play incase we cross paths in the future.
This seems to be the best advice I've seen so far. Reasonable and realistic. I completely agree.
KoE_Sirius wrote:........... So when in Rome we do as the Romans do. This does not in anyway make it right.
Actuallty .. it does make it right, and not only right but proper. At least thats what the saying is meant to convey
No that's not what its meant to convey at all.Its means you should always try something even tho it seems different to the norm..It does not make it right or proper.As Ray Liotta Says to Joe Pesci in Good Fellows
KoE_Sirius wrote:........... So when in Rome we do as the Romans do. This does not in anyway make it right.
Actuallty .. it does make it right, and not only right but proper. At least thats what the saying is meant to convey
No that's not what its meant to convey at all.Its means you should always try something even tho it seems different to the norm..It does not make it right or proper.As Ray Liotta Says to Joe Pesci in Good Fellows
You are a funny guy lol
eh no,, at least, its not complete.. Now it is not really wise to trusty on the wisdom of the interweb, but it really is not originally about that you should try something different. "It is polite, and possibly also advantageous, to abide by the customs of a society when one is a visitor." http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/when ... ns-do.html The statement refers also to the social mores (rules), keeping to social rules is right and if that is so, it does make it right.
and also I think freestyle sucks and should be changed
