firth4eva wrote:Actually i have clearly stated that i do not do truces and only take advantage of people that do.
But do you just wanna call a truce and let this thread die. Add me to you ignore list by all means but just leave it ok?
You make NO SENSE! YOU suggested the truce in the first place. You can't deny that. Does this mean you hate yourself and like to take advantage of yourself?!?
NO!!! FFS you have the brain of a 2yearold. I offer truces to weak players so that i can take advantage of them. I suggest them to find out who is willing to trust me and then take what i wanted and win.
firth4eva wrote:NO!!! FFS you have the brain of a 2yearold. I offer truces to weak players so that i can take advantage of them. I suggest them to find out who is willing to trust me and then take what i wanted and win.
Once again...yes, the reason why most people make truces is to gain some sort of advantage. The difference is that most people wouldn't come right out in a forum and say the following:
but i was never going to stick to it . oviously. i was just gonna get the 2 extra men and eliminate him
Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that I waited 15 minutes before playing.
What you just posted doesn't tell the whole story. First of all, we all began our turns at around the same time (14:21). The fact is NOBODY did any attacking until you did at 14:29. (Interestingly enough, you deployed the armies that you attacked me with 21 seconds after I replied to your suggestion of terms for your truce.) Next, I deployed my armies when I saw that you were trying to eliminate me (14:30). You also neglected to mention that I spent much of the time between 14:30 and when I finally attacked (14:43) fighting with you and striking a deal with our mutual opponent.
Now don't get me wrong, I wait to go last all the time. I think it's a legitimate strategy. My point in listing all this is to show just how much you are trying to misrepresent what happened in this game.
In going back through the chat log, I just noticed where you said, "you should have accepted the truce" (14:34)
Why, so you could just break your deal and attack me anyway (as you inferred you would have done above)?
Skoffin wrote:Personally, I hate any and all truces made in games. Teaming up is for team games only.
Check the rules. That simply isn't true. You may WANT it to be true, but it's not.
I did not say it was a rule, simply personal opinion. It makes the game less fun when as soon as one person looks to be winning the others team up to destroy them, basically that just means that a person shouldn't get ahead early on or risk getting ganged up on.
Everything confuses and enrages me! Raaaargh Join Discord groupfor multiplayer gaming and general nonsense.
basically that just means that a person shouldn't get ahead early on or risk getting ganged up on.
You're right. This is probably why players talk about hiding their strength. Or if you do show it, you better be ready to defend yourself!
I know that in a lot of games I try to hold back from attacking people toward the beginning. Why? Because a lot of players will go out of their way for revenge...even if it isn't to their best advantage.
There's a lot more to this game then just choosing where to attack and rolling some virtual dice!
I hate when you offer a truce to somebody, they don't respond but assume you have seen their thoughts that have accepted the truce . . . and then bitch when you attack them.
.jpg)
