Thoughts on truce in a 3 person game?

[dag16]

So,
I'm playing a 3 person game and doing well in world 2.1, but it's still completely up in the air. in the 3rd round, the two other players declare a truce against me, and basically both only attack me for the next 3 rounds till i'm completely dead.
I always thought truces in 3 person games were taboo, unless you needed it for absolute survival.
What are your thoughts on it?

[FabledIntegral]

They are taboo - and only losers use them in such a situation you're describing. I'd give them a 1/1/1 rating. 1 for fair play, obviously. 1 for gameplay, as it means their gameplay sucks they have nothing intelligent. And hell i'd give them a 1 for attitude as they must have talked about the alliance in chat - that's enough for me to say what a crappy attitude to go into a game. then you foe them.

[azezzo]

F.I. you talk like a poor loser.
yah it sucks when things go against you, dice, cards, or other players, but this is supposed to be war, so suck it up cupcake.

[barterer2002]

Oh come on a truce in a 3 man game is cowardly. There is a difference when one of the players takes a clear lead but to declare a truce in an undecided game is cowardly.

[dag16]

yes, my thoughts..
when the game is in world 2.1, the game in the 3rd round is COMPLETELY open. The two clearly didn't know each other before the game, so it's no collusion. Anyways, they insisted I was a b*tch for calling their B.S out when they announced the truce out of nowhere..

[FabledIntegral]

F.I. you talk like a poor loser.
yah it sucks when things go against you, dice, cards, or other players, but this is supposed to be war, so suck it up cupcake.

A poor loser for what reason. Because I'd give 3 1 stars for 2 people making an alliance at the BEGINNING of the game? To me it sounds like you just don't want to address the subject. "Suck it up cupcake" - ignorance on your part if you ask me. lmao at "this is supposed to be war."

[thenoob23]

I always think that a truce is only fair in a 3 player game when one person has more armies than both players combined...or when one player is about to get a HUGE bonus...

But the problem with having truces in 3 player games is that the power shifts so quickly that if you have a truce with player A he might play a set and take player B's continent in one sweep leaving player B stranded which is the player you both said you would go after...see what i mean?

It makes it unfair towards player B...but player A and C have an alliance against him...and in most games after player A takes the continent from player B, player C doesn't want to break the truce and they both continue to go for player B till he's out...which is why most people hate 3 player game truces...because 1/3 of the time your player B

[gdeangel]

I think it's fine in some cases even if the other guy doesn't have more troops that both combined. Clearly there can be positional advantages as well as cards, etc. that come into play.

I think there are really only two acceptable ways to go:

1) Declare a limited truce. Examples: 3 round cease fire, agreement to not break bonus that shares a border to free up a front.

2) A "balance of the game" truce. Whatever that means... but I'd say pretty clearly that when you've been beaten down below to the level where you can barely defend, then any imbalance is not involving you.

In the case of facing a alliance of type 1, to be fair, you've got to look at whether it was reasonable at the time it was made. If they make a 10 round truce on a 30 territory map, by all means, I'd give 1 stars all around and foe them. If it was a truce on the Africa - S America Border, and you held Europe and North America and had a healthy lead in troops, I'd say that's pretty reasonable.

In the case of facing an alliance of type 2, to be fair, you've got to look at when someone calls that the balance is restored. Any you should speak up and point it out if no one seems to take notice. If they don't respond, again, 1's all around and foe them.

I think in a three player game, it is unacceptable to have the common type of alliance of "cease fire, break on 1/2/3 rounds notice". That just doesn't work, because there is a huge incentive not to announce the break, lest the other party to the truce get the drop on you, so it would be good play in that type of truce to keep it up until ultimately the odd man out gets killed off.

[hiddendragon]

There should be no reason for a truce...one should always try to attack the strongest player, in game not rank, out there...a truce can hamstring if the tides tip and one has to give a warning to ally before attacking...play a team game, your teammate is your ally...

[Elijah S]

They are taboo - and only losers use them in such a situation you're describing. I'd give them a 1/1/1 rating. 1 for fair play, obviously. 1 for gameplay, as it means their gameplay sucks they have nothing intelligent. And hell i'd give them a 1 for attitude as they must have talked about the alliance in chat - that's enough for me to say what a crappy attitude to go into a game. then you foe them.

I agree 100%...
Except when I'm one of the 2 guys that's not running the board.

A truce in a 3 player, or 3 team game should serve only to creating parity; When the allied teams continue to concentrate on, what was the stronger player, or team, is when it becomes less than noble and should be rated accordingly.

[FabledIntegral]

There should be no reason for a truce...one should always try to attack the strongest player, in game not rank, out there...a truce can hamstring if the tides tip and one has to give a warning to ally before attacking...play a team game, your teammate is your ally...

Oh agreed - by all means - it's just I've been enough games with low rankers to know it won't happen like that. I don't believe I've made a singel alliance in the past 700 games i've played...

[Timminz]

A truce in a 3 player, or 3 team game should serve only to creating parity

Very true. And I would like to add that, with players who know more than the bare bones of the game, this should not need to be spoken. All players should understand that it is in their best interest to keep the strongest player/team in check.

To the OP:
Regardless of what everyone in this thread thinks about it, the truce in the game you were in, is not against any rules (unless they have a history of that kind of thing). You are left with a personal decision to make. You can either put them both on your 'foe' list, to avoid dealing with people who make truces that you don't think are proper, or you can do nothing, and move on. The fact that you started this thread, would lead me to believe that you don't agree with the tactics they've used (I don't either). Put them both on your 'foe' list, and move on to more of the 20,000+ active users.

[KoE_Sirius]

Put them both on your ignore list ..Although CC allows this kind of play ..It would be considered cheating in the zone .Who are they so I can foe them now ?

[Mr Changsha]

There should be no reason for a truce...one should always try to attack the strongest player, in game not rank, out there...a truce can hamstring if the tides tip and one has to give a warning to ally before attacking...play a team game, your teammate is your ally...

Oh agreed - by all means - it's just I've been enough games with low rankers to know it won't happen like that. I don't believe I've made a singel alliance in the past 700 games i've played...

Though you've probably had more than a few 'understandings'...

I would admit that making an alliance in a 3 player game on round 3 of 2.1 sounds awful, but what if you were Player A and you realised you could dupe Player B into an alliance to kill Player C, knowing full well that once Player C was finished, you would be able to kill Player B easily due to the timing of cards or position on the board? Would anyone consider that to be bad play?

[glide]

Mr Changsta: I would consider that dishonorable tactics, and lump the player who did that along with the cowards that declare a truce in a 3 man game. When I was a corporal about 18 months ago, I played my last 3 person game for that reason. I played against a major and a captain, and they declared a truce early in the game when I began to show signs of not being easy enough for them to beat honorably. I laughed at them in the game chat, posted about them in forums, and then put them both on my ignore list after leaving them appropriate feedback. Cowards are cowards. Period.

[Mr Changsha]

Mr Changsta: I would consider that dishonorable tactics, and lump the player who did that along with the cowards that declare a truce in a 3 man game. When I was a corporal about 18 months ago, I played my last 3 person game for that reason. I played against a major and a captain, and they declared a truce early in the game when I began to show signs of not being easy enough for them to beat honorably. I laughed at them in the game chat, posted about them in forums, and then put them both on my ignore list after leaving them appropriate feedback. Cowards are cowards. Period.

I don't play 3 player games either, but if I was playing a 3 man game and you appeared to be 'up,' even a little, I would probably try to at least influence the other player to turn his attention on you. Anything wrong with that?

With regards to my hypothetical example Player A wants to win and for whatever reason realises Player B is a raving idiot. Bad luck for Player C, no?

[FabledIntegral]

Mr Changsta: I would consider that dishonorable tactics, and lump the player who did that along with the cowards that declare a truce in a 3 man game. When I was a corporal about 18 months ago, I played my last 3 person game for that reason. I played against a major and a captain, and they declared a truce early in the game when I began to show signs of not being easy enough for them to beat honorably. I laughed at them in the game chat, posted about them in forums, and then put them both on my ignore list after leaving them appropriate feedback. Cowards are cowards. Period.

I don't play 3 player games either, but if I was playing a 3 man game and you appeared to be 'up,' even a little, I would probably try to at least influence the other player to turn his attention on you. Anything wrong with that?

With regards to my hypothetical example Player A wants to win and for whatever reason realises Player B is a raving idiot. Bad luck for Player C, no?

Huge difference between influence and alliance - nothing more than "I hope you realize player A is overly strong." Nothing more than that - IF that is even necessary.

[The Eternal Icon]

There are (or should be) 2 types of gameplay that exist in CC... there are games where nobody talks at all at times... and other games where everyone talks.

So... is it taboo or cowardly to declare a truce? Absolutely not and here's why...

"Risk all your armies on a daring continent grab. Use diplomacy to coordinate a group assault on the game leader. Feel the thrill of victory as you eliminate your last opponent."

While you claim the game was still up in the air, and may have been absolutely, you still also claim that you were doing well, so perhaps these players figured you were doing well enough that it warranted an offer of truce.

Consider this like a game of Big Brother... Someone wins the "head of household" competition, nominates 2 members of the house to be evicted, and the house votes on someone to be eliminated. (there is more to it but that is the basic outline, in between the nominations and the eviction, both nominees and some houseguests get a chance to compete for a "VETO" medal that they can use to save one of the nominees, forcing the head of household to nominate someone else".... but while this is not completely relevant to CC, the outline is.

Nobody goes into "Big Brother" seasons without intending to talk. Everyone in the house forms friendships with each other, they agree to certain targets, they set up alliances and while these alliances don't necessarily ensure victory, the alliances work in a sense that the people talk amongst themselves and make decisions that is alliance-driven. So while you may go into "the house" thinking: "I'll be friendly to everyone and they won't want to vote me out"... it has nothing to do with how friendly you are.... people will vote against you based on numbers and alliances. So... what do you do in big brother if you want to survive when someone forms an alliance and decides to sway votes against you? You can go to the other members of the house and convince them to vote for you (normally this means setting up an alliance as well)... or you can go to the people that were approached to eliminate you and make a counter offer... in the end, 1 person is eliminated every week and the final few that remain after all the evictions lead to 2 finalists that the final evicted houseguests get to vote on. In essence, the winner of the 500 000$ is determined by the votes of the other half of the houseguests who didn't make it to the finals.


Anyway, back to CC... because this is a game of war... equivalent to world war 1 and world war 2... people can talk, people can discuss. Hitler would have gone unnopposed had word of Russia's resistance not reached Brittain in order to continue their bombardment.... communication shaped when attacks would be profitable, etc...

In CC it's no different... you may take some land that you want to hold, and you realize that land borders another player, you may try to establish a truce to protect that land temporarily, or you may simply have ambitions to attack that player next round so you don't offer the truce and rely only on your troops. There are 2 ways to play this. There is nothing wrong with offering a truce to another player because in a 3 player game especially, the whole game is a balance-beam. When 1 player attacks another, the 3rd player suffers no loss. When the 2nd player attacks the first player back, the 3rd player again suffers no loss, so can theoretically become game leader for a bit, then the combination changes around.

You as the individual against whom a truce was proposed have the ability to fight the alliance with your troops... or, and this is sometimes easier... provide a counter-offer. Explain why teaming against you would not be benificial. It is not taboo or wrong to use diplomacy in CC... it is encouraged because it is what is done in war.... when diplomacy is used against you don't cry about it... negociate back.

[comic boy]

I dont play 3 man games because of crap like that, give them the bottom rating and put them on ignore.

[targetman377]

i would agree with that i feel for you hope it did not kill your score

[firth4eva]

Only do it when it's on the brink of the 3rd person taking over. With just about enough to stop them and leave everyone equal.

[Ditocoaf]

...all's fair in love and war? and risk?...

*wanders back out again*

[wrestler1ump]

As long as you are trucing against the strongest player, it is fine. As a player, your goal is to win the game within the rules. I see nothing unfair about bringing down a player who is really strong.

[Iron Butterfly]

Some folks take this game way to serious.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

People talk of this game using terms like honor, bravery and valour like somehow its other then electronic numbers on a board dictated by random dice rolls.

In a three player game the smart players will attack the stronger player.

The world is an unfair place. Get use to it.

[sunking25]

I think when a game gets down to 3 players from 7, 8 , 9, 10 players all truces should end.