What is the ethical thing to do?

[InkL0sed]

So, I made a truce with another player for 5 rounds. But by the third round, it was only us two left in the game. I don't know what to do. If I don't attack blue, he'll get a huge bonus and I'll lose. But if I do, I'll break the truce! What should I do? I'm so torn - I've been destroying things in my room out of anxiety!!! Please help.

[Frigidus]

So, I made a truce with another player for 5 rounds. But by the third round, it was only us two left in the game. I don't know what to do. If I don't attack blue, he'll get a huge bonus and I'll lose. But if I do, I'll break the truce! What should I do? I'm so torn - I've been destroying things in my room out of anxiety!!! Please help.

I think that the best thing to do in those situations is to force your opponent into a corner and spend the rest of your turns just placing men. Knocking him out would be unsportsmanlike.

[pimpdave]

Well, I'm pretty sure you can announce an end to the truce, right before you attack him. Like, the warning won't really matter, cause you'll just start hitting him after posting it in the game chat.

There is historical precedent for this. Pretty much all of the Indian Wars in American history...

[e_i_pi]

Just take him out. Truces don't mean anything once it's down to you and the other player

[InkL0sed]

So, I made a truce with another player for 5 rounds. But by the third round, it was only us two left in the game. I don't know what to do. If I don't attack blue, he'll get a huge bonus and I'll lose. But if I do, I'll break the truce! What should I do? I'm so torn - I've been destroying things in my room out of anxiety!!! Please help.

I think that the best thing to do in those situations is to force your opponent into a corner and spend the rest of your turns just placing men. Knocking him out would be unsportsmanlike.

This sounds like the safest course of action.

Just take him out. Truces don't mean anything once it's down to you and the other player

What??????

[Frigidus]

Another possible option would be to attempt to negotiate a peace of sorts. For instance, if he pulls his troops in Siam back to Indonesia, you'll let him unify Africa. After all, even if you do unify the world you'll spend the rest of your life dealing with resistances and insurgencies, and when you die the empire would be torn apart by your various lieutenants. Now that I think about it, that would explain why people keep playing Risk even after they win.

[InkL0sed]

Another possible option would be to attempt to negotiate a peace of sorts. For instance, if he pulls his troops in Siam back to Indonesia, you'll let him unify Africa. After all, even if you do unify the world you'll spend the rest of your life dealing with resistances and insurgencies, and when you die the empire would be torn apart by your various lieutenants. Now that I think about it, that would explain why people keep playing Risk even after they win.

But then you'll never get the points. I suppose maybe that's a good thing - who knows, maybe you're at your points peak now. But you shouldn't give up hope. There is always the chance of gaining rank.

[Lhuth]

I'm sure it's kinda implied in the truce that if you're the only ones left the the truce is over. You're not being dishonourable in attacking the only other player in what is now a 1 vs 1.

[InkL0sed]

I'm sure it's kinda implied in the truce that if you're the only ones left the the truce is over. You're not being dishonourable in attacking the only other player in what is now a 1 vs 1.

I don't understand.

[Vikermac]

Just take him out. Truces don't mean anything once it's down to you and the other player

He's got a point. Why continue being peaceful when it is down to two? The point of the truce was to not attack each other and focus on other players. But if there are no other players, then you have to attack one another, it's the whole point of the game.

[InkL0sed]

Don't be ridiculous

[Frigidus]

It's downright dishonest to break a truce, I don't really see that as an option for him. Maybe trick your opponent into breaking the truce for you. That way you can win, keep your honor, and give him a bad rating afterwards.

[redhawk92]

wipe him out


i usually put in my truces for x rounds or until player is dead

put that catch in there next time

[mpjh]

Let him wipe you out, you deserve it. The end of the truce is implied, however if you want to be Talmudic about it, next time you make a truce agree that it only stands so long as there is a third player.

[Elijah S]

LOLOLOL...

So, let me get this straight...
You made a truce with another player, and now you two are the only one's left?

You could either allow him to win, or, perhaps, since now that there's no real need for a truce, waste him...
I'd have attacked him as soon as it was down to only the two of you. -The truce is now understood to no longer be valid.

[Frigidus]

Perhaps Ink might add a poll? It would help feel out general opinion.

[InkL0sed]

I won't add a poll. Just because the majority says one thing, doesn't make it right. In Nazi Germany, the majority of people thought they should kill all Jews. That doesn't mean they were right.

I think it's interesting how many people think I should break the truce. So, what, I shouldn't value promises then? What would that do to my reputation? What if everybody did that? There would be no order in the world!

[mpjh]

I don't think people are saying you should not honor promises. They are just saying you are an idiot for not understanding the scope and nature of the promise. If you are so hung up on it, next time send him a contract in game chat before entering the alliance.

[Iliad]

You should not break the truce. Honour is more important than rank. Try organising to split the world into West and East, like the Roman Empire did. You can rule your own realm, peacefully and honourably

[pimpdave]

In Nazi Germany, the majority of people thought they should kill all Jews. That doesn't mean they were right.

Is that really true? I had learned in college that only about 10% of the German population were actual Nazi party members, about 10% were sympathizers and the other 80% were largely the victims (or too pussy to fight) of the 20% that controlled the nation.

An example of the Pareto Principle, as played out in the most horrific way possible.

[mpjh]

You should not break the truce. Honour is more important than rank. Try organising to split the world into West and East, like the Roman Empire did. You can rule your own realm, peacefully and honourably

There is an idea, we could divide CC up into two major and several minor factions. The two major factions could destroy each other, but only by mutual destruction. The minor factions could play the majors off against each other for party favors.

[comic boy]

The only ethical way out of this jam is to deploy only, negotiate another truce for a specified time and use the interim rounds to thrash out rules of engagement.

[mpjh]

And if you cannot renegotiate, i.e., one players wants absolute adherence to the ridiculous interpretation of the truce, what do you do?

[Iliad]

My second suggestion:
Care not for war! Return to your capital, hold a grand feast. Slash taxes, make people rejoice across the land. Care not for war. If your generals come and report you of the treacherous opponent breaking the truce, care not. Miss your turn and feast. Miss your second turn and feast. But if then he is still attacking you, unleash your wrath upon this treacherous dog. Honour is better than skill, you shall beat him.

[Frigidus]

And if you cannot renegotiate, i.e., one players wants absolute adherence to the ridiculous interpretation of the truce, what do you do?

Well, you'll have to bring something more to the table. It's becoming increasingly clear in the modern world that throwing your military might around has plenty of unexpected consequences, and that diplomacy is the only way forward.