In game dispute: need a reality check here

[SGUstickman]

Hi all.

I'm currently in a game, and have offended another player. I won't give his name or the game number unless he agrees, but I'm directing him to this thread.

Early in the game (freestyle on world 2.1), I was building in Africa, and he was building in Europe and the middle east. I suggested, and I quote:

"Hey, ****, are you interested in a treaty across the africa / europe + middle east border? Say, 2 turnms notification required to terminate?"

He agreed, and all went swimmingly. We each took a few of the others isolated territories, as happens, but the border stayed nice and peaceful.

Later on, at the point where I was way in the lead, and he was the only real threat left, I placed a pile of armies on an isolated territory in east asia and moved west, hoping (and succeeding) in breaking his bonuses and essentially eliminating him as a serious threat. Though i had 7 or 8 armies facing his singles across the border (egypt, somalia, and morocco), I refrained from violating the treaty by using them in the attack, though once the border states were clear and my attacks finished, I free moved my forces across into the middle east.

I have now been accused of backstabbing, being a cheapskate by using loopholes, and being a bastard for not giving 2 turns notice before attacking. He's implied that he'll be leaving me negative feedback. He came online while i was making my move, so he's quite aware i didn't violate the letter of the treaty. He seems to think i should have given 2 turns notice before attacking him at all.

I was quite surprised and dismayed by this response. This guy's a lieutenant with 88 completed games! I'd have thought he'd know the limitations on a border treaty! I can live with a neg, if it comes to that. Really, I'm just upset at having upset someone else.

I need a reality check, here. Was I out of line, or is he being unreasonable?

[gloryordeath]

Your first mistake was trying to make truces instead of winning on you own skill as a player.

[AndyDufresne]

I rarely make alliances or truces, but "unique ways of reading" and "backstabbing" are a part of the game, at least how I see it. But from those...as you noted...might come negative feedbacks.


--Andy

[Zaqq]

I'm on your side. The poor fellow had a misunderstanding, and to your credit you have not yet violated the treaty. You could just offer him the two turns now, and just crush him later (as it sounds you will) or finish it now. The way you describe it, this guy's in trouble anyhow so I am kindof surprised that he would make so big a deal over just a game. It was, after all, HIS misinterpretation.

[t-o-m]

****

[SGUstickman]

Your first mistake was trying to make truces instead of winning on you own skill as a player.

Different strokes...

I consider diplomacy to be an important part of the game. Knowing when and what deals to make is an integral part of a multiplayer strategy game like this. Why would i handicap myself by not using it?

[gloryordeath]

Your first mistake was trying to make truces instead of winning on you own skill as a player.

Different strokes...

I consider diplomacy to be an important part of the game. Knowing when and what deals to make is an integral part of a multiplayer strategy game like this. Why would i handicap myself by not using it?

Looks like your more handy caped by it than I am with out it.

[wcaclimbing]

Your strategy was legit.
Thats a completely fair move.


Sorry, but I had to look up the game, because it is much easier to use the game chat to explain what happened because the chat gives both sides of the story. I'll leave out the info you did not want included though. Don't worry.

To quote your game chat:

2008-05-25 13:58:54 - SGUstickman: Hey, Kane, are you interested in a treaty across the africa / europe + middle east border? Say, 2 turnms notification required to terminate?

Legit treaty. Only across that one border.

I don't think you will be getting a negative over this one, though.
He seems to just have been suprised by it, but sees that it was completely allowed with the treaty, he just didn't notice.

2008-05-29 20:10:06 - ***********: I knew you were in the lead, but had no point of attack other then our treaty location, I wouldn't have spread myself so thin had I thought you would do what you did.
2008-05-29 20:10:52 - *************: So while you technically didn't break our treaty, I wasn't expecting it, and yes I am a tad sour about it.

Seems like he was a bit mad at first, which is why he said what he said, but relaxed and was ok with it after a while. You probably don't have anything to worry about.
I suggest that you give him a turn or two to get back together, as long as you can still win. Give him a second chance, and I doubt you will get a neg.

[SGUstickman]

Thanks for the feedback. As I said, it's not getting the neg that concerns me. I just don't want to keep doing this sort of thing if my interpretation of things is different from everyone else's. It sucks when a game ends with bad feelings.

[TaylorSandbek]

Your first mistake was trying to make truces instead of winning on you own skill as a player.

Different strokes...

I consider diplomacy to be an important part of the game. Knowing when and what deals to make is an integral part of a multiplayer strategy game like this. Why would i handicap myself by not using it?

Looks like your more handy caped by it than I am with out it.

Who friggin cares how he chooses to play. Its a viable tactic, leave him alone.

[SGUstickman]

Your first mistake was trying to make truces instead of winning on you own skill as a player.

Different strokes...

I consider diplomacy to be an important part of the game. Knowing when and what deals to make is an integral part of a multiplayer strategy game like this. Why would i handicap myself by not using it?

Looks like your more handy caped by it than I am with out it.

We'll have to play some time and see who fares better!

[owenshooter]

Your first mistake was trying to make truces instead of winning on you own skill as a player.

*touching my nose*
i don't need to read any more of this thread, gloryordeath hit my feelings right on the head...-0

[gloryordeath]

Easy Taylor I was just speaking my mind on truces. I know some people like them I just don't. I used them back in the day and it just turned out bad. More over they got used on me a lot as I jumped out to an early lead in most of my games and I got sick of it. I fixed that problem for myself.

SGUstickman I would be happy to play you some time. I love meeting new players and playing games just for the fun of it. If you get a free spot PM me and lets talk maps and setting. I look forward to a game.

[JBoy]

that's exactly why i do not play flat rate games, everybody whines and cries and argues, play escalating , make no deals, win or lose, find a new game..

[Ray Rider]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with what you did. You agreed to a truce between certain territories, and you never broke that truce. Attacking from a different territory is perfectly acceptable.

I basically never make truces here at CC because I don't know who's trustworthy and because there's just so much potential for things to go wrong. However, in real life Risk games with my friends, we make truces fairly often.

[Fruitcake]

Truces are for pussies.

[Twill]

oh come now fruitcake, was that necessary?

Truces take different kind of skill to play with, against and within and not everyone can handle them.

I've used 'em before and I'll use em again if it makes sense at that point in time. I do tend to be very specific in my treaties though - which countries, what the timeframe is for breaking them, and I never leave them completely undefended.

If I get stabbed in the back, fair game, my risk for going into the treaty.

Twill

[t-o-m]

if i ever want a truce i always say this:

[colour] you want a truce? until round X or if you want an early end to it there must be a 2round warning, if this is broken there will be a penalty of neg feedback from everyone.

it usually works - if a truce isnt well defined and if it isnt well drawn up and the rules arent clear - then there will be confusion and people getting mad.
i only want truces so i can win easier or better or quicker, i dont truce with people to help them - sometimes i even make a truce JUST to sercure a big bonus for one round, then just kill the guy

[Robinette]

mnnn... maybe i missed something here...
you had a "treaty across the africa / europe + middle east border"
so it seems clear that the 2 of you were agreeing to not attack each other in the following countries:

He would not attack you in Ukraine, Southern Europe & Western Europe
And you would not attack him in North Africa, Egypt & Middle East

soooooo, if i read things right, you nuked him out of the Middle East... right? ...and you did this without any warning... right?
My Conclusion: you managed to broadside him reeeal gooood...
Reality check complete.............

EDIT: just noticed this happened on world2.1 map... classic map i know... other maps not so good, mostly not at all... so perhaps this changes everything, i have no idea..

[Thezzaruz]

EDIT: just noticed this happened on world2.1 map... classic map i know... other maps not so good, mostly not at all... so perhaps this changes everything, i have no idea..

Comparable on Classic to having a truce on the SA/NA border and later hitting him from asia through alaska and onwards to central america.

[Robinette]

EDIT: just noticed this happened on world2.1 map... classic map i know... other maps not so good, mostly not at all... so perhaps this changes everything, i have no idea..

Comparable on Classic to having a truce on the SA/NA border and later hitting him from asia through alaska and onwards to central america.

well if your example is equivalent.... then my reality check stands as previously noted...
so shame on you, stickman... s h a m e

[MeDeFe]

EDIT: just noticed this happened on world2.1 map... classic map i know... other maps not so good, mostly not at all... so perhaps this changes everything, i have no idea..

Comparable on Classic to having a truce on the SA/NA border and later hitting him from asia through alaska and onwards to central america.

well if your example is equivalent.... then my reality check stands as previously noted...
so shame on you, stickman... s h a m e

Why? He did not attack across the specified border. It was a completely legit move in accordance with their truce. btw, truces are for geniuses with highly developed social skills who can make other players do their dirty work for them so they can sweep the board later on and win the game.

[detlef]

Your first mistake was trying to make truces instead of winning on you own skill as a player.

Sounds like you lack the "skill" of diplomacy.

[detlef]

EDIT: just noticed this happened on world2.1 map... classic map i know... other maps not so good, mostly not at all... so perhaps this changes everything, i have no idea..

Comparable on Classic to having a truce on the SA/NA border and later hitting him from asia through alaska and onwards to central america.

well if your example is equivalent.... then my reality check stands as previously noted...
so shame on you, stickman... s h a m e

Why? He did not attack across the specified border. It was a completely legit move in accordance with their truce. btw, truces are for geniuses with highly developed social skills who can make other players do their dirty work for them so they can sweep the board later on and win the game.

That's the way I see it as well and have never had any problems. There's a difference between truces on borders (basically put in place to make it so two players needn't devote a ton of armies to a border) or cease fire truces (basically because one player is way ahead and the others need to lay off each other to bring the leader back). I have never been under the illusion that a specific border truce meant you couldn't bust the player up elsewhere.

I'll give you that it's a bit of a touchy subject if you actually went so far as to attack one of the specific off-limits territories but not from your truced territory.

[Timminz]

truces are for geniuses with highly developed social skills who can make other players do their dirty work for them so they can sweep the board later on and win the game.

It's too bad most of the people trying to use them don't realize that.

On a similar note, I was reading an opponent's feedback the other day (I forget who), and they had a neg for convincing another player to kill his target in an assassin game. Now THAT is good use of diplomacy.