In game dispute: need a reality check here

[oVo]

There was no foul commited here as the "no fly zone" was never breached and the terms of the truce were maintained. If the pissed lieutenant wanted an all out cease fire he should have asked for one. I am obviously a pussy because I have made truces and never broken them.

Often experienced players have unspoken truces in games, because they know what is required to keep the dominant player from sweeping everyone else off of the map. But there is more security in forming a short treaty that guarantees you won't be broken on a particular common border while using your fortifications to rally an attack elsewhere.

A key factor in avoiding misunderstandings is clearly worded terms known to all involved and I see no impropriety executed in your game, as the borders of the truce were well established.

[gdeangel]

Sorry to burst the bubble, but you'd have to look pretty hard to find an international arbitrator who would not conclude that you dealt in bad faith with your treaty-mate.

[detlef]

Sorry to burst the bubble, but you'd have to look pretty hard to find an international arbitrator who would not conclude that you dealt in bad faith with your treaty-mate.

Well, you don't have to look very hard to find people in CC who don't see a problem.

You're not seriously trying to compare this to real life are you? Really? I mean, how often is every nation involved in a war for global dominance? One where two nations at war make a pact to not attack each other on one front but anything goes on another.

None the less, the deal was specific to one border. If dude was acting as if it was a complete cease fire, then he was mistaken. It's really quite simple.

[gdeangel]

You're not seriously trying to compare this to real life are you? Really? I mean, how often is every nation involved in a war for global dominance? One where two nations at war make a pact to not attack each other on one front but anything goes on another.

None the less, the deal was specific to one border. If dude was acting as if it was a complete cease fire, then he was mistaken. It's really quite simple.

Other than the fact that when you play at this level, it's less about global dominance on a map, than it is about your ability to build reputation capital while trouncing opponent on map after map... you make a good point. Global dominance is passe... and so is making agreements with loopholes. I'd be more likely to come out the other way if the treaty was proposed by the other guy who got burned, but putting a loophold in a treaty and then, when it's safe to do it, exercise the loophole, is just about tantamount to breaking the treaty outright on less than the required notice. They are both acts of bad faith.

[detlef]

You're not seriously trying to compare this to real life are you? Really? I mean, how often is every nation involved in a war for global dominance? One where two nations at war make a pact to not attack each other on one front but anything goes on another.

None the less, the deal was specific to one border. If dude was acting as if it was a complete cease fire, then he was mistaken. It's really quite simple.

Other than the fact that when you play at this level, it's less about global dominance on a map, than it is about your ability to build reputation capital while trouncing opponent on map after map... you make a good point. Global dominance is passe... and so is making agreements with loopholes. I'd be more likely to come out the other way if the treaty was proposed by the other guy who got burned, but putting a loophold in a treaty and then, when it's safe to do it, exercise the loophole, is just about tantamount to breaking the treaty outright on less than the required notice. They are both acts of bad faith.

Where's the loophole? The notion of setting up a border specific pact is quite simple and beneficial to both parties. Think about it, I have NA, you have SA. We can either waste a bunch of armies building up Panama and Columbia and more still battling back and forth on that border, or we can agree not to hit each other on that border until someone gives warning and worry about the rest of the world. Now, if I come through Europe and Africa and hit you in Guineas, how is that wrong?

We're not partners, there's no alliance. Just a very specific arrangement that we have on a very specific border.

[Thezzaruz]

None the less, the deal was specific to one border. If dude was acting as if it was a complete cease fire, then he was mistaken. It's really quite simple.

Well seeing as one or more of the territories attacked was at the border (even though they wheren't attacked cross the border) I'd say that the truce was clearly broken. And hence I can see why the other guy got pissed off.

I personally have no issue with the behavior though...

[Iron Butterfly]

Ok enough chit chat....I want one of those handy capes.

[SGUstickman]

Well seeing as one or more of the territories attacked was at the border (even though they wheren't attacked cross the border) I'd say that the truce was clearly broken.

Interesting interpretation. The truce only covered attacks across the border, and you concede that there was no attack across the border, but conclude the truce was broken anyway?

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. In the game in question, the other guy cooled down and admitted the treaty hadn't actually been broken. In fact, as the battle raged on for a further half dozen turns, we were engaged in a death struggle, but neither of us attacked across the specified border. It's an interesting strategic situation when you know that if you can push the other guy back just far enough, he can't attack you back on that front! That happened a few times.

Kane of Nod is a class act, and got positive feedback from me. Feedback that has now vanished in a puff of electrons! Lol.

Still, enough of you felt my actions were a treaty violation that I'll take more care to specify terms in future, to avoid bad feeling.

Those of you who think treaties are for pussies... well, it seems to me you're unclear on the concept. How you fight is tactics. Who you fight is strategy, and diplomacy is a HUGE part of that.

[Thezzaruz]

Interesting interpretation. The truce only covered attacks across the border, and you concede that there was no attack across the border, but conclude the truce was broken anyway?

Well I would have interpreted the treaty as specifying some territories that where off limits to attack while you obviously think it specified territories you couldn't attack from so yea a bit more explicit terms would solve most such problems.