breaking a truce

[sacrebleu]

I have had a truce going on with one plaer on the board for quite a few turns. The complexion of the game has since changed, and obviously now I need to break that truce. The other player knows this, and has invoked the Three Turn Rule. ie that you must announce that you are breaking the truce and wait three turns before attacking.

which is obviously news to me.

Anyone have any thoughs on this issue, and truce breaking in general?

[Woodruff]

I have had a truce going on with one plaer on the board for quite a few turns. The complexion of the game has since changed, and obviously now I need to break that truce. The other player knows this, and has invoked the Three Turn Rule. ie that you must announce that you are breaking the truce and wait three turns before attacking.
which is obviously news to me.
Anyone have any thoughs on this issue, and truce breaking in general?

There's no such thing as an ACTUAL "Three Turn Rule". It may be a convention that some players use so that they have some warning, but unless that was agreed to when the truce was created (or since then), you're certainly under no obligation to keep it. Truth be told, you're not under any obligation in ANY way, truce or not...you could break it at any time. That being said, I'd say that HOW you break the truce can well lead to how you're rated by the other player involved in the truce, so that's something to keep in mind.

[shidarin]

I always try to play by the rule of 1; opponents need at least 1 turn of warning before you break a truce.

The key thing is always to remember that it's just a game. Break the truce cordially, tell them that the game circumstances have changed, and that you will consider the truce over in one turn and that you believe you have both benefited from the truce, etc.

Just don't be a jerk.

[indianmike]

I think the most important thing is to never make a truce. That way you don't have to worry about it. I quit playing multiple player games because of alliances and truces. If you think about it truces and alliances are just thin covers for treachery, they will always be broken. There can be only one winner, strategy and dice rolls determine that, why bring human nature and lies into something that is clean and pure?

[owenshooter]

simple, never make a truce. period.-0

[gannable]

truces are lame.

a player should be able to evaluate the situation and make the correct moves without making a truce. i dont like playing games with people who make truces

[obliterationX]

Just break it, lol.

[Rustovitch]

I dont really get the objection to truces personally, I see them as a perfectly valid part of the game and I rely on them heavily. But yes give at least a turn of notice unless previously stated.

[oVo]

Many players "know" what the situation is, how to handle it and feel no truce is required. While others prefer the security of knowing they have an agreement of no hostilities for a "predetermined" time. When you create a truce, set terms... as to how long it will last and how to end it... and stick to those terms.

Two rounds, three rounds... there is no set criteria for this, so set terms you are comfortable with and that the other player "agrees to" and go with it.

Sometimes if the situation changes drastic enough a player will invite you across the "no fire zone" to reach a problem border. If the person you made the truce with is suddenly taking over the map and you need to break it? Tell them it's over after their next turn... and get on with it.

IF YOU MAKE A TRUCE WITH SOMEONE? Going against your word and breaking it sucks...
but announcing it's over and ending it after giving notice is fine.

[flexmaster33]

I'm not a fan of truces, but wouldn't rate poorly against it (I'm in the minority there I believe)...it is a part of the game, just a part that most players don't care for.

I say if you want to delve into truces and such why not just play doubles or triples where the truces are clear from the start and are held throughout the game with all members of the team (truce) being rewarded at the end of the game.

[neanderpaul14]

If I do happen to make a truce I will have the terms of the agreement made up front, however if you had no terms to your truce do not feel obliged to go by any terms your opponent now tries to set, but it would be polite to announce that the truce is over and then attack the following turn.

[Erland]

break it at will. A truce is good only as long as it benefits both players.

[tryagain]

Sneak up behind him and stab him hard between the shoulder blades, slightly off centre to the left.

[Itrade]

When establishing a truce, you should do one of two things:
1) Set a round where the truce will either end or be renewed. It will be up to both parties to agree on what happens after that.
2) Set a one, two, or three-round warning before ending truces. Two-rounds is usually best.
If neither of these are established and you want to break the truce, the correct thing to do is to tell your opponent that you'll be attacking him next round, giving him one turn to correct his defenses and such.

[HaireWolf1]

Since it was not previously agreed upon 3 turns by the two of you then all you owe the player is one turn. Let the player know that you will be attacking...that way they have a turn to fort to prepare for it. You do owe the player at least one turn.

[darkangelsguy205]

Just break it, lol.

yeah i know its not hard

[porkenbeans]

Truces can be a good tool when practicing politics, and can be very strategic. Although, when they end, someone always seems to get their feelings hurt. I decided long ago that when I make a truce, which is very rarely, I only make one kind of truce. And that is a "permanent Border Truce". In other words, a limited border truce between 2 or more countries that last the entire game. So therefore, even if you are the last two players left in the game, you are still bound by that border truce. Which means that you just have to attack somewhere else, and take a different route to conquer the board. This way no one ever has any reason to get upset when a truce ends. -Because it never does.

[darkangelsguy205]

Truces can be a good tool when practicing politics, and can be very strategic. Although, when they end, someone always seems to get their feelings hurt. I decided long ago that when I make a truce, which is very rarely, I only make one kind of truce. And that is a "permanent Border Truce". In other words, a limited border truce between 2 or more countries that last the entire game. So therefore, even if you are the last two players left in the game, you are still bound by that border truce. Which means that you just have to attack somewhere else, and take a different route to conquer the board. This way no one ever has any reason to get upset when a truce ends. -Because it never does.

but wheres the fun in that

[porkenbeans]

Truces can be a good tool when practicing politics, and can be very strategic. Although, when they end, someone always seems to get their feelings hurt. I decided long ago that when I make a truce, which is very rarely, I only make one kind of truce. And that is a "permanent Border Truce". In other words, a limited border truce between 2 or more countries that last the entire game. So therefore, even if you are the last two players left in the game, you are still bound by that border truce. Which means that you just have to attack somewhere else, and take a different route to conquer the board. This way no one ever has any reason to get upset when a truce ends. -Because it never does.

but wheres the fun in that

I think that winning with honor IS fun. Playing with truces in this manor adds a whole new set of strategies. It brings politics into play.

[stahrgazer]

The other player knows this, and has invoked the Three Turn Rule...
which is obviously news to me.

If you didn't agree to a three turn rule on making the truce, or say, "okay, 3 turns it is" when the other player invoked this rule, then you will not dishonor your word by refusing to adhere to three turns.

If breaking the truce means you whomp your opponent, he's not likely to like it; if you break the truce and he whomps you, he'll likely taunt you that you shouldn't have broken the truce.

Oh well.

[Tisha]

Sneak up behind him and stab him hard between the shoulder blades, slightly off centre to the left.

you sound like you've done this before..

[paulk]

Tell him the truce is over AFTER his next round.
That way he can prepare against a hit from you, but are not "allowed" to attack you.

[Karsinogeeni]

This is actually a good conversation with a lot of potential. I am going to talk about a few things. First about truces or deals in general, about metagame and then about the spirit of deals.

Obviously deals in three player games are pretty unfair, but when the games involve seven, even ten players it becomes a part of strategy. One could argue that the numbers balance the game, but with my experience it is not the case. When someone takes a clear lead, it is not for granted for the others to go for the King. In my experience if the strongest player positions himself in a correct way, he can discourage the others so much that they end up doing nothing and he wins in a few turns. In this kind of situations however, it is quite easy to make a truce with someone when there is a clear leader. In my opinion that is the only logical thing to do.

Because we were talking about deals, sometimes it might be smart to set up some kind of border with one of your neighbors. If two equally strong players fight about an area in the beginning of a game, they will without a shadow of a doubt be in a bad position when they come to the mid game. This is true especially with games that involve cards, because you don't have any control what you are getting. Your neighbor might be getting 10-16 troops from flipping a set while you might be getting 4 and where's the fun in that. And what a feeling it is to be swept away by a stronger player that you haven't even seen one turn after finally stabilizing the border. Of course if you are the stronger player and can make yourself a good foothold, there might be no reason for deals.

Some of the players see deals as a lame way to play, but some see it as a part of the game. This is my opinion as well when it comes to bigger games. There is a game and there is a metagame and deals are part of it. If you can just by words you can guide the game to a direction where you want it to flow, why wouldn't you do it? Of course sometimes the metagame fails and if you have made your moves based on that, you might lose because of it, but in this case you lost because you played your metagame poorly.

If someone is playing metagame by talking to the others, it doesn't mean that the others would not benefit of that as well. It makes the game much more social experience and the others can benefit from the effects of deals and get a better feeling where the game is going to flow. However, if you play your metagame poorly and you might be finding that you offended the others and they are forming alliances against you. Am I making any sense here?

Now the question is how to make a deal with someone. Needless to say that breaking a deal or going against the spirit of a deal is going to raise emotions. An example about this is a game (World 2.1) where I made a deal in the beginning of the game that my opponent takes South Africa while I take The Horn. The others were already on the run and I noticed that we can fight for these areas for 10 rounds and get nowhere. I didn't have any other place where I could survive and the others were picking my 3's around the world one by one so the only thing I could say, how about you slip your troops to south while I slip mine to north and gave him some space.

I don't remember the exact wording about the border freeze we made, but the idea was a simple division between these two areas. A few rounds later the guy breaks from Egypt to Middle East which I had conquered. Well, that was pretty much ok because the deal was about me getting to keep The Horn while he keeps South Africa. Therefore his move was justified and I didn't hold it against him. Anyway, problems can be avoided by setting your words right. You could say:

"Let's keep our border the way it is." This is pretty strict and there is no way not to break this at some point unless you come from the other side.

"Let's keep our border the way it is at least until round 10." This gives you a chance to get out from the deal without damaging your reputation.

"Let's keep our border between X and Y the way they are at least until round 10." This gives you a chance to go for the other areas of a player while keeping a border intact.

Any others that come to your mind?

If you don't want to break your words and get a nasty reputation by breaking a deal, choose your words well. In my opinion, if you make a deal with someone, the deal is only as good as your word. Break it and people will certainly tag you as a backstabber and when it comes to me, I would not deal with one.

How do you deal against backstabbers? Keep only a few troops on your borders and a bigger stack within the borders. Don't tempt the other by having 1's all around.

I prefer bigger maps with a lot of players and fog of war. I feel that it is much easier to protect yourself from a possible backstabbers because they just don't know what is going on inside your borders, but I would say anyway "Don't trust deals too much". If you are playing without any kind of backup plan the only person you can blame for losing the game is you. Stack some troops within you borders to strategic points. There isn't a better feeling than your opponent stopping his attack when he sees a stack of 20 waiting for him. However, if you decide to keep some units behind the lines you cripple your advance in other parts, but handling that is a totally different discussion! Besides I have already taken enough of your time. I hope you enjoyed my 2 cents.

[indianmike]

I did enjoy your post. It was articulate and well thought out. Even the spelling was superb. It covered aspects of deals I had never considered. Probably because I've never played those kind of games, my favorite is 1x1, and when I did play multiple player games seldom more than four players. In those instances deals were not the best idea, they were a way for the weak players to destroy the leader. I figured if you want to team up with another player then play a team game. An example would come from cards, it's either bridge or poker, I can't play bridge or pinochle to save my soul, but any money you bring to a poker table I'm sitting at is likely to go home with me. Temperment I suppose, in a poker game you're all my enemies and I need to win, same applies to risk. I'm not going to lie and make deals because ulimately there can be only one winner, and I want to win solely from my own skills..... and a lot of sixes.

[safariguy5]

I don't like to make truces. I might make some comment in the game chat, but if one player is clearly in the lead, I'll assume the other players will key on the leader as well. Of course, all bets are off in terminator games, I might just decide to go for points. Also, with escalating games, bonuses become pretty insignificant when the cashes go for about 25-30 troops and the game leader has a +4 bonus. But in Flat rate and no spoils, yes, some diplomacy may be needed.