Treaties

[stormbind]

Hi all - I have yet to complete a single game

However, I wonder if anyone has attempted to negotiate (publicly visible) peace treaties during a game? It is a strategy frequently seen in the Civilization video game.

For example, one might agree to three rounds of non-aggression with a selected opponent. It provides both players with the assurance that they need not reinforce their common borders.

[lancehoch]

As long as all diplomatic discussions are in the chat box pursuant to Rule #2, then you can make treaties.

[stormbind]

Thank you, I had understood Rule 2

Would someone please share their experiences of diplomatic negotiations?

[GrimReaper.]

its called appeasement: give the agressor some demands but not all then compromise with the other player and take out the aggressor.

[lancehoch]

Thank you, I had understood Rule 2

Would someone please share their experiences of diplomatic negotiations?

Make sure the terms are very clear. Starting round, ending round, which territories are affected (which territories cannot attack the affected territories). Some people will not like you for making agreements, but others do not mind. Some of the time agreements are not necessary, people understand that when one person is very strong, it is usually beneficial for all others to try to break him/her.

[Woodruff]

Thank you, I had understood Rule 2
Would someone please share their experiences of diplomatic negotiations?

What's critically important is being perfectly clear about the agreement. Is it just a truce that can end at any time? Is it an alliance that will end on a certain round (or last for a certain number of rounds)? Will certain territories be involved? That sort of thing. Without that clarity, someone's bound to get upset. And sometimes they do anyway, quite honestly.

[KoolBak]

Like me....and many others.....human nature to have opinions, yes? Just be prepared. I personally believe that if you want to play teams, then play teams. If you want to play risk, then cowboy up......just one more opinion ;o)

[stormbind]

Thank you for pointing out how the 'enemy' of a contract might feel isolated and upset.

I agree that there's not much point in joining a social game if you're going to upset people

[obliterationX]

They are fun to break when it would suit you best to do so - if you see a chance to benefit from breaking a truce, go for it. Don't worry about upsetting the other person - employ all tactics necessary for victory. Good luck!

[jonesthecurl]

I tend not to like alliances for x turns, until player a is eliminated, etc.
I will sometimes offer a different deal - "I won't attack territory blah from territory ahem if you agree the reverse - elsewhere on the board, no alliance". If you trust the other player, it can leave you both with one border you can concentrate less on.

[Gustaf Wasa]

In one of the most fun games I had, a World 2.1 game, me and another player took turns going through Hawaii, me from Australia and him from China, to attack a third player who held almost all of the Americas. Turn after turn we shoveled in armies, being driven back every turn, until finally we succeeded in wearing him down. We didn't set a number of turns for the truce to hold, necessity dictated that we cooperate or be defeated. And we both saw when it was time to end the cooperation, and we said so. Good times. I suppose, it all depends on how mature your co-players are.

[pinkflaminko]

TRUST ME, u want to make your truces or alliances VERY clear, I have had experiences where it is not clear and I had to pay for it.