ImNev wrote:Hi people,
In a current, game, I agreed into a one-turn notice truce with somebody.
I was wondering on when you guys think such a treaty has formally ended.
In this game. In turn 11, he was first to play, but continued our truce. I informed him in my turn 11 that I would end the treaty, and that by the start of my next turn our truce would have ended. However, at the start of turn 12, when it was his turn, he already attacked me. it seems to me that he violated our treaty as he has not given me a full one turn notice.
What do you think?
He was right.
Usually it is commonly accepted that the one giving the notice cannot attack first.
In the case you described, you gave the notice, thus, the other one should have the opportunity to attack you first.
It would be way too convenient if it worked the way you thought it worked, i.e, you told him the truce would end at the start of your next turn.
If you think he attacked too early, you should have said that the truce would end at the end of your next turn. Thus giving him the opportunity to attack first.
Usually it is ofc better to describe it precisely. When I play with people I don't know well, I said, "X round notice, and the one giving the notice does not have the opportunity to attack first" , but this is what is commonly accepted.
Razorvich wrote:If ever I do have a truce, I try to make them turn based. ie.. truce for 5 turns, then re-asses.
That way everyone knows when it ends and can prepare in advance.
Well I wouldn't do such a truce, since from the beginning you know who attack first, unless it is me I'd never agree to it.