Conquer Club

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?

Yeah, that is the risk you take when truces involve turn announcements

Look at it this way, he knew that you were going to attack next turn because you basically announced it and has chosen to hit you with a surprise attack.
Poor form for technically breaking a truce?, yeah maybe, that's what the ratings are for at the end of the game.

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.

Could just not do truces either.

Better yet, be an ass and make as many truces as possible, and break them when they suit you best for maximum effect. No one reads the ratings anymore, you'll still rock out at a 4.0 at worst.

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.

Donelladan wrote:Usually it is commonly accepted that the one giving the notice cannot attack first.

But given everyone also recognizes the huge disadvantage that comes with being attacked first, they generally just interpret the terms of their truce in whatever way will allow them to do the attacking first (or they simply violate it, e.g. tkr4lf).

Truces are useful as a way of being able to stop worrying about someone else for a while, but all the little 'cancellation clauses' people cook up don't really mean shit.

----You said the truce was over at the start of round 12. You can't wait until your turn in round 12...You should have said, the truce is over...we can resume attacking each other at the Start of round 13,so both of you can prepare your defenses . The way your looking at it. The truce would give you an advantage in round 12. He can't attack you, but you can attack him.,he saw it as the truce is over at the start of round 12,(the way you worded it),like it should be,he did nothing wrong. ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

Alright, I understand this is not something universally agreed upon, but according to most of you, my opponent was not in violation of the truce.

Thanks for the replies!

ImNev

In tight circumstances Instead of making a truce, try threatening an opponent and let him know if he hits you back you will take him down with you. But don't bluff! Be willing to hit him really hard if he does what you wanted him not to do. You will lose some games this way and you will win some. Don't back down! Mean what you say and have a reputation of keeping your word. If you do make a truce be sure to keep your promise and take them down with you if they break it.
It's best not to get into a truce where you box yourself in when it comes down to just you and your opponent. If it's down to just you two, it's not good to be bound to a truce agreement. Be specific before you get into one. Be cool! Hit the truce breakers extra hard when you can.

ImNev wrote:Alright, I understand this is not something universally agreed upon, but according to most of you, my opponent was not in violation of the truce.

Thanks for the replies!

ImNev

Yes but I agree with what Donelladan said as far as 1 tun notice, you dont get to call off truce and then have first guilt free attack next turn

Misfire wrote:In tight circumstances Instead of making a truce, try threatening an opponent and let him know if he hits you back you will take him down with you. But don't bluff! Be willing to hit him really hard if he does what you wanted him not to do. You will lose some games this way and you will win some. Don't back down! Mean what you say and have a reputation of keeping your word. If you do make a truce be sure to keep your promise and take them down with you if they break it.
It's best not to get into a truce where you box yourself in when it comes down to just you and your opponent. If it's down to just you two, it's not good to be bound to a truce agreement. Be specific before you get into one. Be cool! Hit the truce breakers extra hard when you can.

Thanks for the clarification!

The fairest way to play in my opinion is without truces. I figure that the people calling for truce aren't playing a fair game. 9 times out of 10, people who make a x turn truce, tend to continue this now unspoken truce throughout the rest of the game, ganging up on everyone else. If it's a one turn truce, that means that you should not attack them for one turn, but are free to attack on the following turn, you shouldn't have to announce it. That should be 100% clear and expected. You were being too nice.

EDIT: Oh wait, it was one turn notice - nevermind then. lol.

When I used to play multiplayer games, I saw this happen A LOT, where the supposedly 3-turn truce remained until the last 2 remaining. It's frustrating because you end up in a game of 8 players. 6 single players + 1 team for the rest of the game, and the only way to have a chance of winning is to make sure one of them is eliminated.

How can you have an unspoken one-turn truce?

The best truces are the ones made IRL when I play with my brothers. Imagine someone freaking out in game chat because they're mad you made a truce, except of doing it in game chat they're freaking out IRL.

mrswdk wrote:How can you have an unspoken one-turn truce?

The best truces are the ones made IRL when I play with my brothers. Imagine someone freaking out in game chat because they're mad you made a truce, except of doing it in game chat they're freaking out IRL.

I miss-read it actually. It was one turn notice, not one turn truce. I do not EVER enter into truces, but I have seen people make a 3-turn truce, and the understanding is that once you've both completed 3 turns, that's the end of the truce. It doesn't need an announcement. But they never actually end it. lol. The worst was those 8 player games when everyone would target majors and above. I started playing private 2000+ games because that trend pissed me off.

In fact, I prefer team or polymorphic games. I don't really like playing with the added diplomacy. All of that is eliminated in team games/poly.

Shannon Apple wrote:The fairest way to play in my opinion is without truces. I figure that the people calling for truce aren't playing a fair game. 9 times out of 10, people who make a x turn truce, tend to continue this now unspoken truce throughout the rest of the game, ganging up on everyone else. If it's a one turn truce, that means that you should not attack them for one turn, but are free to attack on the following turn, you shouldn't have to announce it. That should be 100% clear and expected. You were being too nice.

EDIT: Oh wait, it was one turn notice - nevermind then. lol.

When I used to play multiplayer games, I saw this happen A LOT, where the supposedly 3-turn truce remained until the last 2 remaining. It's frustrating because you end up in a game of 8 players. 6 single players + 1 team for the rest of the game, and the only way to have a chance of winning is to make sure one of them is eliminated.

A good RISK player should know how negotiate and make a deal. Sometimes that deal will be the ruin of his opponents.