what are the ethics of breaking a truce with someone when you declared say a 2 turn notice  with but then they  don't wait. when is it okay and when isnt it. just played a game with someone who originally tried to take the 2 turns early in the game and then changed their mind, then when i declared the turn notice (later in the game) he immediately invaded me.

Dudes not a man of his word.

I'd make a note, and expect similar behavior in the future.

And... Assuming it wasn't an 'oops' (mistakes happen) I would punish that behavior. Never make a truce with them again. When in doubt in future maps kill them first. Only the living can betray you. I think an appropriate quote would be:

"I want him DEAD! I want his family DEAD! I want his house burned to the GROUND! I wanna go there in the middle of the night and I wanna PISS ON HIS ASHES!" 

It also helps to remember that betrayal on a site like this is short sighted. If you have a trustworthy reputation people are more likely to ally with you instead of attacking first. Which means you are more likely to reach end game with a higher shot at winning every game.

Overtime people who backstab will win a few games doing it, but will lose way more in the long run because they're public enemy #1.  

Completely concur with ratsy and INAT.

Oh, the "art of diplomacy" can be very tricky.

Yea I tend to play the diplomacy game often in colossal crusade but I always keep my word so that others can trust me in the future. I have a few names I no longer do business with for that exact reason.

Out of curiosity, who?

please don't answer that here in the forums. if you're both willing, take it to PM. 

i'd go with ratsy before INAT on this one (damn that's twice tonight ratsy...)

in addition to making a note, i'd ask them why. i've been known to completely forget about a truce i had in this game or that. usually a poke from the offended party perks me up to reply and we're all good in the future. although when said notes start to pile up....i'm onto INAT's attitude!!

That's a good point weathertop. One might simply forget a truce if they're in enough games (which is why I keep my game count limited), especially if that includes multiple games on the same map.

However, it still begs the question. If someone breaks a truce because they forgot...they're probably not a good player to trust in the future merely for that reason.

I've played a few games with truces now. I always keep my word and I have encountered players who were pleasantly surprised by this, so general expectations are perhaps not very high.

I've decided to no longer have truce with turn notices, this isnt the first time 

Whenever I make an agreement, it is usually a "so-and-so is going to kick our ass, better work together till they're reeled in".  So, we can pretty much attack each other at any time and I never get all riled up if they attack me so long as it leads to the player we truced over still not winning.  If they win the game attacking me before I thought the other player was reeled in, then they played it correctly and I'm aiming for the same conclusion as well anyways, so that is a "well played" situation.  The art of the truce is to time the victory.  The truce is not meant to handicap you or the person you are trucing with, but to enable one of you to surpass who you are trucing against.  If they break truce and the player you were truced against wins though... Then they didn't play the truce very well at all and I'll take note of that.

That said, I do stick to whatever terms I've agreed upon in a truce, though, I usually leave plenty of wiggle room in said terms.

This. If the person who breaks the truce wins the game, good for them. Otherwise...

But i suppose you should also account for how it will affect your future games. That one victory might come at the expense of future alliances which would have brought more victories. Because of that I never break a truce, although I rarely make them

Ditto SG. And to berick's post, I think it's imperative on those type of truces that it's to 'reel in' a player, not to eliminate said player. I find very often that these tpye of alliances tend to go well beyond what they were formed for and end up being an 'against X' type of truce, where X is the player being ganged up on. Then, X is weakened way beyond being a threat and soon eliminated.

There is another strategic principle at work here.  If someone makes it so that I have no possibility of winning, I will do my best to make sure that that they lose.  (An obvious corollary is that if you're the one who makes me kingmaker, you won't be chosen king.)

The result of that is that you should not do someone a serious injury unless you make it so grievous that they are no further threat to you.

Well put btilly. I also follow those principles about someone doing me grievous harm.

I would invoke the Golden Rule of Risk: Do unto others before they can do unto you.

So what is the feeling in this situation....

1. 4 person, fogged, Invention game.  
2. One player has taken a commanding lead - lets call him yellow.  Lots and lots of armies,  Big bonuses.  
3. Another player comes to me and says "We're handing the game over to yellow.  We can't keep breaking up each others territories.  Truce?"  I agree.  
4. I proceed to start whittling away from yellow (using a lot of my armies and 100% of my focus), and significantly weaken him. I'm feeling ok as the game has been brought more into balance.
5. The fourth player is pretty weak and not a threat.
6. My truce player doesn't go near yellow's bonuses. He takes one yellow territory from his own continent and thats it.  
7. Truce guy sits quiet, not attacking yellow, knows that I am doing it, builds up his own army and bonuses, eventually strikes at player 4 to capture his capital, cards and territories.  
8. Result at this point:  I'm greatly weakened, and so is yellow.  My truce player is greatly strengthen.  

There was little communication after the truce was made - and that in itself is a problem.  The truce may not have been clear.  I may have assumed too much. I get that.  I understand this is all legit when it comes to truces.   All is fair in love and war!  My bigger question:  Was I swindled?  Was I bamboozled?   I feel really crappy after that game. 

I just feel that when a truce is made specifically because a 3rd player is about to win, the truce also means we should both be trying to keep the big player under control - not just one of us, otherwise that is a swindle.  Next time I will be more clear in any truce.If I left yellow alone, we surely would have both lost.  

I like my truce player a lot - we have played literally hundreds of matches against each other (with no more than 2 or 3 truces).  He has just left a massive sour taste in my mouth.  I really don't like being used.  Maybe I just feel stupid for trusting him and letting myself be used.