Bummer Big Skin. This player knows you and what your going to do. He played that.

But it's no different than the game itself. What a player gains he has to take from another player. 

A deal with another player is the same way. Your looking for an advantage for yourself, and you can get it at another players cost. 

I'm like you in that way. someones like: "Lets be friends!" and I'm all "Yay!" and I go hard like I think we both should. And then the game ends and I'm left dead.

The secret here, and maybe the fun in the game is finding a way to make those truces so that they are (more) equitable - or rather, mutually beneficial. I think that's the challenge. 

Make a note and expect similar behavior in the future.

The only "truces" I honor are those that are implied.  In other words, if an opponent is bound to win the game unless other players work together to bring him back to parity. So my idea of a truce is 'remind' those players of the situation.  I might even on occasion suggest a short term tactic that would achieve the goal of bringing the dominant player down to a position that doesn't guarantee victory (usually one turn at a time and the more dialog the better). I try to make it such that most of the time if the player chooses to ignore my 'advice,' we both lose and nothing has substantively changed.

At most parity is the goal for me. Players who 'truce' to go further and severely weaken or even take out the dominant player risk back-stabbing 100% of the time - not to mention it takes the fun out of the game.

Truces are for diplomats.  I'm a general.  I would not avail myself of it and I'm pretty sure I would avoid such games, but for those of you obsessed with the concept - a 'forced' truce feature has been suggested. I.e. I am not allowed to attack you and you are not allowed to attack me for x turns. You could even have it on a border by boarder basis. But again, that just sucks the life out of the game for me personally.

Big Skin wrote:

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.

I think the truce player lived up to the letter of the deal - i.e. let's not attack each other.  If you wanted the truce to include, "let's attack yellow", I feel like you should have made that explicit.

I almost never initiate truces, but if someone comes to me with a deal, I try to make explicit and clear what the terms are.  If that had been me, and I had said, let's not attack each other, I would have felt ok with just "turtling".

Thanks, all!  I appreciate the advice!

I've got to agree with M57's last post - I think the only really honorable truces are those that are made to, in essence, keep the game alive when it appears a player is becoming so powerful that working together to reduce said power becomes imperative. That doesn't mean the continuation to eliminate said player.

I think you answered your own questions Big. Your truce ally followed the strict wording of the truce but took advantage of you by not following the implied spirit of the truce. One point though, you mention the game was foggged. Is it possible your truce ally did not have the same visibility as you and perhaps did not see your efforts or where they could break bonuses?

SquintGnome wrote: I think you answered your own questions Big. Your truce ally followed the strict wording of the truce but took advantage of you by not following the implied spirit of the truce. One point though, you mention the game was foggged. Is it possible your truce ally did not have the same visibility as you and perhaps did not see your efforts or where they could break bonuses?

I know. I know.  Much of this is on me.  This has all been good therapy.   I just feel used by someone I thought was a friend and good competitor.  It sucks.  He did have world vision (as did I) at the time of truce. 

All is fair in love and war. There is only ever one winner. I have been stabbed many many more times than I have in turn.. but to be fair its usually at the point of the game.. if they didn't stab me the games over.

I need to become more ruthless and sack my enemies before the barbarians are at my gates ;)

Big Skin wrote:

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.

I can see both sides of this one.  Completely understandable assumption and reaction on your part, however based on what you have said the only actual agreement was to stop hitting each other. How much you each contributed to the take down of the big leader was up to each of you individually. 

Did he break the spirit of the truce as stated? Maybe... Yeah... Did he break the letter of the truce? No. 

The player might be completely oblivious to your perspective. 

Advice? If he's someone you truce with regularly? Give him the benefit of the doubt. Let him know "politely" that you felt  a bit used and to please not do that again. 

Long term this place is about relationships.  Think twice before burning one or letting silent anger poison one.  

Personally I think it is reasonable since you both benefited from not having to worry about each other, and it does not appear there was great communication of what was expected of everyone, simply about what the problem was (i.e. Yellow is going to win easily if we dont stop attacking each other).

I am not a fan of the all out truce for this exact reason.  I prefer a delineated border that will not be attacked.  It allows you to put your back to a wall and move forward. You may still have to attack your partner, just not over those borders.  If you end up being the last 2 players, you keep that truce in place and fight it out elsewhere.  Just my opinion.

Two more tips on this topic.

The first is that getting other people to wear themselves down by doing all of the work is generally a good idea in this game.  It sounds like he did that to you.

The second is that over a long truce it is good to keep communicating on what you are doing to make expectations clear, and make sure that the work has been shared.  That likely would have also addressed the problem of someone playing many games losing track of the fact that a truce was supposed to be in effect.

Just wanna repeat something I posted earlier and get other's opinions.  To form a truce 'against' another player to the complete elimination of said player is essentially cheating, is it not? The two players simply attack said player each turn until elimination.

I don't think it is. Many, many a game of risk has been decided through just such a deal.

It's real crappy though.

Yeah, not cheating as long as it wasn't pre-determined in some manner before the game started

But yes generally crappy as ratsy put it

I don't think by the standards of the site it is cheating, but I'd never do it.  Well - unless it was turnabout for something similar being done to me.

Johasi Vidad wrote:

Yeah, not cheating as long as it wasn't pre-determined in some manner before the game started

But yes generally crappy as ratsy put it

Right.  I never thought it was cheating, it just put a sour taste in my mouth.

Its usually the only way to end a 3-way game though..

Aiken Drumn wrote:

Its usually the only way to end a 3-way game though..

It's a good point.  When there are 3 relatively equal forces by the time folks notice it's down to the 3 players, I typically post a message asking folks if they want to term so that noone leaves the game with hurt feelings.

When there is a relatively weak player left of the 3, I'll generally try to chip away slightly at that player each turn while hurling most of my force at the other strong player. Of course, lots depend on the lay of the map at the time and also if there is an elim bonus and where the card escalation is at the time.

I'm stuck in a 3 way game thats barely moved since November..one player (weakest is refusing to terminate)

http://www.wargear.net/games/view/543802

Not an uncommon occurrence on that board.