Thingol wrote:

Chele Nica wrote:

I agree, when I engage in a truce, I don't look at how to undermine the player I truced with, but rather how to survive first of all, and if that works, to eliminate the rest of the opponents before the other player does so

Yeah, I think most of us think that way. I think trying to undermine a truce that was just entered into is a mindset that is quite insidious (prevalent in the GOP since WW2 btw, but sorry, that's a political tangent). 

Not to mention the truces during the 2 world wars...

Big Skin wrote: I have a couple of general questions about truces. I don’t typically do truces and as a result I tend to lose most of my larger games. So I’m not really savvy about these things.

I’m currently in an Antastic game and a player offered a truce, saying “I’ll respect your bonus if you’ll respect mine, until the two of us are left”.

I agreed and used some creative strategy to pigeon hole him into a corner. If honoring the truce, his only option was to attack the only other player left who had a big defense built up — otherwise he could not take a territory and earn a card. (We are well into the game and cards are important). I was pretty proud at how I strategized the game to get him to that point. Instead he proceeded to attack me which resulted in me reducing my territory bonus. I called him out as breaking the truce and he claimed territory bonuses don’t count. Granted, things would have been made clearer if he said “I’ll respect your continent bonus...” but he didn’t.. He just said “bonus”. A bonus is a bonus in my book - and it doesn’t matter if it is a continent or territory bonus. I take this at face value - he simply reduced my bonus, so he broke the truce. Am I wrong? I didn’t want to Telegraph this issue or I may not have been able to pigeonhole him,

Secondly, even after having him break our truce as described above and thus taking a huge advantage in the games as a result, I was still able to pigeon hole him again. Again, I was pretty proud at how I did this. This time he can not attack me without breaking my continent bonus. He has absolutely no moves and cannot earn a card. I however, to my advantage have the third player surrounded and extremely weak - and because of that I can attack him one territory at a time and earn cards. Eventually I should be able to build up enough armies to be able to take out both players. The player I have the truce with now is calling for an end to our truce in two turns, even though our truce was clearly set to expire when only two of us were left. Again I called him out and explained that he can’t just unilaterally change the rules of our truce. Our truce clearly stated it should end when only the two of us are left. He said it is a “common rule” on this site that any truce can end with two turns notice. I have played more than 2,000 games with three or more players on this site and have never heard of such a common rule. Have I been missing something?

http://www.wargear.net/games/view/658019

The thing is, if he has no other move, what do you want him to do?

DeVine wrote:

The thing is, if he has no other move, what do you want him to do?

Honor his word. 

And throw away a turn or more?

Since HTTP ERROR 500 won’t let me take my turns I’ll chime in on this one. Been a couple years since I was active in the forum.

So, I do truces quite regularly and most of the time they work out pretty well for all parties. But, there are some prerequisites to truces generally going well.

#1 A truce should be mutually beneficial and about both partners getting a better chance of surviving through the early game and being well positioned mid game. My main goal in any game is to be one of the last 3 standing. â…“ chance of winning out of 6-16 people sounds good to me.  Coincidently, I have the same goal for poker tourneys (assuming 3rd place gets paid out). 

If you’re making the truce with the intention to screw the other guy into a “damned if you do, damned if you don't” position you should probably not be surprised if the other person takes issue with you breaking the spirit of the agreement by breaking the letter of it.  

Or, if you’re offered a truce, but then turn around and start taking actions that “arguably” break the terms you should probably not be surprised if the other person takes issue with that and retaliates.   

#2 Communication should be explicit with clear terms. For example, truce on continents, cities & states, gems & castles, etc. (or specific territories listed). Agreement on end time. Back in the day “1 turn warning or last 2 standing” were the norm.  Whoever breaks the truce gives the other first shot. I also don’t really like it going all the way to 2 players. 

Usually once it gets down to 3 I try to ease my way out of it. Like, “Hey man, not looking to charge your gates, but we’re down to 3 and should probably officially end the truce to be fair to ___. GL!” 

#3 Assume the best and prioritize goodwill. Long term reputation and collegiality are worth more than any given victory.  Accidents happen and people sometimes forget a truce. If you call them on it and they say my bad. Move on with life. If a 3rd player ravages your truce buddy and you clear them out, but then expect to keep all the territory that used to belong to your truce buddy and fortify it don’t expect them to want to truce with you again. If you accidentally step into a gray area, talk about it, be ready to call my bad, and make concessions even if it costs the game. Be cool. Be kind. Be someone you would want to play with.  

#4 “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.” Clear un-antagonized oath breaking -> “Grim Trigger” with no redemption, or in other words:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2WK_eWihdU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UceGF3M56bE

itsnotatumor wrote:

Since HTTP ERROR 500 won’t let me take my turns I’ll chime in on this one. Been a couple years since I was active in the forum.

So, I do truces quite regularly and most of the time they work out pretty well for all parties. But, there are some prerequisites to truces generally going well.

#1 A truce should be mutually beneficial and about both partners getting a better chance of surviving through the early game and being well positioned mid game. My main goal in any game is to be one of the last 3 standing. â…“ chance of winning out of 6-16 people sounds good to me.  Coincidently, I have the same goal for poker tourneys (assuming 3rd place gets paid out). 

If you’re making the truce with the intention to screw the other guy into a “damned if you do, damned if you don't” position you should probably not be surprised if the other person takes issue with you breaking the spirit of the agreement by breaking the letter of it.  

Or, if you’re offered a truce, but then turn around and start taking actions that “arguably” break the terms you should probably not be surprised if the other person takes issue with that and retaliates.   

#2 Communication should be explicit with clear terms. For example, truce on continents, cities & states, gems & castles, etc. (or specific territories listed). Agreement on end time. Back in the day “1 turn warning or last 2 standing” were the norm.  Whoever breaks the truce gives the other first shot. I also don’t really like it going all the way to 2 players. 

Usually once it gets down to 3 I try to ease my way out of it. Like, “Hey man, not looking to charge your gates, but we’re down to 3 and should probably officially end the truce to be fair to ___. GL!” 

#3 Assume the best and prioritize goodwill. Long term reputation and collegiality are worth more than any given victory.  Accidents happen and people sometimes forget a truce. If you call them on it and they say my bad. Move on with life. If a 3rd player ravages your truce buddy and you clear them out, but then expect to keep all the territory that used to belong to your truce buddy and fortify it don’t expect them to want to truce with you again. If you accidentally step into a gray area, talk about it, be ready to call my bad, and make concessions even if it costs the game. Be cool. Be kind. Be someone you would want to play with.  

#4 “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.” Clear un-antagonized oath breaking -> “Grim Trigger” with no redemption, or in other words:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2WK_eWihdU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UceGF3M56bE

So you agree with me.

itsnotatumor wrote:

If you’re making the truce with the intention to screw the other guy into a “damned if you do, damned if you don't” position you should probably not be surprised if the other person takes issue with you breaking the spirit of the agreement by breaking the letter of it.  

Well said. Not a big fan of truces or non-aggression agreements because of the unforseen consequences that result from the artificial limitations.

If you do enter into one, it is best to include a termination clause whether that is a two turn notice, after a certain number of rounds, or following the elimination of a set number of opponents. Even then the devil is in the details. For example, two full turns for the non-terminating player may be different than two turns for the terminatinog. Termination at the start of round 5 is different than termination at the end of round 5.

FWIW, I spend too much time with contracts. 

I agree. It's all in the phrasing.

Recently, I was in a game where I had an agreement with another player that we would respect certain bonuses the other player held (not a non-aggression pact, just to respect certain bonuses). However, all off a sudden he just attacked me, breaking the truce.

DeVine wrote:

Recently, I was in a game where I had an agreement with another player that we would respect certain bonuses the other player held (not a non-aggression pact, just to respect certain bonuses). However, all off a sudden he just attacked me, breaking the truce.

It happens. I just put that player down as someone whose word is not to be trusted. That does not mean noone can be trusted. Some players here would rather lose then break their word. Not sure how many in each category, I haven't had all that many truces.

I know, I was just remarking on it.

DeVine wrote:

And throw away a turn or more?

Yes. 

He set up the clear and quantifiable parameters that we both agreed to - he should have been a man of his word and adhered to them.  When he didn't get his way, he unilaterally broke the agreement. 

Certainly if I found myself pigeon holed into the situation, I would have been like "wow, you did a great job to work me into a corner.  I didn't see that coming!  Great strategy and good game!"  That's what a good person does.  A bad person breaks the truce unilaterally to their own benefit.

We live and learn.

I'm not sure I agree. I hate losing, so I should let them mess me up because they are only just barely upholding the agreement?

(I apologize for resurrecting an old thread, but I'm playing catch-up on a few months of forum posts)

@Big Skin - I predict that your opponent is referencing one of these two previous conversations from years ago.

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/2321/Rules_and_Standards_for_Truces_and_Alliances

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/4012/A_promise_is_no_longer_sacred_-_breaking_truces

Both conversations were attended by some serious WG high society, so they should not be taken lightly.  And many of those high society players admit that they agree with a pseudo-standard of a 1-turn or 2-turn exit clause for a truce.

As for your particular game: 

I understand your dislike of event #1, because that did seem to be letter of the truce not spirit of the truce.  That alone probably would have goaded me into exiting the truce and retaliating.

However, I disagree that your opponent should have to fall on his sword by letting you hold him into a corner and just cancel his turns without making a move while he waits for the inevitable.  That's just not how people play here.  He was between a rock and hard place, and he did what many (not necessarily all, but definitely many) consider an "acceptable" exit strategy by giving you the 2-turn warning.

As a matter of fact:  If I were in your shoes where I was trucemate with any of the fine people who have responded to this forum post so far, and I'd just pinned them into a corner like you describe....and then they came to me in a private message and said "Wow, good job, I didn't see that coming, I'll just have to accept this fate and fold away my turns until you build up enough cards to take me out"..... I'd be absolutely dumbfounded and likely ask if they had any recent head trauma.

That's just my $0.02, however.

Well said BTF.

BorisTheFrugal wrote:

(I apologize for resurrecting an old thread, but I'm playing catch-up on a few months of forum posts)

@Big Skin - I predict that your opponent is referencing one of these two previous conversations from years ago.

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/2321/Rules_and_Standards_for_Truces_and_Alliances

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/4012/A_promise_is_no_longer_sacred_-_breaking_truces

Both conversations were attended by some serious WG high society, so they should not be taken lightly.  And many of those high society players admit that they agree with a pseudo-standard of a 1-turn or 2-turn exit clause for a truce.

 

As for your particular game: 

I understand your dislike of event #1, because that did seem to be letter of the truce not spirit of the truce.  That alone probably would have goaded me into exiting the truce and retaliating.

However, I disagree that your opponent should have to fall on his sword by letting you hold him into a corner and just cancel his turns without making a move while he waits for the inevitable.  That's just not how people play here.  He was between a rock and hard place, and he did what many (not necessarily all, but definitely many) consider an "acceptable" exit strategy by giving you the 2-turn warning.

As a matter of fact:  If I were in your shoes where I was trucemate with any of the fine people who have responded to this forum post so far, and I'd just pinned them into a corner like you describe....and then they came to me in a private message and said "Wow, good job, I didn't see that coming, I'll just have to accept this fate and fold away my turns until you build up enough cards to take me out"..... I'd be absolutely dumbfounded and likely ask if they had any recent head trauma.

That's just my $0.02, however.

Well said, I couldn't agree more.

I attempt to make alliances and truces in the majority of my games. Often with mutiple players, sometimes simply with whoever replys! Better to save my units to attack someone else than defend a border that is "safe" for now.

Sometimes I will agree to how the agreement will be ended.. a turns warning, or "when there is only us left" kind of deal.

Gets interesting if your ally gets a big lead and you have to consider getting the knives out for a backstab...

All part of the fun imo.. there can only ever be one winner!

Like Aiken I make a lot of truces and I think they've been a huge net benefit for me, especially on maps with chokepoints and I've had more than a few broken against me, but you should also remember that people also make mistakes and forget if a game gets long or if they're playing a lot of games or have a lot going on IRL.

I probably make have the most broken against me in Crystal Caves where I'm pretty specific in my truces. Most of the time when I say "Dude. What happened to our truce?" They're response is usually overwhelmingly apologetic and then do something to make up for it.  I usually have at least 3 of those for every player who gets shady about it. 

Of course, I'm not looking to leverage my truces against anyone, just aiming to get to the final 3. 

I've had a couple folks accuse me of breaking a truce (temporary truce along a certain border for x turns) because I attacked them somewhere else on the map...I agree, the phrasing is very important. That's why I think limited truces are not only best, but the only ones which can be honored.