*** is a cheat who truced with me and then attacked me from behind: http://www.wargear.net/games/view/131086

First, he turned on me, but swore he didn't mean to do it, then when I trusted him again, he attacked me again.  

Here is what he had to say about it: "Yes, I have turned on you, its the only logical thing to do...you are my biggest threat....I thought it prudent to strike first. No hard feelings..."

Of course, that excuse could be used to break any truce. This guy is a cheat.

I think on wargear, the only definition of 'cheating' is having pre-arranged truces before the game starts, or (related) using 2 accounts  by the same person in a game.

That said, it's kind of dastardly.  When I make truces, I either am very vague ("hey green is going to run away with things if we keep attacking each other, how about if we lay off for a while", or very specific ("If you do not attack me at border X for N turns, I will not attack you at border X"), so that I do not have to break my treaties.

All's fair in love and Wargear.

There's a big difference between being a prick and being a cheat.  The former is not illegal as far as the rules are concerned.

Here is what he had to say about it: "Yes, I have turned on you, its the only logical thing to do...you are my biggest threat....I thought it prudent to strike first. No hard feelings..."

Sounds like he knows how to play risk and you don't.

BD

note to self - don't make any deals with BlackDog

note to self - make deals with BlackDog; backstab first

Aha - now we know how BlackDog climbed up the rankings...

note to self : check who is this BlackDog to tell others how to play risk. Does he even know how to play risk ?

More seriously, I don't like what BlackDog said and I want to give my support to generalissimo. I am mad when this happens to me (Ok I promissed myself not to give names). I agree it can't be called cheating, but it should be called backstabbing, and backstabbing is a bad thing. *** is in my enemy list now.

Honestly the thing that makes me the most angry is when I lose a game because another player should have broken a treaty at the appropriate moment and didn't.  If you are going to cry about being stabbed, I recommend a different game, like Solitaire.  Or at the very least abstain from making treaties.

BlackDog wrote:

Honestly the thing that makes me the most angry is when I lose a game because another player should have broken a treaty at the appropriate moment and didn't.  If you are going to cry about being stabbed, I recommend a different game, like Solitaire.  Or at the very least abstain from making treaties.

Agree with BD.  The more I play this game, the more I realize that the making of alliances is fraught with peril ..and on many levels. I haven't entered one in a few years now and my Global Rating sits close to its all-time high as I write this post.

Good players have a keen sense of the balance of the game; a good game is chock full of implied alliances.  Nothing needs to be said.  The line between a pre-planned alliance (cheating), and an "early" alliance is blurry, so I tend to set as enemy or avoid playing with those that are known to use the tactic.  It's not even so much that it borders on cheating.  It is simply a dynamic of the game that I don't appreciate as much.   Hmm.. Maybe we should have super-blind games..

M57 wrote:

BlackDog wrote:

Honestly the thing that makes me the most angry is when I lose a game because another player should have broken a treaty at the appropriate moment and didn't.  If you are going to cry about being stabbed, I recommend a different game, like Solitaire.  Or at the very least abstain from making treaties.

Agree with BD.  The more I play this game, the more I realize that the making of alliances is fraught with peril ..and on many levels.

My thought is that entering into a truce in a game that can only have one winner will lead to someone getting their feelings hurt.  Unless the agreement was that both sides would terminate the game once all other players were eliminated then someone has to break the truce.  If you don't like it, don't make or accept any offers. 

It's like Highlander.  You can make friends but eventually you're going to have to cut your friends head off with a samurai sword.

There can be only one!

I have been involved with quite a lot of alliances or more often truces. And I like them. But when I HAVE TO stop a truce/alliance, I will ALWAYS give a 1 round notice (or more if agreed so when the alliance/truce was made). Otherwise I keep it vague like Ozyman said.

I agree that long term treaties are a bad idea because they must end eventually.  The longer the treaty is in effect the more likely that someone will break it.

Having said that though, when I occasionally make treaties I will offer it for one or two rounds and extend if needed.  I will always give one round notice before ending a treaty and I will NEVER break a treaty, even if it means losing or throwing the game out of balance.

One thing I do to circumvent the issue a bit is to make a statement that notes my intention without requiring a treaty.  For example, I will say to a player "I will not attack you this round, because blue is too powerful".  This implies my requested reciprocation without asking for a treaty. 

I happen to agree with BD and M57. I think nothing wrong with truces or breaking them. I've just found it hurts in the long run, more so here since you play with the same name in every game so it is easy for people to realize who you are and take you out in spite for what happened in the game you played 3 weeks ago. 

ToS with picking your in game names was a little less so. However I love the 'accidental' public posting of a non existant alliance and other head games. If used sparingly along with the vague statements of fact alliances that Squint spoke of. Mostly I play and lose and have fun along the way though.

Speaking of cheating...I'm playing a 3 player RT right now against Demaster45 and Wheatdos and they're ganging up on me.  Normally, that's fair, I'm in a strong position.  But I noticed they both are from the UK and joined the same day, which is a little suspicious.  Then I checked their game lists and those two, along with Delagon (who also joined the same day and is from the UK) play all their games together...very suspicious.  Plus, they play a lot of 2X2 team games with Wheatdos and Demaster45 on one team and Delagon on the other...with the Wheatdos team winning everytime...

Yup, just finished the game.  The didn't attack each other and as soon as I was eliminated, one of the two just kept "ending" his turn without placing troops or attacking (just clicked "end turn", took about 5 seconds) until the other one won.  Pretty sure that's cheating right?

NRC wrote:

Yup, just finished the game.  The didn't attack each other and as soon as I was eliminated, one of the two just kept "ending" his turn without placing troops or attacking (just clicked "end turn", took about 5 seconds) until the other one won.  Pretty sure that's cheating right?

..at the bottom of the game is a link to report cheating.