I can't believe the number of players i have interacted during the past week who have broken their word once they think the pre-arranged truce is no longer to their benefit. Many players on this site have no respect for a promise, and believe in the machiavellan concept that the end justifies the means, and you win the game at all costs.

I have a black list of people I won't truce with again that is growing by the day, but more than anything, it makes me sad for the world we live in where a promise is no longer sacred, and lack of trust is the norm.

Interesting take.

This is not a game that lends itself to much deal-making in general, and the particular community at this site seems FAR from a consensus as to whether even making a truce in the first place is a sporting way to play. So I don't blame anyone for not knowing quite how to behave.

Personally I'll talk to anyone in any game about anything (short of private messaging in Chief Joseph's no-message games). And I never lie outright. But outside of that... it's far from clear what's appropriate.

You seem quite secure in your position, Chele Nica - maybe you can expand a little bit? Give an example of someone who to your view has violated sporting play and explain how and why? I am extremely interested in this.

I try to be good about it if I have made a deal. There is no point in creating pact if you're going to break it.  

But I also am not above renegotiating the deal in the middle...  then again, actual discussed deals only happen fairly infrequently. 

More often than not, the truce is not formal.  Myself and the other player will simply do the "sensible thing" and sometimes that's to not attack each other.  This is a nice way to have peace, because when the peace is broken it generally follows the same condition that created it... it makes sense. 

I strictly adhere to any deals I make.  I also don't make them very often & when I do I make sure to have very clear conditions for what the deal entails and when it ends.  I actually don't think I've ever had someone betray me on a deal either.

I don't make deals because I don't trust myself. 

Chele, do you really think that world domination (virtual or in RL) can be achieved without deception?

I treat this as a game and little more - I would be playing Diplomacy if I wanted the promises, deceit  and lies experience.

That said, if you search some of the threads in these forums, you can find all kinds of positions on the subject, include ideas regarding having enforceable rules when deals are struck. 

asm: i've had a couple games recently where I agreed with the other player that we wouldn't attack each other's bouses till we were the last two players, if it came to that. In one case the person broke the agreement because eliminating me first would speed up the game and he could place in the top ten in the monthly rankings (this is my assumption, but he did say it was easier to get rid of me first). In the second case, the player told me before I deployed a huge amount of troops that I was getting too strong, and he would have to attack me. I do not break my truces, so I didn't attack him on my turn, but will do so now that he has inflitrated my bonus. In the 3rd case, I was a 3rd party observer, but the eventual winner broke the truce with the 2nd place player, claiming that everyone else was eliminated, when in fact there was still another player on the board.  

I do deals often, and maybe it's a cultural thing, but in Nicaragua it was the norm to do deal-making at any risk game (back in 1980s), it was never a question of weather it was appropriate or not. 

I do have informal peace as well at times, and it works some of the time.

Ozyman: I wonder if you're more respected than I am, since I am pretty new here, or maybe you're just more sensible about who you make deals with than I am.

M57: I know, I'm a radical spiritual-oriented leftist playing a game of world domination, it just doesn't work out for me sometimes. I'm not sure if enforceable rules are the solution, I think that would be way too complicated and would take away from the game, I'm just griping about the situation.  

I have decided to stay away from multi-person solar games, they don't work for me very well, and contribute to people breaking their promises. I also decided to chill out and not get so worked up about this, I'll learn as I go who I can trust and who I can't.

Ironically (or maybe not), I have to thank the last person who broke a truce for helping me keep things in perspective, and remembering it's all a game

Chele Nica wrote:

M57: I know, I'm a radical spiritual-oriented leftist playing a game of world domination, it just doesn't work out for me sometimes. 

Classic line here -

Chele Nica wrote:

Ozyman: I wonder if you're more respected than I am, since I am pretty new here, or maybe you're just more sensible about who you make deals with than I am.

IMO, it has more to do with the type of deals you make "we wouldn't attack each other's bonuses till we were the last two players".  Stuff like that is (again IMO), just begging to be broken, and I personally wouldn't make that sort of deal.  1st because I think it's too cumbersome & limiting in what I can do, and 2nd because I think that sort of deal is unfair to the rest of the board.

I usually make much more limited deals (not general alliances).  For example:

Player X is is in the lead, and going to win very soon if we don't do something.  Let's both promise to attack her with Y units every turn for the next N turns.

Let's have a truce along the border between X & Y continents.  We can still attack each other in other places, but will not attack each other there until we are down to N players or less.

If you move all of your units out of territory X, I will attack whoever you want with all of my units in territory Y.

Those are the types of deals I try to make.  Very specific, usually short term, and with an end state that is not "in X turns" or "give X turns notice".

Thanks Ozyman, this is helpful. What is N players or less for you? In other words, how few players do you go down till, and how do you know for certain that there's that many players left, without having to constantly monitor the game? Those of us on standard membership cannot see the luck stats graph which shows when a player has been eliminated

Amidon37 wrote:

Chele Nica wrote:

M57: I know, I'm a radical spiritual-oriented leftist playing a game of world domination, it just doesn't work out for me sometimes. 

Classic line here -

 

 

:-)

Chele Nica wrote:

Thanks Ozyman, this is helpful. What is N players or less for you? In other words, how few players do you go down till, and how do you know for certain that there's that many players left, without having to constantly monitor the game? Those of us on standard membership cannot see the luck stats graph which shows when a player has been eliminated

The N depends on the game.  Last time this happened, I think it was a 10 player game & I think we made it 4 or 5.  I can't remember for sure.    I guess that sort of condition really only works in light or no fog games.  In a foggy game I might instead base it on something else.  Maybe card value? Or maybe just stick to a very limited area for the truce or go with a completely different sort of deal.  In foggy games I'm less likely to have a truce and more likely to just freely give out information.  For example in a recent game it was down to 3 of us & I could tell that one player had about 2/3rds of the board, but  didn't think the other player could see that, so I told them.  In other case, I failed to get an elimination that I was trying for & I told another weak player how to get that elimination to try and keep the strongest player from getting it.

I'm a fan of the:

peace on x border - one full turns' worth of warning to end the peace. 

Then you're not really locked in, both players know that sometime that border won't be safe, and you have a turn to try to defend yourself.

Ratsy: if you give the warning of attack, do you get to make the attack on your following turn? (Assuming you give iy on your turn)

Ozyman wrote:

Chele Nica wrote:

Thanks Ozyman, this is helpful. What is N players or less for you? In other words, how few players do you go down till, and how do you know for certain that there's that many players left, without having to constantly monitor the game? Those of us on standard membership cannot see the luck stats graph which shows when a player has been eliminated

The N depends on the game.  Last time this happened, I think it was a 10 player game & I think we made it 4 or 5.  I can't remember for sure.    I guess that sort of condition really only works in light or no fog games.  In a foggy game I might instead base it on something else.  Maybe card value? Or maybe just stick to a very limited area for the truce or go with a completely different sort of deal.  In foggy games I'm less likely to have a truce and more likely to just freely give out information.  For example in a recent game it was down to 3 of us & I could tell that one player had about 2/3rds of the board, but  didn't think the other player could see that, so I told them.  In other case, I failed to get an elimination that I was trying for & I told another weak player how to get that elimination to try and keep the strongest player from getting it.

Thanks Ozyman for expanding...

Chele Nica wrote:

Ratsy: if you give the warning of attack, do you get to make the attack on your following turn? (Assuming you give iy on your turn)

I Figure there has to be a chance for each player in the truce to make a move before It's all out attacking. 

So If I announced it on my turn: "I'm done, be ready, this peace is over"

I would end my turn, expect the other player to not attack me for their turn, and then that I would be attacking them on my following turn. 

Make sense?

I make promises, I keep them. 

I usually only enter a written truce when I am clearly going to lose without it. 

When I make a pact, it tends to include a warning to the other player: if you build up armies on our peaceful borders, I will attack them - not taking the territory, just bringing down the number. If you break our pact without warning, I will spend the rest of the game assuring you do not win.  Even if it makes me not win. 

Some players still break such truces, but usually they do it with a one-turn elimination. Usually I can see that coming, and if they have been a good partner I might even say hey dude, I am almost dead, and if you take me out you might win, so do it. 

BTdubs wrote:

I make promises, I keep them. 

I usually only enter a written truce when I am clearly going to lose without it. 

When I make a pact, it tends to include a warning to the other player: if you build up armies on our peaceful borders, I will attack them - not taking the territory, just bringing down the number. If you break our pact without warning, I will spend the rest of the game assuring you do not win.  Even if it makes me not win. 

Some players still break such truces, but usually they do it with a one-turn elimination. Usually I can see that coming, and if they have been a good partner I might even say hey dude, I am almost dead, and if you take me out you might win, so do it. 

Well that's very altruistic of you.  But consider the motivations of players (and I'll bet there are a number of honest players like these) who are are also watching their stats. This may very cell inject some conflict of interest into their decision making. Cut to the chase, these players are concerned about WHO they lose to. Generally speaking, it is better to lose to a better player.

Let's take the example of a game where the best player is ahead and very likely to win (ahem.. that will be a disproportionally large amount of them), and you ally with some other player or players to stop them from winning.  The reality of the situation is that you would prefer to win, but your second preference is for the better player to win, and not your allies.  There are in fact compelling arguments to break truces, or do some behind the scenes maneuvering to ensure that things do not go their way should the leader be weakened.  The calculus regarding the motivations of the differently rated players creates further grey area to consider.  How should player at the bottom end of the stats consider or weigh similar options?

I think you have this a little mixed up. If you want the current, high-ranked leader to win, that's easy. Don't make an ally, just go ahead and lose. Losing is easy!  I do it at leas 60% of the time! 

I think you are saying, what if your ally is a higher rank than you, sees you are about to win, and intentionally provokes you. 

To which I would reply: you should have allied with me instead! 

And more seriously, if you are worried about this, then you could take a couple approaches, depending on the relative power of the players involved and the arrangement of the board. 

You could:

1) help your ally grow stronger by defending their bonus, or making it easier for them to gain one. Even offer to let them take one of yours. Make them believe they still have a shot at winning once it's down to you and them. 

2) anticipate that they are about to switch sides, and reserve some strength for dealing with that. 

3) talk to your ally. "Hey dude, great job. What do you think about next move?" If it seems inevitable that they will betray you, you could say, "hey, it looks like we are close to the end, so I think we should set aside the alliance now. Attack me next turn if you want." 

4) let your revenge take a different form. Like, actually win the game, rather than just going nuts. Or determine that in future games, you will eliminate that player first. 

5) You could just go ahead and crush your worthless ally like a bug, and accept that this will have consequences within this and all future games with that player. 

I tend to avoid number 5, but if I get the feeling my ally is operating with ulterior motives like M57 implies, I just might do it.

BT - don't get me wrong - I don't "worry about it", and I don't have "ulterior motives."

I don't make alliances.  I was just pointing out that for a thinking player who does use alliances, it would be foolish not to consider such things, which makes the calculus of making alliances all the trickier with added grey area and fuzzy lines.

While I do care who I lose to, I usually make a point of hitting the better players just a bit harder at the outset to give myself a better chance.  It's possible that my rankings could be just a little higher if I participated in alliances, but I'm not sure, and I don't like making enemies. I just feel that backstabbing is inevitable with alliances.