M57 wrote: ........ I just feel that backstabbing is inevitable with alliances.

I should say that most of my alliances have been respected on both sides, even in cases when breaking the terms of the alliance would have produced short term gain (winning the  game faster, ensuring victory, etc).

Another factor to consider in breaking alliances is that you become less trust-worthy to more than just the player you break the truce with, and more of a direct target in subsequent games. Breaking the terms of the truce is not just a one-game decision.

winning the  game faster, ensuring victory

So... neither of these are examples of 'short term gain.'

asm wrote:

winning the  game faster, ensuring victory

So... neither of these are examples of 'short term gain.'

My comparison is 1 game (short term) vs many games (long term), but maybe I don't understand your question?

#1 THEY HAVE NO HONOR! PUNISH THEM!!! NEVER TRUST THEM! BETRAYERS MUST DIE! CRUSH THEM BEFORE ALL OTHERS!

#2 Before you let the "ID" out make sure it was intentional and not an accident.  Also, was there a distinct offer & acceptance of a clearly defined truce? An informal "I'm not going to attack you now" doesn't count. 

#3 Also, betrayal is rarely a long term path to success. From my experience (with one exception) back stabbers rarely make it far up the ranks.  Word gets around (especially if you share your experiences) that they're backstabbers and the person to trust least.  

#4 Honorability (is that a word?) wins more games than it loses. The point of the game is to be the last man standing. People who are known to make and hold truces are more likely to still be around when the numbers drop down to the point when someone can grab the whole thing.  It may not help in the moment, but it's a win in the long run.

#5 Like Ratsy, I prefer 1 turn warning or last two standing.  It'a simple, clear, and give you the option to end the truce honorably.  

Thanks itsnotatumor, I am very clear about the terms of an agreement, almost to an annoying degree, but I like to be clear about things from the beginning. There was one game where the break of the truce could have been a misunderstanding, but in most games the players told me they were breaking the truce, or in one case, he said he hoped I "wouldn't notice" after I accused him of breaking the truce. I agree totally that betrayal will hurt backstabbers in the long term. I often go for last 2 standing (and whoever eliminated 3rd player gets to make first attack on following turn). Ozyman argues that that type of agreement is not fair to other players, but if other players make that agreement (last two standing), aren't you shooting yourself in the foot for not making the same agreement? 

I would agree that pure last two standing truces aren't the greatest idea and when it's down to a clear three way match a bit of a party foul.  Never have a truce that you can't end honorably.  

In a three way stalemate it's not only a bit unfair, but decreases flexibility.  The point of truces are to help get you to end game. Having the same truce limit you into a losing or backstabbing situation is counter productive.  

In a few cases I've even done last three standing truces with people just to avoid having to give 1 turn warning when it got to 3.

Yeah, i've never made a truce when it got down to 3 players, i've always made them towards the beginning of a game, when there are 8 or more players on the board, maybe once or twice when it was down to 4 players (in one case it was clear that the other players were allies).

The question aboit fairness is more general, if I understand Ozyman correctly, that going down to last 2 players with an ally puts everyone else at a disadvantage. But if other people are making alliances (which happens in most multi-player games), i'm not sure it's unfair, but i'm still mulling it over

I find this a fun thread. Like Chele I stick to deals as well. Because it is a game of many games. I know I will be on the "warpath" for a long time. I have come across some folks who are only about the winning and whining if they don't. Adolph comes to mind - very poor sport. That said - this is a game of war (with the luck of the dice) and war is just the extreme end of the political spectrum. Use of diplomacy - which is not "lies and deception" but many times honest dialogue to get to an end --- is a necessary as pet of war. I have had great "losing" games with Babba, Vyro, Nekon, Charles, Berickf, Korrun, M57, Ozyman and other tops at the leader board. I have also beat some of them (likely surprisingly to both them and me!). I note this because - it is "just for fun" that we do this - I think. If I feel I have been "backstabbed" by someone - I can be a vindictive MF. Anyway - cheers to all those comrades who play for camaraderie and fun.

So taking it a step further - If it's a good idea to truce and honorability is valued, do any of you (or what do you think of) share(ing) information in fogged games?

I've done that in one CC game only, but I felt conflicted about it, and haven't done it since

M57 wrote:

So taking it a step further - If it's a good idea to truce and honorability is valued, do any of you (or what do you think of) share(ing) information in fogged games?

Take everything with a grain of salt... Information can be a lie, or it can be the truth, but either way it is said to carry some interest of the person giving it. The person receiving the information should be acutely aware of that fact and should use such information carefully.

That said... Just politics as far as I'm concerned.  Use it how you may and don't be surprised if it comes back to bite you as much as you might think it could help you!

M57 wrote:

So taking it a step further - If it's a good idea to truce and honorability is valued, do any of you (or what do you think of) share(ing) information in fogged games?

IRL I teach people to communicate effectively in order to reach their goals. It's all very positive and big business.

My classes are about the light side of the force - but it only exists hand in hand with the dark side: manipulate people and situations around you to get what you want. 

...You probably don't want the information I'm giving you in a Fogged Game. 

M57 - yep - have passed on a bit of info in fogged games.  So far - it has only been to the advantage of both myself and the person I passed it too.  The reasoning - was that I was in a position to see a third player become massive quickly and if the other player (I passed the info too) did not also act against that player - all would be lost for both of us.  Unfortunately, dice and the weight of numbers, in all cases so far, have acted against a fair warning in fog... (guess I am neither a lighthouse nor a foghorn!).

berickf wrote:

M57 wrote:

So taking it a step further - If it's a good idea to truce and honorability is valued, do any of you (or what do you think of) share(ing) information in fogged games?

Take everything with a grain of salt... Information can be a lie, or it can be the truth, but either way it is said to carry some interest of the person giving it. The person receiving the information should be acutely aware of that fact and should use such information carefully.

That said... Just politics as far as I'm concerned.  Use it how you may and don't be surprised if it comes back to bite you as much as you might think it could help you!

+1