No Sign-Up Required!
Play Now!
REMI breaks truce
Newest member of my blocked list is Remi.
4 player game. we team up. both have 1 person to eliminate. his opponent deadbeats...my opponent remains active.
I defeat my opponent while he builds up troops.
he then attacks me with out honoring ending truce agreement.
when i said i put him on my blocked list...he said WHY? just because i broke a truce in this game....doesn't mean i will in the next one.
ha...what a tool!
Fuck off.
Your opponent was autoplayed by computer, mine was deadbeating on Great Britain. So we were only 2 players left. And i attacked you only after you destroyed your opponent.
So there were only two players remaining, did you honor the terms of your truce or break that aggreement by attacking early?
I only proposed an alliance at the beginning of the game, without any terms.
But anyway, what i dislike is that way of posting and saying somebody is not trustful.
War is not for gentlemen. I don't give a fuck if somebody breaks truce or not in a game, that's just a game.
Life and Game are different.
"War is not for gentlemen. I don't give a fuck if somebody breaks truce
or not in a game, that's just a game."
Well said!
Some people here seem to be very precious about deals.
How do they think real diplomacy works?
It seems like it would be difficult to break a truce when it is an "alliance with no terms." Logic has it that once the game is down to the final pair the gloves come off.
I agree this is "just a game" but truces and other diplomatic arrangments are a part of it. If your best known tactic becomes lying to other players in the game and doing anything to win? That is a reputation you will have earned and because this is just a game, the attitude of others towards you is often determined by how you play it.
the proposed truce was 3 turn notice to break truce, but most importanly....that I would defeat brown and Remi would defeat gray.
I think it is ok that the truce ends when there are 2 active players left...no problem.
but we agreed that we would each defeat one of the other two players.....so i lived up to my end of the deal and he just built troops to defeat me.
his was probably the easier to defeat because they deadbeated very early.
enjoy your game.
IMHO... if a Truce includes 3 Years notice to end it, then that remains intact regardless of how many players are still in the game.
>IMHO... if a Truce includes 3 Years notice to end it, then that remains intact regardless of how many players are still in the game.
Not that this means much to this thread, but how I usually handle this is to stipulate that once the game is heads up (all other players eliminated), the truce is immediately over. I usually say this to someone I'm truced with too. And I think that makes sense... you have to fight once there's only the 2 of you left, and you will see the heads up situation coming usually more than 3 turns out anyway, so it's not like it's a surprise.
And for clarity, I do mean "eliminated", not "actively playing" like fatshoe said... fats broke a truce with me once on those grounds, there were 3 of us left and the 3rd guy who had played earlier in the game was now deadbeating, and fats attacked me without warning or giving notice saying he felt because we were the only 2 "active" players there was no truce. Which I still think is baloney (sorry fats), what if the guy who had missed the last 10 turns comes back and starts moving again, is the truce instantly on again then? I felt that if fats wanted to fight me because the third player was currently deadbeating, that's fine, but he should have served the proper notice as long as there was still another live capital in the game. What if that guy came back? What if he had set himself to autoplay so the computer was making moves, would that count? Heads up means there are only 2 players with live capitals, all others have lost their capital.
^ I agree that there were still three "active players" even though it becomes a case of semantics.
With no stipulation beyond "3 Years Notice" to end a NAP, it is a truce busting surprise attack when it occurs immediately after the game goes heads up. It is a back stabbing action simply because the terms of the agreement have been met.
Always read the fine print before agreeing to cease hostilities.
<the proposed truce was 3 turn notice to break truce, but most
importanly....that I would defeat brown and Remi would defeat gray.>
Sorry, but i checked all messages in that game and i didn't find any message like you said. May be you've sent it to another player by mistake
With no stipulation beyond "3 Years Notice" to end a NAP, it is a truce busting surprise attack when it occurs immediately after the game goes heads up. It is a back stabbing action simply because the terms of the agreement have been met.
Yeah, I should clarify, I can't disagree with this. And I don't make heads up stipulations very often at a truce early in a game because I doubt it will last to heads up between me and the player I'm truced with, I usually get my arse kicked long before that. But in that case, like say I make a truce with you at the beginning of a ten human epic with only 3 turn notice to cancel, and somehow the truce has persisted and so have we, and the game is obviously going to get heads up... at that point I will contact you and state the truce is officially done as soon as player X is eliminated.
This point will be obvious longer than 3 turns out, so there can be no complaint because I've given at least 3 turns notice. If for some strange reason this is going to occur in less than 3 turns, then I would not do that but would say "it looks like we will be heads up in the next turn or 2, so it's time to serve my 3 turn notice" and honor the agreement.
I say it again :
Sorry, but i checked all messages in that game and i didn't find any message like you said. May be you've sent it to another player by mistake
Easy one to solve. Does Fatshoe have a record of the mail sent? And does he have a record of the acceptance mail? And does he have a record of the "WHY? just because i broke a truce in this game....doesn't mean i will in the next one" comment?
Well, well, well....
I just blocked Remi because he offered a NAP with no set boundries which is like not having a NAP at all. He asks if he can sail his aircraft carrier past AU and I accomidate him. Bad move. He immediately (after getting his carrier by that I ALLOWED) attacked me. Yeah the guy is a tool who can't be trusted.
In this case, YOU are the tool...
And i didn't break any truce, because there weren't any
Remi, you have to live with yourself and apparently you're having no problem doing it. You just won't be doing it in any more of my games.
It's not about a truce. It's about letting you pass your carrier through my terrirtory then immediatly taking that kindness and becoming an ass in return. It's about the lack of integrity and character on your part. Good day.
I live with myself because i think Games and Life are different. Apparently you don't make that difference.
Really, so how do you play the Game of life? Grand theft auto style? lol
@Jay. Can I just confirm that, whatever you think of him, Remi broke no truce with you?
Try to follow eh? I already said it wasn't about a truce. But do you think I would have let his carrier by if I had known he would attack me the next turn? He pm'ed me asking to be allowed to pass. It's about playing the game with integrity with at least a small amount of decency. He obviously can't and THAT is why he has been banned!