Forum

by **eternal242** on Fri Feb 08, 2013 5:13 am

You are in a truce arrangement with a player, circumstances change and you find yourself now having to break the truce and being able to win the game. I wasn't brought up like that. We were taught to learn from out mistakes. Thats how we get better at it.

What do you think? Your Word vs. the Win.

by **perchorin** on Fri Feb 08, 2013 5:16 am

eternal242 wrote:You are in a truce arrangement with a player, circumstances change and you find yourself now having to break the truce and being able to win the game. I wasn't brought up like that. We were taught to learn from out mistakes. Thats how we get better at it.

What do you think? Your Word vs. the Win.

To me there are two different cases possible here. If you "have a chance" to win the game by breaking your truce then don't break it. If the win is a certainty by breaking the truce I think you'd be a fool not to take the win. Keeping a truce in the face of certain victory is unreasonable for an opponent to expect, and it was possibly his poor play that enabled that situation anyway.

I generally avoid making truces altogether to be honest. I'd say it only ever comes up in 1-2% of my games.

by **SirSebstar** on Fri Feb 08, 2013 8:23 am

I would honor my word, but i have learned to make more specific alliances(like condition based). if i can go for the win, i should go for it. so it could be a dilemma, but i dont really make alliances anymore, unless they are unspoken common sense to take down #1 instead fo fighting with #3

by **Just_essence** on Sat Feb 09, 2013 10:37 am

Funny. I always assumed it was completely okay if you had victory in your hands. It's what I've always did in truces if I was about to win and what the other person does if they would win, so I assumed it was implied in truces that "If I'm about to win, all truces are off".

by **SirSebstar** on Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:29 am

Just_essence wrote:Funny. I always assumed it was completely okay if you had victory in your hands. It's what I've always did in truces if I was about to win and what the other person does if they would win, so I assumed it was implied in truces that "If I'm about to win, all truces are off".

wise words, but not everybody sees things as you do.

by **agentcom** on Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:54 pm

I think a certain win is a legitimate reason to break a truce. Truces don't go that far. But by certain win, I mean the game will be over by breaking it. Very low (like .1% chance) that you will lose.

by **DoomYoshi** on Thu Feb 14, 2013 9:06 pm

agentcom wrote:I think a certain win is a legitimate reason to break a truce. Truces don't go that far. But by certain win, I mean the game will be over by breaking it. Very low (like .1% chance) that you will lose.

I would say anything less than 40% chance of failure is fair game.

by **Razorvich** on Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:57 am

I don't get into many truces, but when I do, i make it real clear to what turn the truce ends.

That way all is good until that turn round and then its game on again.

The one thing that really bugs me is open ended truces, someone has to beak it in the end, and for the others in the game it is like playing against a team.

by **donelladan** on Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:59 am

You should have warn your opponent 1 or 2 turns before, it is usually quite obvious you will be able to win in the next 2 turn if nothing change. So you should ALWAYS give a warning at least 1 turn before.
I do a lot of truce, and I will never break any of them. You will finish with a bad ratings and probably be foed if you do that against me.

I give you an example. I was playing a trench, 3-player on Europe 1914. Player A almost had half the board, so I made a 1 turn warning truce with player B to prevent him winnig. Game wasnt equal, yet player B break the truce and take one capital for me, game being trench and chained I couldnt prevent him winning by objectives next turn.
I find this kind of backstabbing being totally poor play. You'd tell me he won and its the only things that matter? Please never join my game

It's a win by deception and lying, nothing to do with strategy for me.

There is possible exception of course. In any case in escalating for example, but I almost never do truce in escalating game.
But I'd say it like that, if you will win anyway, then wait one turn to give the warning. If you win only because you broke the truce, then it's poor play.
In smthg like 90% of the game I played with a truce , breaking the truce withouth warning would give a determining advantage making the win very likely for the one breaking it, me or my opponent. So if I had followed people who say " if you can win by breaking the truce it would be stupid not do it" I would have break almost all the truce I ever made. Thats wrong. Dont do truce if you plan to break them.

by **Just_essence** on Fri Feb 15, 2013 10:51 am

donelladan wrote:It's a win by deception and lying, nothing to do with strategy for me.

"All warfare is based on deception."
-The Art of War, Sun Tzu

by **puppydog85** on Fri Feb 15, 2013 2:49 pm

Just_essence wrote:
donelladan wrote:It's a win by deception and lying, nothing to do with strategy for me.

"All warfare is based on deception."
-The Art of War, Sun Tzu

Wrong book, this is the one to go with:

“The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present.”

by **Just_essence** on Fri Feb 15, 2013 3:10 pm

Your quote goes along with his entire post, I was simply commenting his statement that he does not believe that deception is a part of strategy (for him).