Serbia wrote:If you can justify it, then by definition, it's justifiable. If breaking it hands you the win, then it's obviously justifiable.
Just understand that your opponent may not see it the same way. Entering a truce can be a good strategy, but be warned, it can also create enemies who may accuse you of cheap tactics at best, cheating at worst. But that's the risk when you enter into a truce.
oss spy wrote:I warned a user that if they continued expansion into another bonus that I would be forced to break our truce. He attacked regardless, and so I broke one of his stacks. This is justifiable, is it not?
Viceroy63 wrote:oss spy wrote:I warned a user that if they continued expansion into another bonus that I would be forced to break our truce. He attacked regardless, and so I broke one of his stacks. This is justifiable, is it not?
Like IcePack said, "it's justifiable if I win." But the real question here is why would you use a truce to limit the options or game play of another player?
Is "Truce" then the right word or did you guys make an agreement on that before hand?
As I see it a truce is a cease of hostilities between you and another player. Did he attack you first? In that case then he broke the truce. But if it sounds like it reads then you wanted to manipulate that player, and the game using a truce.
Brock wrote:This would be funny were it not so sad! 1) we had an alliance so you were under no immediate threat! 2) I was expanding in the OPPOSITE direction of your Territory! 3) If it had slipped your notice both Blue and Green had amassed very large armies on the border of said Territory and would never have allowed me ownership! 4) I was being facetious when I PUBLICLY announced I would suicide on you because your "high handed" attitude was frankly abrasive! 5)Please don't claim anyone in your position would have acted in the same underhand fashion that you did because that insults a vast amount of honourable players that I have had the privilege of playing against in this excellent game!
Just accept that you cheated, live with it and move on!
Brock wrote:If it makes you happy you didnt: "cheat", you just made an alliance you had no intention of keeping, , you feel no remorse that your word has absolutely no value, honour is an alien term to you. And yet, you started this thread to justify your underhand play! You cant have it both ways accept your nature and live with it!
Brock wrote:(but attacked me without the agreed upon 1 turn notice thus giving yourself a massive advantage!)
(Had the temerity to not follow your demands How dare I!)
(Your moral outrage regarding this is mildly amusing as the statement was made tongue in cheek inthe face of your incredible arrogance!)
(My record stands for itself, so does yours.)
(actually it was a response to your own!)
(the consequence of my response to your original threat was that it gave you an excuse to justify cheating.)
Please continue to self flaggelate in this post for the redemption you evidently seek. This is my last word on the matter as frankly its yesterday's news! Learn to live with yourself Mon Ami! Thank God I dont have to
oss spy wrote:Exactly. I think I'm perfectly justified in saying that he broke his end of the deal first when he threatened suicide.