AndyDufresne wrote:Homo Erectus wrote:Bumping a bit of an old thread I know, but what do people think of breaking a truce to stop the player meeting the victory conditions? By breaking I mean actually breaking and not something like giving prior warning, eg attacking immediately even though there's an agreed set turn notice for example
For me personally, the goal of any game is to end up the victor. If you (as in the general collective you) aren't playing to end up as the victor, and give a game away because you signed a deal that turned out to give more benefit to an opponent of yours, it is almost like not like giving it your all, which I would want of all my opponents!
However, there are some others out there I think that play a more meta-game, and see their diplomacy or win/loss in any game as only a part of their whole philosophy of gaming. Thus, honoring a truce or diplomatic agreement in their eyes might be acceptable loss in the grand scheme of their games.
This is especially true for players that play a lot of large freestyle games on difficult maps against each other. The group of players that play 8 player freestyle on Third Crusade for example is very limited. Not more than like 20 are regulars. They play one another so often that breaking a truce to win the game is frowned upon. It's not considered smart. Someone who does that will be at a disadvantage from the start in the other games he'll play against them. A large freestyle game on Third Crusade is pure diplomatic warfare.