A Question...

[Robinette]

Tough one Mr.C...

I would post a message right now asking him to reply, otherwise you will have to assume there is no truce...
Also post a pm his way... then wait till you have only 42 minutes left, NO MORE and NO LESS, this is the accepted 42nd parallel cease fire zone established by the UN in 1952, so once you've crossed over that 42 mark, then you can nuke away... but best to eliminate him totally, lest he return to play his turn and discovers such villainous treachery...

so my answer... sweep the board if you can, otherwise, sit tight.

[Mr Changsha]

Thanks for your replies everyone.

I would suppose partly this is a moral issue, but it is much more a question of strategy. If I make the move, there is the chance the opposition will take this as an opportunity to 'suicide all over me'. This has happened to me before when I have made moves that are possibly questionable. As an example of this, I once played a no cards 5 man type speed game where I attacked my neighbour in europe (from africa) and not only did I break, but also 'left some troops in'. This annoyed the chap so much that he suicided continuously into me forcing us both to lose the game.

If I break this chap who has missed his turn then both of my main rivals will be broken. There is then a good chance I can win, but if my opposition decides to throw his own game 'in retribution' then I might well lose.

So, I take the view that if you don't declare in public chat that you accept a deal then there is no deal. None at all. But I was interested to see your collective opinions on this to allow me to judge to what extent my view on this is the norm, and therefore the chances of the opposition coming over all suicidal.

Of course, if I am able to win the game then whether this chap's feelings have been hurt is to a great extent irrelevent to me. I just want to win the game. But I don't want to put myself into a position where the game is still in balance and NOW I have a chap determined to throw himself down in retribution. That is an issue for me to consider (is the position strong enough to justify the risk of turning a player suicidal) and will attack on that basis.

[BigBallinStalin]

just think about if you were in his position Changsha.

His 5 month old puppy just died, he's having a tough time at work and his girlfriend recently broke up with him. He cried himself to sleep last Saturday, wishing he could go back and do it all over. The next time he logs in on CC and finds out some anonymous player he put all of his trust and hope into backstabbed him just for the sake of a few imaginary and arbitrary points.

He is defeated both in mind and soul.

And that is all the more reason to attack.

Kick 'em when they're down.

[rhp 1]

just think about if you were in his position Changsha.

His 5 month old puppy just died, he's having a tough time at work and his girlfriend recently broke up with him. He cried himself to sleep last Saturday, wishing he could go back and do it all over. The next time he logs in on CC and finds out some anonymous player he put all of his trust and hope into backstabbed him just for the sake of a few imaginary and arbitrary points.

He is defeated both in mind and soul.

I agree with nothing but the part about potentially backstabbing for the sake of a few imaginary and arbitrary points.

and actually... points on CC are neither imaginary nor arbitrary... they are accurate, pointless, meaningless, and unimportant, but neither of your descriptions....

Meh, tbh I didn't read into his post that much because I now automatically translate aog's posts into english and I knew what he meant so I quoted it.

I would like to know how missing a turn is breaking a truce? Technically he did no such thing and it could have been beyond his control right? The only way he could break the truce would be to attack Mr. Changa.

you need to read a little more closely... I never said missing a turn was breaking a truce... 1st, no truce was agreed upon.... 2nd if you make a truce with someone and then proceed to miss a turn, that could have as big of a negative effect as breaking a truce... those 2 points are why I said that I thought it was cool to roll on through...

[rhp 1]

Thanks for your replies everyone.

I would suppose partly this is a moral issue, but it is much more a question of strategy. If I make the move, there is the chance the opposition will take this as an opportunity to 'suicide all over me'. This has happened to me before when I have made moves that are possibly questionable. As an example of this, I once played a no cards 5 man type speed game where I attacked my neighbour in europe (from africa) and not only did I break, but also 'left some troops in'. This annoyed the chap so much that he suicided continuously into me forcing us both to lose the game.

If I break this chap who has missed his turn then both of my main rivals will be broken. There is then a good chance I can win, but if my opposition decides to throw his own game 'in retribution' then I might well lose.

So, I take the view that if you don't declare in public chat that you accept a deal then there is no deal. None at all. But I was interested to see your collective opinions on this to allow me to judge to what extent my view on this is the norm, and therefore the chances of the opposition coming over all suicidal.

Of course, if I am able to win the game then whether this chap's feelings have been hurt is to a great extent irrelevent to me. I just want to win the game. But I don't want to put myself into a position where the game is still in balance and NOW I have a chap determined to throw himself down in retribution. That is an issue for me to consider (is the position strong enough to justify the risk of turning a player suicidal) and will attack on that basis.

wow... you can only think of 1 example of someone vindictively suiciding into you? hahahahahahahahaha

[Funkyterrance]

Thanks for your replies everyone.

I would suppose partly this is a moral issue, but it is much more a question of strategy. If I make the move, there is the chance the opposition will take this as an opportunity to 'suicide all over me'. This has happened to me before when I have made moves that are possibly questionable. As an example of this, I once played a no cards 5 man type speed game where I attacked my neighbour in europe (from africa) and not only did I break, but also 'left some troops in'. This annoyed the chap so much that he suicided continuously into me forcing us both to lose the game.

If I break this chap who has missed his turn then both of my main rivals will be broken. There is then a good chance I can win, but if my opposition decides to throw his own game 'in retribution' then I might well lose.

So, I take the view that if you don't declare in public chat that you accept a deal then there is no deal. None at all. But I was interested to see your collective opinions on this to allow me to judge to what extent my view on this is the norm, and therefore the chances of the opposition coming over all suicidal.

Of course, if I am able to win the game then whether this chap's feelings have been hurt is to a great extent irrelevent to me. I just want to win the game. But I don't want to put myself into a position where the game is still in balance and NOW I have a chap determined to throw himself down in retribution. That is an issue for me to consider (is the position strong enough to justify the risk of turning a player suicidal) and will attack on that basis.

Ok, all this being considered I would go back to my point about the skill level of your opponent(s). If you are playing against a group of cooks (no offense intended here guys), in my experience they will have a greater tendency to suicide on your ass while a more advanced player may tend to bide his/her time. This is not to say a higher ranked player will not suicide on you, just pray they don't know you personally, Mr.C.
The lust for revenge should not be taken lightly.