Truces - making/breaking
Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2013 6:43 pm
A topic that has come up before, and worth bringing up again - making/breaking truces.
I understand there can be a difference of opinion about the details in a truce, but even when clear (e.g., 1 round truce = each side waits one turn after either gives notice before attacking), they're broken. It just happened to me by Kafka_c in game 13579122. It's down to a three players and one player chats that I'm going to overwhelm them so the third player should attack me - which is what happened. No notice as per the truce agreement Kafka_c and I had made just a handful of turns before, just an attack.
If the expectation is that truces can be broken if: a player gets too far ahead, too much time has elapsed, .... whatever self-serving rationalization is given, then why have them at all?
I'm curious as to what the concensus is on this game about whether breaking truces is just part of the game.
Is Conquer Club a win-at-any-cost format? People who follow what they agree to are suckers? Or is it that people who break truces use that excuse to rationalize their dishonorable actions.
Perhaps we should add another criterion to games - "truces honored" vs. "truces subject to change without notice." At least we would all play under the same rules.
This may be a bit of a rant but it is a sincere attempt to find out what kind of game Conquer Club is supposed to be.
I understand there can be a difference of opinion about the details in a truce, but even when clear (e.g., 1 round truce = each side waits one turn after either gives notice before attacking), they're broken. It just happened to me by Kafka_c in game 13579122. It's down to a three players and one player chats that I'm going to overwhelm them so the third player should attack me - which is what happened. No notice as per the truce agreement Kafka_c and I had made just a handful of turns before, just an attack.
If the expectation is that truces can be broken if: a player gets too far ahead, too much time has elapsed, .... whatever self-serving rationalization is given, then why have them at all?
I'm curious as to what the concensus is on this game about whether breaking truces is just part of the game.
Is Conquer Club a win-at-any-cost format? People who follow what they agree to are suckers? Or is it that people who break truces use that excuse to rationalize their dishonorable actions.
Perhaps we should add another criterion to games - "truces honored" vs. "truces subject to change without notice." At least we would all play under the same rules.
This may be a bit of a rant but it is a sincere attempt to find out what kind of game Conquer Club is supposed to be.