Funkyterrance wrote:What usually happens to me if the truce is broken is my opponent pleads ignorance which sometimes is more infuriating than a flat out betrayal. They will say something to the effect of "oh, I didn't know you meant that border", etc.. Some miscommunication is usually blamed when to me the grounds of the truce are pretty plain since I am careful to set them to be that way. I just take it as an insult to my intelligence(insert joke here).
Ultimately I have pretty much given up on declaring truces and no longer rely on them to strengthen my game. I'm sick of worrying whether or not they are going to be broken so I just don't form them anymore. I'm not sure how it used to be but I've had pretty much the same experiences regarding truces as I did when I first started playing two years ago.
By the way, isn't Krusher a former conquerer? If so, why no medal?
krusher wrote:Regarding the plead of ignorance I had that happen to me quite often. I Adapted by being as specific as possible. What commonly happened was I'd ask for a 2 round notice before breaking the truce on (specific border) people would abuse this and count the round that they announced their wish to disolve the truce i.e end of round 13 they'd finish their turn and announce their wish to break truce, on round 15 they'd immidietly attack, in my mind a 2 round notice would mean they announce on 13 and attack on 16. So 14 and 15 would be the 2 rounds, I don't count the round that they announce because most of the time you have already played your turn and can't do nothing about it and typically a 1 round notice is not enough to prepare your defenses in a border that is defenseless.
krusher wrote:I am a firm believer in truces, its a strategy game after all and I think diplomacy is as important as the attack button. Not to mention it can make the game fun.
krusher wrote:Back in the day truces were different, the terms were more vague and generally people were more hesitant to attack unless they could eliminate you or hold what they took from you. We were all regulars and knew each other so there was a higher standard. Maps have become more complex harder for 1 man to control and the people more random and "liberal" on their words and actions which all adds up to the decay of the trust that is needed for a truce to work.
krusher wrote:I was a former conqueror but sadly these hypocrits refuse to award me the medal since I was busted fo SD.
Funkyterrance wrote:krusher wrote:krusher wrote:I was a former conqueror but sadly these hypocrits refuse to award me the medal since I was busted fo SD.
Well, live and learn eh? If you became conqueror again would you get the medal this time around(assuming you didn't use SD)? If so, it's never too late.
krusher wrote:Yeah I would BUT becoming conqueror is very stressful, virtually impossible if you don't use some sort of cheap tactic or questionable bending of the rules to your advantage. When you get to a certain rank (above the medium average) theres no way to maintain it or go any further unless you win win win... and with a high rank you become a magnet for players who just want to suicide on you for the hell of it. It than becomes in your best interest to avoid larger public games where random players are in, which leaves you with singles and team games. Even though you might win 3 or maybe 4 games in a row theres always those times that you just can't get any luck with your dice so you lose one game and your back to where you started... you lose another game and you have to win 4 more to regain those points you lost. There is much stress to maintain your rank which is why so many ex-conquerors have been busted. I really don't have any ambitions to become conqueror or obtain a high rank, I just want to play and most importantly role play which is why I consider diplomacy so crucial. As a conqueror/high ranking player you just think about odds, numbers, and points its the only way to stay on top, which to me is not appealing.