Conquer Club

This is not really a suggestion to be put into the game. I've just noticed that some people take offense to truces or other such temporary diplomatic agreements being made in standard games (in other words, those where it's everyone VS everyone else.)

Now personally I find that these truces are no big deal and that they in fact make the game funner, more complex and more realistic. However I have noticed that often they are quickly done, with a few hastily written PMs or even a few chat lines in game. This often causes unrest when the truce must inevitably be ended because some parts of the deal may have been unclear. So I've thought up an idea.

The players involved in the Truce would sign a treaty, this would be placed in the forums (not sure exactly where yet.) The treaty would explain in great detail all that is intended by each party. How long the truce will last. Exceptions and stuff like how to proceed when the truce is to be ended.


Here is an example of a good treaty that could used in a game.

Treaty: (type of treaty)
Temporary Truce

Duration:
From round 15 to round 22
Players Involved:
Player 1 & Player 2

Location
Everywhere on the map
Exceptions
The crossing of Guineas and North East Brazil is still open for combat

Minimum required alert time to end the treaty prematurely
Two turns warning
Penalty for violating the Treaty
Negative reputation from all other players in the game

Signatures

Witnesses
Player 3, Player 4, Player 5

Instead of Player 1,2,3... you would have the names of course. And I want to specify, only those who want to would do this. I just find it would help avoid confusion so people don't get angry and start giving each other bad reps because the terms of the truce where unclear.



EDIT:... oops, forgot to add the poll, give me a minute.

EDIT 2: OK polls up.

Here we could have a treaty in which player 3 has become so powerful all other players decide to unite against him until he's been eliminated from the game (maybe he was acting like an arrogent jerk or something to merit this, I don't know.)


Treaty: (type of treaty)
Mutual Defense Pact

Duration:
Until Player 3 has been eliminated
Players Involved:
Player 1, Player 2 and Player 4

Location
Everywhere on the map
Exceptions
none

Minimum required alert time to end the treaty prematurely
Four turns warning
Penalty for violating the Treaty
Negative reputation from the other members of the contract

Signatures
Player 4

The only players who would be bothered to do this are the type of players who already make sure that the terms of a treaty are clear. So I don't see the point really.

OK I agree I went maybe overboard on the detail of it all, but I do think that it could help people to at least write down the terms in a public place (ideally the forum). Because I've been in and seen many times when the truce ended abruptly, this player saying he gave a warning, this one saying he got it late. Or someone who attacks despite the truce saying they agreed this was an exception, the other player saying the exception was elsewhere.

To be honest I'm just about to end a game where I truced with red and now he's threatening me with a bad reputation because I only gave him 3 turns warning to end the truce. And then I though, "This should be able to be avoided!" so I thought this up. Where we can go back and point out, "Here! we agreed the alert time was 4 turns! (or 2 in my case...)"

That way even if one would get a neg. feedback he can just put the link to where the treaty is on the forum as the response saying "Look here, we agreed, he's just talking Sh*t because he's a sore loser."

meh i dont think its necesary if you are making a truce...you shouldnt be stupid enuf to leave a gap. if someone breaks it then neg and ignore

lord voldemort wrote:meh i dont think its necesary if you are making a truce...you shouldnt be stupid enuf to leave a gap. if someone breaks it then neg and ignore

But I have this nasty tendancy to try and work out my problems with others... *Sigh*

Anyway, I will probably start doing this for my truces. If 99% of the rest of the gaming community don't use it I might feel a little odd doing it alone but it's OK, I can live with it. I mostly wanted to post this to show others my suggestion in the event they might like to use it.

So... copy me as much as you like on this! I was hoping if it became popular that they would make a small side section to hold the treaties but if not then, whatever.

yes this is a great idea - ive seen on sum games there are problems with truces and alliances

It wouldn't help. People who want to clarify their truce will clarify. People who don't clarify will learn to sooner or later when somebody (probably me ) takes advantage of their poor foresight.

I think it could work, you formatted it well and seems clear… but what are the odds on playing a game with honorable opponents? Also no matter how exact you are with the details, some will break that treaty the first chance they get to ensure victory. And the punishment doesn't seem to be that big a deal.
In free for all games...you don't have that much control over who joins unless you already ignored them...so if someone with a lot of BAD feedback is playing then you know not to employ this option.....
And If no one has bad feedback Someone in the game may play the role of an honorable Treaty - Temp Alliance - Whatever... go along with it until that oportune moment and Break the treaty. I am sure some players may risk a little bad feedbcak for a decisive win.

ie. Red Player (100-0) joins in a treaty ... Breaks it winning the game gets 90 points.... and now has (100-5)....

The Biggest Problem is there is no REAL Punishment when breaking in Game Treaties or Contracts (Whatever).... Maybe if there was Some Point Penalty you would see more use out of this.

I like the idea of point penalties, but then not everyone cares about points or rankings.

I do like the idea of treaties being signed. I ran into an obsessive compulsive player who stabbed me in the back in the game, broke our treaty, left me positive feedback, and then after I left negative he kept leaving retaliatory negative feedback until the mod finally allowed it.

He claimed that the terms were unclear and that I broke it. I thought they were pretty clear. But if there was somewhere to point to a signed treaty, then a mod could make sure a player like that could not leave me negative feedback.

Hi guys,me again. This thing never took off but I am in a game where I'd like an official treaty, so this is going to be the real deal and not just an example.
(and yes, I realize I'm getting my ass handed to me in the game right now. I'm hoping this will help me to bounce back).

Game: 2425668

Type of Treaty:
Temporary Non-Aggression Pact
Duration:
under debate
Players Involved:
Edward and mlacosse
Location:
Europe's Eastern border

Minimum required alert time to end the treaty prematurely:
under debate
Penalty for violating the Treaty:
Negative reputation from the other member in the contract
Signatures:
Pending...

I dislike it. I think it's just too much hassle. Diplomacy makes the game so much more fun, and the people who don't like it like to have a game that's mostly luck in my opinion. My stance on treaties is that anything goes, and if you get stabbed in the back that sucks for you. I would like an idea, though, where players could agree on diplomacy rules at the beginning of a game and post them in the forum so there would be no arguements.

Can't see myself using this, to much of a hassle tbh. And it's not that hard to be clear and concise in the chat if you want to be.

Don't like the penalty part either, especially not the one you proposed (why should I be required to leave a neg to someone if I have no issue with his actions???).

Hasboro's own RISK computer game has a system of treaties. You select a pre-made treaty and the person that you would like to join with. That person recieves a PM, and accepts, or declines. The system isn't complicated at all.

examples are
*will not attack each other for 1 turn
*will not attack each others continents
*will not attack except for a card
*will not attack each other unless all others are defeated

But your system is much more precise than theirs.

I like the idea. But I too have my doubts as to whether only noobs would use the system.