Conquer Club

To decide to have an eternal, never ending truce until you are both down to just each other? BLUE and TEAL held a truce the entire game. When it was down to just me, and them, they STILL held it up and only attacked me, until I was clearly weakest. Then, they continued to attack me til I was finished. I didn't say a word of insult at either of them, I did not say anything to piss them off. In fact I tried to talk reason. Is this considered cheating on this site, sorry for my ignorance but this is the first time and if this is common play without cheating then I'd like to know so that I can play it myself. BTW http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=6940724

Any yes, I did eventually get pissed and told them.

Pokerastin8r wrote:To decide to have an eternal, never ending truce until you are both down to just each other? BLUE and TEAL held a truce the entire game. When it was down to just me, and them, they STILL held it up and only attacked me, until I was clearly weakest. Then, they continued to attack me til I was finished. Is this considered cheating on this site, sorry for my ignorance but this is the first time and if this is common play without cheating then I'd like to know so that I can play it myself.

Truces are allowed as long as they are in the game chat

If I prove it wasn't a truce what happens, because I'm pretty sure that they attacked each other many times in effort to attack me. Really there were no terms at all. In fact, it wasn't a truce it was an alliance, if that makes a difference.

If you look through the chat;

-They called a truce.
-No specific terms except
-2 turn warning before ending.
-They did not attack each other for a few rounds.
-Then teal attacked blue several time.
-When it was down to us three they did not attack each other again. No truce had been reinstated in chat.

A "truce" is where you don't attack on specific borders, and they clearly did, and then they clearly allied against me when red had left. That's all the evidence I have of what I think is cheating.

please post a game number

thats why you dont play that map with no spoils or flat with cooks and privates.

Any truce is allowed as long as it is in game chat, this could range from not attacking borders to not attacking the other person at all. I did not have a chance to read the entire chat as it is quite long however nothing i saw was against the rules.

Also the only case i can think of where a truce would be against the rules (provided it is stated in chat) would be where players planed a truce before the game or if players constantly had truces that ultimately put one of them in position to win.

OK well neither of those happened, so this is a trivial matter. Sorry if this was brought up before..can delete the thread. I was just wondering the rules for future

Pokerastin8r wrote:OK well neither of those happened, so this is a trivial matter. Sorry if this was brought up before..can delete the thread. I was just wondering the rules for future

No its fine if you have question you should feel free to ask them. Also one way that sometimes works to break a truce is if you threaten to only attack one person unless the truce is stopped, if you do that then you are deciding the winner and the person that will lose because of this may break the truce in order to still have a chance to win

ljex wrote:

Pokerastin8r wrote:OK well neither of those happened, so this is a trivial matter. Sorry if this was brought up before..can delete the thread. I was just wondering the rules for future

No its fine if you have question you should feel free to ask them. Also one way that sometimes works to break a truce is if you threaten to only attack one person unless the truce is stopped, if you do that then you are deciding the winner and the person that will lose because of this may break the truce in order to still have a chance to win

ljex is right. The person that originally talks about the truce is the hard rock, the little sheep that agrees is the follower as soon as you see sign of a truce the best way to mess it up is to go bonkers and threaten to unload on and if the second party agrees. I also Will draw a line in the sand sometimes when i see a truce ill say this , "First one that attacks my regional bonus "x spot" I will send all my troops to your little home."

That being said, i usually dont win when I have to play hardball like this.

truces / alliances are part of the game. when it's down to 3 players, and 2 of them truce for no good reason, it is cheap tactics. u should foe and move on. a good reason to truce would be 2 weaker players forming a temp alliance to prevent the stronger player from winning the game. they should stop the truce as soon as the stronger player is weak enough for another player to have a legit shot at winning.

Pure, uncut, 100% b.s.

King_Herpes wrote:Pure, uncut, 100% b.s.

Just following your lead.

army of nobunaga wrote:The person that originally talks about the truce is the hard rock, the little sheep that agrees is the follower

I don't find this to be true at all. Often a weaker player will want to align themselves with a stronger player. It really only benefits the stronger player, so if you're ahead why not take advantage of it?

I love positioning myself so that people are asking me to please, please, please form an alliance with them. I have never lost a game in that scenario. (lost plenty of other though!)