Conquer Club

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=7287140
▄██████████████▄▐█▄▄▄▄█▌
██████▌▄▌▄▐▐▌███▌▀▀██▀▀
████▄█▌▄▌▄▐▐▌▀███▄▄█▌
▄▄▄▄▄██████████████

Me and pink made a deal so that we would allow for a 3 turn warning, he proposed it, i agreed, he breached our agreement and in my mind that makes him dishonorable. I realize that i should expect people to stab you in the back in this game but seriously, id like to believe the guys ranked higher than me got their rank due to skill and diligence, not epic backstabbings. What do you guys think? Dishonorable?

Seems to me he didnt start attacking you unitl there was two players left, according to the game log, as of 07/20 he did not attack you (thats when the truce was offered) and after eliminating blue (3rd place) there was no on left to attack except you.

Honour in my opinion is somtihng to strive for. End of the day though, Mr.Tzu would prolly say whatever it takes to win.

This has been discussed before. Many (including myself) believe that once it's down to two players, all truces are off. Complaining because someone attacked the only opponent on the board is beyond ridiculous, in my humble opinion.

Don't be ridiculous. Did you expect him to help you eliminate the rest of the players, and then sit back and wait for you to stomp on him? If that's how you think this game should be played, you will probably not ever reach any higher rank than the one you have now.

Your poll is pretty vague. Diplomacy has its place in the game as it does with everything, but it certainly isn't required and lots of people do quite well at the game using little to none of it.

Secondly, it looks to me as if he honored the truce until you were the last 2 left. This is a game that can only have 1 winner. You aren't playing a team game, so to me at least it only makes sense that he would attack you if he has the advantage. Honestly if you're that bothered by it, you should just foe the guy and move on, but its a problem you're going to run into quite frequently here in all honesty.

i have no idea what the point of this thread is. your frenemy eliminated all other opponents before attacking you. you can't seriously be bitching about this. pick something more useful to be outraged about. there are starving children in africa.

screw children in africa, i lost my game!!! nah im not unreasonable, i can understand that he would want to win but honestly a truce is a truce, its not worth being dishonorable about an agreement, if nothing else give one turn warning...
▄██████████████▄▐█▄▄▄▄█▌
██████▌▄▌▄▐▐▌███▌▀▀██▀▀
████▄█▌▄▌▄▐▐▌▀███▄▄█▌
▄▄▄▄▄██████████████
Fail Whale
Believes you Fail

...I believe Fail Whale has made his opinion on this matter known
still believe honor is an important part of the game though.

FlyingElf wrote:Your poll is pretty vague. Diplomacy has its place in the game as it does with everything, but it certainly isn't required and lots of people do quite well at the game using little to none of it.

Secondly, it looks to me as if he honored the truce until you were the last 2 left. This is a game that can only have 1 winner. You aren't playing a team game, so to me at least it only makes sense that he would attack you if he has the advantage. Honestly if you're that bothered by it, you should just foe the guy and move on, but its a problem you're going to run into quite frequently here in all honesty.

The poll was meant for people who either love diplomacy or hate it for one reason or another...did come out vague though

KamikazeGamer wrote:if nothing else give one turn warning...

"Hey, it's just me and you left. I could kill you and win the game now, but I'd rather let you build up your forces for a turn, so you have a chance to kill me first. You know, just for funsies."

Yeah. Let me know how that works out for you.

some charities i like are:
Kiva
Life in Africa
All Stars Project
Habitat for Humanity

perhaps you should look into volunteering and embracing a more giving, holistic outlook

If it's down to two people, and I have a truce, I usually don't attack until I tell them. Idk, I'd just like the same respect.

I'm pretty sure your warning that the truce was over was when the last player aside from you two was eliminated.

Just join another game of his and make him pay for his insolence.

Diplomacy is a 2 edged sword. I use it on occasion and will make the choice to lose by honoring an agreement not for honor's sake but because it is a tool that I don't want to lose in future games when needed. I've been tricked and screwed over but that was the risk I took. I simply foe the opponent and rate them accordingly but I can't say that they cheated. They used a tool that is common in war, deception and lies. If it were the last war I thought I'd ever be in I might do the same to win but since this is a game I plan to keep playing and hope my reputation for not backstabbing will precede me I make sure to honor my word. It's also not such a great victory going back on your word to win a game and since no riches or hot chicks are going to be a result of my treachery, why bother? I do understand players who say no diplomacy ever, it can backfire on you more times than not and there are those who are just better at forging a deal that will benefit them more, and then you feel like kicking yourself in the ass. The poll needed more options. I did not vote. The deal breakers are usually players with less skill and intelligence and don't usually go far, but some do. In reality a deal only lasts as long as it is mutually beneficial and that's what you have to watch out for. I've won due to my diplomacy but have probably lost more times due to it. I think the only truce in a game that makes sense is to have one between 2 regions that last the whole game. It ends when you attack from the other side or other players run through it.

KamikazeGamer wrote:What do you guys think? Dishonorable?

No.

You're just a bit butthurt that he beat you at Risk by playing better than you did.