Truce buildup

Ham · Post by **Ham** » Mon May 28, 2007 12:01 pm

Iv used this tactic before with great success. Here's my question, is it underhanded ?

Lets say I ask for a truce on greenland/iceland border.

Europe forts all his men off of Iceland I keep my 8 man army on greenland and add 2 every turn.
Meanwhile europe is breaking africa and s. america and sucessfully doing so.
I raid a little in asia and then when the truce ends his armies are exhausted he cant guard my border with more than 4 men and I charge through with a 16 man army plus all my bonuses. I take his cards then sweep the board.

So is building up even though there is a truce an underhand tactic ?

dominationnation · Post by **dominationnation** » Mon May 28, 2007 12:02 pm

I dont think so. I have been left feedback for it before( it was removed) but I use it all the time

wcaclimbing · Post by **wcaclimbing** » Mon May 28, 2007 12:03 pm

I say its perfectly fair. as long as you dont attack him before the end of the deal, its his fault for not defending.

Rocketry · Post by **Rocketry** » Mon May 28, 2007 12:04 pm

nah thats fair enough - so long as you dont attack during the truce you havent broken you word and its not like the gut owning Europe can't see your still putting troops there.
________________________________________________________________
CCs Most Wanted serial Multi

firth4eva · Post by **firth4eva** » Mon May 28, 2007 12:34 pm

who cares about underhanded tactics?
a win is a win

civver · Post by **civver** » Mon May 28, 2007 2:07 pm

firth4eva wrote:who cares about underhanded tactics?
a win is a win

Do you have a sense of honor?

@ OP: It's fine, just don't attack him before the end of the deal. Even allies can mistrust each other.

firth4eva · Post by **firth4eva** » Mon May 28, 2007 2:08 pm

it was a joke

billval3 · Post by **billval3** » Mon May 28, 2007 2:36 pm

That's funny. I didn't take it as a joke coming from you. You said the following about a truce you suggested with me:

but i was never going to stick to it . oviously. i was just gonna get the 2 extra men and eliminate him

Click here to see the context.

firth4eva · Post by **firth4eva** » Mon May 28, 2007 2:38 pm

you still on about that
get over it

civver · Post by **civver** » Mon May 28, 2007 2:49 pm

*cough* Flame Wars *cough*

EvilPurpleMonkey · Post by **EvilPurpleMonkey** » Mon May 28, 2007 3:00 pm

This on the other hand is not a joke. I think it's fine, A win is a win regardless of the tactics you use to get it. It's not against the rules, is it? It's happened in real wars before, hasn't it? I also have the same opinion on cheating. If you're not caught your fine. Just another way of getting ahead.

Sometimes I wonder if I'm a sociopath...

billval3 · Post by **billval3** » Mon May 28, 2007 3:09 pm

EvilPurpleMonkey wrote:This on the other hand is not a joke. I think it's fine, A win is a win regardless of the tactics you use to get it. It's not against the rules, is it? It's happened in real wars before, hasn't it? I also have the same opinion on cheating. If you're not caught your fine. Just another way of getting ahead.

Sometimes I wonder if I'm a sociopath...

I, personally, think there's a difference between using every lawful tactic and being totally underhanded. Here's a hypothetical example: If you make a truce with someone, they fortify their armies differently, and then you immediately attack them that obviously takes away from the fun of the game. If people were allowed to constantly get away with that it would destroy what I regard as a fun aspect of the game.

Getting back to the original topic, I think that's a perfectly legitimate tactic. I wonder why you didn't put those armies to better use for the duration of the truce, though? Maybe you were trying to make sure you didn't lose them, which is understandable.

gibbom · Post by **gibbom** » Mon May 28, 2007 4:18 pm

Ham wrote:Iv used this tactic before with great success. Here's my question, is it underhanded ?

Lets say I ask for a truce on greenland/iceland border.

Europe forts all his men off of Iceland I keep my 8 man army on greenland and add 2 every turn.
Meanwhile europe is breaking africa and s. america and sucessfully doing so.
I raid a little in asia and then when the truce ends his armies are exhausted he cant guard my border with more than 4 men and I charge through with a 16 man army plus all my bonuses. I take his cards then sweep the board.

So is building up even though there is a truce an underhand tactic ?

Hey, if anyone is stupid enough to go on attacking when you're obviously building an army at their doorstep it's hardly an underhand tactic (more a blatant one). A better tactic in unlimited or chained games is to build up on another territory, and fort to greenland at the end of the truce.

Spockers · Post by **Spockers** » Mon May 28, 2007 6:35 pm

A win is a win. This is what separates this game from other board games. It's not all about dice rolls.

Outwitting your opponent is much more satisfying that beating them by luck of the dice.

chewyman · Post by **chewyman** » Tue May 29, 2007 1:24 am

If I do make a truce with somebody (which rarely happens anymore) than I make sure that neither side has any defence what-so-ever on the border. So far nobody has ever betrayed me and I've never betrayed anybody.

Truce buildup

Truce buildup

Re: Truce buildup