Conquer Club

Hello all. I've been around a while though generally a relatively quiet member of the community. I know there's always on-going debate about both the written and unwritten rules (owenshooter, looking at you as I'm sure you will show up) so I have a question on general etiquette, one of the unwritten rules. So diplomacy is allowed in CC's rules on the condition that it is announced in the in-game chat for all players to see. Oftentimes these informal truces seem to settle on a two round notice before the two (or more) parties become hostile again. This is for obvious reasons: integrity, no sneak attacks, ample time to prepare defenses, especially since it is also considered poor etiquette to stack up troops on the border with someone you have a truce with. Normally this is all because risk is simply a game, and at least most of us play it to have fun, and beating someone through skill and strategy is usually more fun to people than by winning through cheating or tricks, especially since some of these games last for months, even as long as a year in extreme cases.

I have a recent example where my understanding of CC etiquette was heavily challenged by another player. I am not going to link a game number nor indicate any players involved as I've seen what can happen when unrelated third parties get involved. I am also not seeking revenge or redemption in any way, simply a confirmation that my understanding of CC etiquette is how most players here understand it. Or perhaps I am wrong and I can be enlightened.

This was a game on one of CC's larger maps, with 12 players in it. The game starts with the normal mad scramble for whatever bonuses one can get their hands on. On round 6 a neighboring player offers a truce with a two round notice. He had also asked for truces with 3 others players, which should have been a red flag in itself, but I thought it could only work for me. He was blocking himself in on a smallish bonus while I had a flank protected with room to expand.

So the game goes on as usual. I secure a couple bonuses, have another, unrelated player attack me. We go back and forth for a few turns. The player I have a truce with moves right before I do in the turn order, so I check the chat every turn to see if he ever says anything about the truce. With the number of players we have, it takes 2-3 days for us to cycle through everyone and begin a new round, so I only check the game when I have time, often when it is my move. Round 12 rolls around, the player says nothing, takes his turn, then I take mine a few hours later. Three more players take their turn leading into the next day and the player I have a truce with announces in the chat that I have my 2 round notice. I don't see this until another day later after he has taken his turn on round 13. I manage to push the other player attacking me out of my bonus and secure my borders against him, thinking I had the next turn to better defend my borders against the player who just announced he was ending the truce in case he decides to attack. I come back for my turn on round 14 and found that he has already attacked me.

So here's where we come to the problem. I told him in chat that he did not wait the two rounds. He claims he did. I explain my understanding of the truce as you are supposed to wait 2 turns so that both sides can adequately prepare. He claims that he announced the end on round 12 and attacked round 14, saying it was two rounds. When I point out that he waited until after both of our turns that round and that it shouldn't count, he says it doesn't matter and calls me a sore loser for crying about it. I try reasoning some more, but at this point he's not going to pay any more attention as he's already dealt me a blow I can't recover from. It's a shame in a game that's already lasted over a month.

Now to my way of thinking, a two round notice means that you technically don't attack until the 3rd round after announcing your intention. That would give time to finish up whatever else you were doing during the truce and to allocate an appropriate number of troops to borders that are no longer secure. His take was 2 rounds meant you could attack on the 2nd round. But to me, using that logic, that would mean that if we had agreed to a 1 turn notice instead, he could have waited until after my turn on round 12 to announce his intentions, then simply attacked me without me even having a chance to prepare. That wouldn't make sense at all to me, especially since I see other people agree to 1 turn notices (2 is just the most common).

So would I be right in this case? Or has my understanding of CC etiquette been mistaken for years?

------Go to Tourney Help.....Conquer Club Tourney Handbook.....Player to Player Etiquette....Should be respected throughout C.C....No game is more important than any other ...No matter what,THE CLIQUES,CLANS,AND TOURNEY SHMOES THINK. ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion). ....You have problems...You should go and checkout ....THE FEB.CHALLENGE....NOW THERE IS A HUGH PLAYER to PLAYER ETIQUETTE PROBLEM...

This was your normal, average, any day game against random opponents. I know that tournaments have their own player etiquette and I know that in this particular case the tournament etiquette differs from your normal game etiquette. In tournaments, any form of diplomacy is looked down upon and heavily discouraged, especially to dispel any threat of collusion. It is not as discouraged in normal games.

I do understand however that there are some players (and I am guessing that you are one of them) that don't want there to be any sort of diplomacy at all, but personally, I feel that diplomacy and discussion is part of the strategy in risk.

Jurasu,
Truces are informal anyway, with no way of "enforcement" and I've read over and over most would break a truce (for example, and escalating cards sweep) if it meant they had a good shot at winning the game or dealing a severe blow to an opponent.

With that in mind, I think from what you are saying logically speaking it sounds correct. I agree w/ your 1 round example.
But, the key to almost any truce is how its worded. Do you specific two of each of your turns must pass by? Or just two rounds?

I've seen people make the argument that a "two turn truce" was that two peoples turns must pass so they had to give only two players (48 hour) notice. I dont think this is normal but as you can see....it can be "stretched" into almost antyhing you want. (example, 6 player game player 4 could give notice on player 2's turn that he was breaking his truce with player 5) and thus they would have no way to do antyhing about it / prepare.

I would be just more careful with teh wording in the future, and move on. They wont change their mind (especially if it helps lock up the game)

Thanks for posting. Well written and an interesting read.

I've always assumed that etiquette on truces was a fluid thing. And that people I've created a truce with will always do what's in their best interest. To that end I'm always amazed when I log on and the truce has held. There are also times when I'll break the truce early because it is in my best interest to do so.

Don't play real life risk with my three sons however. They lie to each other like crazy and see truces, in the words of Jack Sparrow, more as guidelines than rules.

Cheers.

-----No,I make allies from time to time....Most tourney/clan players are cry babies...Think their games are more important. I for one...THINK ALL GAMES ARE IMPORTANT. SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH.In the tourney rules...It says,players do not like it. Well boo woo ...You might lose...A fake trophy,points,rank... I am all about the fun of the game. ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion).

IcePack,
Yea I agree with you. Wording means a lot. I guess I just allowed myself to believe there was a general assumption of what 2 round notice means since that's all that most players will say and agree to. Wording can be quite vague and mean a lot of different things.

I also agree that I've seen games where people break truces through necessity, whether it be grabbing victory or acting before it was too late. This one seemed like neither however. I was probably about 5th in strength in the game at the time this happened, the other player being 6th, and he's also truced with 3 of the other 4 players ahead of us, and his attacking me has only gotten him to about 4th from number of territories and my drop. The three ahead meanwhile has only gotten stronger/better holds on their area while he has only broken my bonuses, but not yet managed to secure any new bonuses. Perhaps I am biased since I was attacked, but I do not see any real gain from his move. It's highly unlikely I will win the game, but he also won't be able to quickly consolidate bonuses either, especially with other players already contesting them.

And I have moved on. Like I stated in the original post, it's a game I play in my spare time to have fun. It's annoying to have a game I already devoted a month to ruined, but its happened before and will likely happen again. He's moved to my foe list so I don't have to be bothered about playing with him again and I've moved on. You're right again in that I'll probably simply have to be more careful and clear in the wordings and both parties' understanding of what it means.


Elfish,
Normally it's the opposite for me. I'm surprised a lot when truces are still in place, not because I expect people to be duplicitous, but because they are holding to a disadvantageous truce well beyond the point it should be concluded. Again kicking myself for not seeing a red flag in the fact that this player had made truces with 3 other players in the game and hurt his own position.

Well firstly, I think you're in the right. It's a 2 rounds-notice not a 1.5 rounds-notice truce. That's, in my experience, how the majority of players experience truces. That being said, what I sometimes do when ending a truce or when the opponent ends a truce, is write in chat a conclusion of which round exactly the truce ends. For instance if I lift a truce in round 12, I will mention it in chat and immediately add that this means all game is open starting round 14. I sometimes do the same when opponents lift the truce.

Alter "Two turn truce" to be "Two Round Truce"

Then stop using truces.

Thank me later

According to me, in a 2 turn notice, if someone give you the notice, then you should be able to play two turns after the notice was given.
So if he gave the notice on round 12, but after you played your turn, then you should be able to play on round 13 and round 14, and then he should attacked only round 15.
The 2 turn notice never refer to the round number to me, but to turns of playing.

Thing is, if it wasn't explicityl worded like that, you can't really argue that he was wrong. Maybe he always do like that and believe he was right to do so.
I've encountered player that are extremely specific on their truce wording and explain a lot before doing any, I find it tedious, but that's safer.

I would agree with Donelladan's interpretation, however as a non enforceable agreement that is open to interpretation, the whole thing is pretty rubbery. Basically i think the guy is clutching at straws to justify getting an advantage over you. Perhaps poor form, but it is a wargame too.

Why dont you write the details down and post your interpretation in the forum. Then in game when someone asks you to enter a truce, you can post a link to your "terms". If they agree to your terms there is no misunderstanding.

Perhaps pop the forum link on your wall so others can use it.

Label it something interesting

Well this is exactly why I always post "truce will have ended in round xxx". To eliminate variations of interpretation.

Don't ever make truces. State that as far as your gameplay goes, you see no immediate benefit of attacking them any time soon. But never make a formal truce. Then you don't have problems.

truces are for loosers

osok68 wrote:truces are for loosers

Trousers are for lousers.

dont you forget it...

When I make truces I am very specific and will adhere to the letter of what is written. I won't violate the letter of what I have written because I find I play games where I play the same people often enough that my word must mean something if I am to conduct diplomacy in the future. As a result, I have lost games where I could have won as a result of honoring my word. But because of that choice I've been able to negotiate in subsequent games against the same opponents.

Think if you played weekly table games of risk with the same 15-20 opponents, if your word wasn't worth anything any attempt at diplomacy would be pointless. As you increase in rank, you run into the same cast of characters far more often.

rockfist wrote:When I make truces I am very specific and will adhere to the letter of what is written. I won't violate the letter of what I have written because I find I play games where I play the same people often enough that my word must mean something if I am to conduct diplomacy in the future. As a result, I have lost games where I could have won as a result of honoring my word. But because of that choice I've been able to negotiate in subsequent games against the same opponents.

Think if you played weekly table games of risk with the same 15-20 opponents, if your word wasn't worth anything any attempt at diplomacy would be pointless. As you increase in rank, you run into the same cast of characters far more often.

I do the same thing, except that my smaller circle is the tournament-community.

Wasn't there a group thAt specifically started games soully for the purpose of diplomacy heavy games?

And a anti diplomacy group as well, if memory serves

I disagree with your math. 2 turn notice really means you have 1 turn to prepare and expect to be attacked on the 2nd turn.

Also, CC etiquette is an oxymoron.

DoomYoshi wrote:I disagree with your math. 2 turn notice really means you have 1 turn to prepare and expect to be attacked on the 2nd turn.

Also, CC etiquette is an oxymoron.

What's a 1 turn notice for you then ? You have 0 turn to prepare, your opponent can give the notice and attack you directly ?

Donelladan wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:I disagree with your math. 2 turn notice really means you have 1 turn to prepare and expect to be attacked on the 2nd turn.

Also, CC etiquette is an oxymoron.

What's a 1 turn notice for you then ? You have 0 turn to prepare, your opponent can give the notice and attack you directly ?

There's no such thing.

In my opinion, a 2-round notice means both players must first play 2 turns after the agreement has been terminated, then the player who broke the truce must attack last. The last part is something I like to add myself and explicitly state this in chat, since it favors honoring an existing truce instead of breaking it (attackers advantage lies with the one who didn't end it).