stop truces on arms race board

[eddie2]

hi have seen a few cheating and abuse reports regarding arms race and people having truces i think this should be stopped. because the board is 2 halfs. if you take one side you are signing your death certificate because it is very rare that you can win the game even though you have done the hard work getting one side to yourself. also players are starting to abuse this by not attacking each other on one side of the board building troups to attack the unlucky one on the other side .

[Rocketry]

Totally agree, hopefully lack can figure out some coding for this.

Rocket.

[ben79]

you guys actually don't play arm's race often to suggest something like that, totally disagree with both of you, easier to win if you're alone on one side, even if the others truce. Bad idea you got

[Woodruff]

hi have seen a few cheating and abuse reports regarding arms race and people having truces i think this should be stopped. because the board is 2 halfs. if you take one side you are signing your death certificate because it is very rare that you can win the game even though you have done the hard work getting one side to yourself. also players are starting to abuse this by not attacking each other on one side of the board building troups to attack the unlucky one on the other side .

In my view, the way to WIN the game is to control ONE side of the board. You're not signing your death certificate at all. And I've got a pretty decent record to back that up.

[AAFitz]

this answer is simple

set up private games with players that agree not to ally...though, on that map, you simply have to at least ignore one player at times

go to callouts looking for players that wont ally

go to live chat looking for players that wont ally

ask players from xi to play you, who wont ally

set up a usergroup for arms race players that wont ally

No rule is needed.

[eddie2]

you guys actually don't play arm's race often to suggest something like that, totally disagree with both of you, easier to win if you're alone on one side, even if the others truce. Bad idea you got

you having a laugh if i was to check bet its about 30 percent of my single games

[eddie2]

this answer is simple

set up private games with players that agree not to ally...though, on that map, you simply have to at least ignore one player at times

go to callouts looking for players that wont ally

go to live chat looking for players that wont ally

ask players from xi to play you, who wont ally

set up a usergroup for arms race players that wont ally

No rule is needed.

no should the awnser not be that players who want to truce should play doubles on the board not singles.

[eddie2]

hi have seen a few cheating and abuse reports regarding arms race and people having truces i think this should be stopped. because the board is 2 halfs. if you take one side you are signing your death certificate because it is very rare that you can win the game even though you have done the hard work getting one side to yourself. also players are starting to abuse this by not attacking each other on one side of the board building troups to attack the unlucky one on the other side .

In my view, the way to WIN the game is to control ONE side of the board. You're not signing your death certificate at all. And I've got a pretty decent record to back that up.

one game won 10 weeks ago before this truce thing started in multiple player games is not a good record. so please correct this if i am wrong but just checked your game history and that was your last time you played multi player.

but agree you are pritty decent in 1 v 1 where you obviously have to control one side but that is not what this thread is about

[eddie2]

you guys actually don't play arm's race often to suggest something like that, totally disagree with both of you, easier to win if you're alone on one side, even if the others truce. Bad idea you got

please give me some examples of manual deploy no spoils where truces have happened with decent players who now the board where the 2 dont beat the 1 i think you will find this hard

[ben79]

you guys actually don't play arm's race often to suggest something like that, totally disagree with both of you, easier to win if you're alone on one side, even if the others truce. Bad idea you got

please give me some examples of manual deploy no spoils where truces have happened with decent players who now the board where the 2 dont beat the 1 i think you will find this hard

not hard actually i played this map 1600+ times a lot of them were multiplayer just go take a look eddie, i'm too lazy to check, but we both know you're wrong about it

[eddie2]

hi ben just checked your games it was 20 jan before all this truce thing started on this board so until you experiance it please dont comment on it.

[AAFitz]

this answer is simple

set up private games with players that agree not to ally...though, on that map, you simply have to at least ignore one player at times

go to callouts looking for players that wont ally

go to live chat looking for players that wont ally

ask players from xi to play you, who wont ally

set up a usergroup for arms race players that wont ally

No rule is needed.

no should the awnser not be that players who want to truce should play doubles on the board not singles.

no, because part of the game, is diplomacy. doubles is not diplomacy, its teamwork. both teammembers win, if they win. diplomacy involves working with someone, and killing them after....that is an entirely different game.

You have plenty of options available, all you have to do is use them. The game is the game, youre welcome to change how you play it, but it isnt going to change just for you.

[thebest712]

totally disagree, if 1 man is in the top and 2 in bottom, then without truce the man on the top always wins...

[WPBRJ]

hmmmmm

i wonder if i should put my 2 cents in on this topic or will i be called out and told i dont play to often or that i am not good at the game to comment

WPBRJ

[eddie2]

totally disagree, if 1 man is in the top and 2 in bottom, then without truce the man on the top always wins...

ah yes the man on top might win but what i am meaning is man on top holds the top 2 on bottom hold 1 person has 8 regions other has 3 regions but instead of man with 8 regions taking the 3 regions out he forms a truce. where the man with 3 regions has no chance of winning so the person who has played well to get 1 area to himself is being cheated out of a win by a player who can get an area to himself but making himself win by calling a truce.

[eddie2]

hmmmmm

i wonder if i should put my 2 cents in on this topic or will i be called out and told i dont play to often or that i am not good at the game to comment

WPBRJ

i am not doing that if you look ben asked me to look at his games so i did and put what i found in response. same as woodruff he said played lots of times but hasnt played multi since 10 january truces have only recently started so they have not experianced it but stating that they have. thats why i am calling them on it

[thebest712]

totally disagree, if 1 man is in the top and 2 in bottom, then without truce the man on the top always wins...

ah yes the man on top might win but what i am meaning is man on top holds the top 2 on bottom hold 1 person has 8 regions other has 3 regions but instead of man with 8 regions taking the 3 regions out he forms a truce. where the man with 3 regions has no chance of winning so the person who has played well to get 1 area to himself is being cheated out of a win by a player who can get an area to himself but making himself win by calling a truce.

disagree again... I had it once in a escalating game back to 4 terretories and about 10 troops and we holded a truce vs a way stronger opponent and at the end I won

[WPBRJ]

hmmmmm

i wonder if i should put my 2 cents in on this topic or will i be called out and told i dont play to often or that i am not good at the game to comment

WPBRJ

i am not doing that if you look ben asked me to look at his games so i did and put what i found in response. same as woodruff he said played lots of times but hasnt played multi since 10 january truces have only recently started so they have not experianced it but stating that they have. thats why i am calling them on it

ok ill bite check me out and decide for your self if i am qualified to comment on the subject

[Timminz]

truces have only recently started

Why do you keep saying this? What changed recently, that has caused people to start using truces successfully against you?

[Woodruff]

hmmmmm

i wonder if i should put my 2 cents in on this topic or will i be called out and told i dont play to often or that i am not good at the game to comment

WPBRJ

i am not doing that if you look ben asked me to look at his games so i did and put what i found in response. same as woodruff he said played lots of times but hasnt played multi since 10 january truces have only recently started so they have not experianced it but stating that they have. thats why i am calling them on it

I have no idea what you mean about "truces have only recently started", because that really doesn't make any sense at all. People have been making truces on maps (to include Arms Race, if it was around back then) since I arrived here in January of 2007. Just because someone hasn't played the map in the last two weeks or so is completely irrelevant.

[PLAYER57832]

hi ben just checked your games it was 20 jan before all this truce thing started on this board so until you experiance it please dont comment on it.

This pretty much illustrates how little experience YOU have.

I agree that truces can be irritating. I dislike them, but they are legal and will remain legal. This suggestion periodically comes up. There is nothing really that unique about Arms Race! to differentiat it (and yes, I HAVE played a good many games on the map). The problem is truces in general.

As Fitz mentioned, you have a few options. First, play just with people you know. Second, foe those who play in ways you dislike.

Or, form your own alliances and work it out.

[Bones2484]

If you are losing Arms Race after pushing multiple opponents out of 1 country, you are doing it wrong.

(unless it's escalating, which I'm assuming it's not since there would be no alliance)

[WPBRJ]

ok i cant wait for eddy to see if i am qualified to comment lol

look eddy i know ben as long as i known you for most of my stay here. just because hes has not played a singles game in a while certainly does not mean he isn't qualified to comment he has played a lot with me over the last year

any way no one plays singles, 4 or more players than i do so i think i can comment with some experience.

the only time i really have a problem with truces is in my 8 player private games! that is the only time i ever see, on any consistency truces work. why? because the other 7 players that i invite all know how to play the game and know they have zero chance if they don't truce. hell most times they don't even say anything in game chat they just do it. now that really pisses me off because if i am the sole player i don't know what there doing.

as for public games go well i see it in almost every game i play in truces being made against me and with me. the problem is most of them are too late or fall apart or one player attacks and said he dint see the chat. i find when i am alone on one side in the game and it is a public game 95% of the times i am able to beat any truce on the other side. its like any thing you have to learn how to over come diversity. good players will always beat a truce not 100% of the time but most of the time.

WPBRJ

PS
and if anyone is not sure on my qualifications they are welcome to map rank me on this particular map

[Streaker]

Well eddie, after reading this thread, I don't really know what to say. Again.
If you are so certain that holding 1 side of the board is a 'death certificate', why don't you use this to your advantage?
Adjust your strategy, build up on 1 side of the board and don't take people off it.

Wait out for someone else to have a side of the board, then you will win (according to this thread??).

Easy, no?

[eddie2]

ok i cant wait for eddy to see if i am qualified to comment lol

look eddy i know ben as long as i known you for most of my stay here. just because hes has not played a singles game in a while certainly does not mean he isn't qualified to comment he has played a lot with me over the last year

any way no one plays singles, 4 or more players than i do so i think i can comment with some experience.

the only time i really have a problem with truces is in my 8 player private games! that is the only time i ever see, on any consistency truces work. why? because the other 7 players that i invite all know how to play the game and know they have zero chance if they don't truce. hell most times they don't even say anything in game chat they just do it. now that really pisses me off because if i am the sole player i don't know what there doing.

as for public games go well i see it in almost every game i play in truces being made against me and with me. the problem is most of them are too late or fall apart or one player attacks and said he dint see the chat. i find when i am alone on one side in the game and it is a public game 95% of the times i am able to beat any truce on the other side. its like any thing you have to learn how to over come diversity. good players will always beat a truce not 100% of the time but most of the time.

WPBRJ

PS
and if anyone is not sure on my qualifications they are welcome to map rank me on this particular map

hi thanks for that just getting pissed with it as do you not find that 90 percent of people start in the usa for some reason. and i am guilty of doing these truces as well just feel that truces on this board are not fair against the player that has had a good stragey to get one side.