Truces

[ClessAlvein]

Okay, so I have a continental truce with another guy. I have continent A, he has continent B. I couldn't invade him across the border, so I took a path that took me through continents C and D before I broke his bonus. No problems so far.

I took continent B with my next attack (the same one that went A->C->D->B). Still no problems. His beef, however, was that I fortified my troops from continent A into continent B, now that I took it. I have never attacked continent B through continent A, but I fortified across it. Are fortifications generally considered part of the "truce"?

[RobinJ]

If I understand you right then I see no problem - once the continent is taken by you then surely the truce no longer exists. Out of interest why did you have the truce in the first place if you wanted to attacks him? Although, on second thoughts, it seems to me to be a clever strategy - well done! (I think)

[tahitiwahini]

Post the game number so we can see the game chat and see how the truce was proposed and accepted.

[ClessAlvein]

I offered the truce about 12 rounds before I attacked him, since it was mutually beneficial to both of us. After 12 rounds, however, I was able to get a large enough army to go around and through his back door, which was lightly guarded.

Edit: http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=321810

[RobinJ]

Looks very fair - I think the guy is just pissed off because he wasn't expecting it.

[pancakemix]

He's just an idiot. Don't worry about it.

[tahitiwahini]

Wow, sort of hard to follow what the final terms of the truce were. For example, was any notification requirement agreed to? It's best to state the terms of the truce when it's finally agreed to. Makes it more understandable.

Given what you said in the OP, I don't think you violated the terms of the truce. A non-agression pact between two players at a border region is generally assumed to be limited to attacks. When as time passed the region was no longer in the control of your partner (but this came about without any attacks from your pact area to his pact area), the treaty effectively was dissolved (i.e., became meaningless). When the fortification took place there was no meaningful treaty in effect.

The problem perhaps could have been avoided with a more clear and less long-term termination condition. The longer a treaty goes on, the more complicated it can become.

I don't think you violated any of the terms of the treaty. In common usage a non-agression pact is limited to attacks, and does not include fortifications. The very fact that you could do the fortification demonstrates how far from the original status quo things had progressed.

[DavSav]

Okay, so I have a continental truce with another guy. I have continent A, he has continent B. I couldn't invade him across the border, so I took a path that took me through continents C and D before I broke his bonus. No problems so far.

I took continent B with my next attack (the same one that went A->C->D->B). Still no problems. His beef, however, was that I fortified my troops from continent A into continent B, now that I took it. I have never attacked continent B through continent A, but I fortified across it. Are fortifications generally considered part of the "truce"?

I vote Yes, not because I find it fair to break a promise you gave, you should have at least given him a round or two notice. But I vot yes because I find truces to be unfair in the beginning so if more players break pact maybe we get rid of ingame deals

[firth4eva]

edit

[UnkleCheese]

I think it was fair because you agreed to a north america <-> south america truce.

[Robinette]

I vote Yes, not because I find it fair to break a promise you gave, you should have at least given him a round or two notice. But I vot yes because I find truces to be unfair in the beginning so if more players break pact maybe we get rid of ingame deals

hey Dav, how about you and me make a pact to take out other players that make in game deals?

[RobinJ]

Wow, sort of hard to follow what the final terms of the truce were. For example, was any notification requirement agreed to? It's best to state the terms of the truce when it's finally agreed to. Makes it more understandable.

Given what you said in the OP, I don't think you violated the terms of the truce. A non-agression pact between two players at a border region is generally assumed to be limited to attacks. When as time passed the region was no longer in the control of your partner (but this came about without any attacks from your pact area to his pact area), the treaty effectively was dissolved (i.e., became meaningless). When the fortification took place there was no meaningful treaty in effect.

The problem perhaps could have been avoided with a more clear and less long-term termination condition. The longer a treaty goes on, the more complicated it can become.

I don't think you violated any of the terms of the treaty. In common usage a non-agression pact is limited to attacks, and does not include fortifications. The very fact that you could do the fortification demonstrates how far from the original status quo things had progressed.

As usual tahitiwahini has said what everyone else was trying to say in about 10 times the space but, as usual, much more coherently.

DavSav wrote:
I vote Yes, not because I find it fair to break a promise you gave, you should have at least given him a round or two notice. But I vot yes because I find truces to be unfair in the beginning so if more players break pact maybe we get rid of ingame deals Very Happy

hey Dav, how about you and me make a pact to take out other players that make in game deals? Wink

And that would just make you a hypocrit. lol

[lduke1990]

I voted that it was fair, but I did so having just read the first post, I somewhat regret it now. If it had been "I will not attack country a from country B" my yes stands, but if I understand correctly, then it seems that you said you wouldn't attack period..., but idk

[iAnonymous]

T'was legit in my eyes. Nothing wrong there, blue even teamed up with red in the end.

[ClessAlvein]

I voted that it was fair, but I did so having just read the first post, I somewhat regret it now. If it had been "I will not attack country a from country B" my yes stands, but if I understand correctly, then it seems that you said you wouldn't attack period..., but idk

The original pact was basically "I will not attack country A from country B," except with continents. He was okay with the way I managed my attack route. To address firth4eva, however, I did fortify from continent A to continent B, because the A->C->D->B route was cut off afterwards, so it was definitely an A->B fort.

The game's over, though, and we've managed to resolve that issue. Thanks for the input, everyone!