Hehe yeah, I am totally shameless when it comes to proposing alliances and treaties in public chat when there's no private chat available. Before there was the option of private chats, I was an outspoken proponent of putting them in the game for just the reason you describe - it evens out the playing field so that people who don't know each other irl can collude with each other just like the rl friends that had been doing it all along.

Braveheart - It's important to adhere to your spoken promises, so if you offer someone an alliance and they accept it and then stab you in the back, they are being a douche. Deception as a tactic isn't inherently wrong though, for instance if you were to try and sucker someone into an attack on your territory by leaving it lightly defended, but you have a big army waiting in the wings behind it and on the turn you expect the attack you move it into place with a priority card, that is a form of deception that is totally kosher..

in my opinion, there is nothing wrong with pm'ing a treaty in an FFA of more than four people. alliances are questionable (team up until last 2 instead of treaty on x border for 2 turn notice) but i think that its all part of the strategy. however, when players break treaties (attack without the 2 turn notice) thats douchebaggery and i keep notice of who does it to me, and then target those players in future games, regardless if it hurts me.

Willkay is a douche player. After PMing me for a truce, he attacked me later, claiming it was only a truce on a certain border. I like to keep my word, evidently Willkay doesn't like to keep his. Just be warned.

Rommel is right, when you have a truce the first turn of the game at one boarder it really means lets be the last two in the game before we ever think about anything else....just be warned...lmao

Whatever you want to believe, douche. You approached me and asked for a truce.

whats youre point here? The fact that i approached you doesnt change anything. Lets open this discussion up to the field and see what everyone else thinks so you stop your crying.
Q: Does making a truce at one boarder at the beginning of the game mean that you should not attack that player at a much later point in the game at a completely unrelated area of the map that just happens to be in your path?
Everyone please feel free to respond

Ah, so when you approached me and said "truce," I was to understand that it means "Hey, let's have a truce in Indonesia, but I'll try and screw you over when I get the chance." Nice to know.

you are clearly your own biggest fan rommel

Quote "Well Bowdown just announced that he's an 11 year old kid in the chat. So all of his behavior makes a lot more sense. The nuances of this game would be very hard to understand for a newbie 11 year old, so he probably didn't act with malice toward the other players. I just wish he'd responded to any of the first 10 messages from the other players and me to say he was 11 -- but then that's typical for an 11 year old too.

I obviously would not choose to play with little kids, disparage them or argue with them. I would avoid playing with him not because he's a douche, but because he's 11. "

@ Duke im 13, and consider myself a fairly decent player,
Maybe the kid just dosnt know how to play risk,

Maybe -- I found it took a lot of games to figure out the strategies that the best players were using to dominate (at least 50, probably more like 100 games). I was playing chess tournaments at 13 and agree there's a world of difference between 11 and 13. Good luck in your games.

Willkay, that doesn't make any sense. Whatever, though. You may be a perfectly pleasant person in real life; but the fact is that you offered me a truce and then broke it. All I want to do is warn others not to trust you, so far as this game goes.

It pays to be explicit when making a truce, I never leave it vague, I'll offer terms right down to the turn number on which attack orders can be placed against each other. Generally yes a truce is a truce so you should have declared your intent to attack later if it was vague and fuzzy, but on the other hand no vague truce should have been made in the first place.

Al lot of times I'll be specific in a truce along a border in the early game and then encounter the same opp along another border in the mid game and be unsure whether to attack. Technically the truce allows it, but the other player may think that border is covered as well, so I usually send an message and give them a day to respond. Worst case, I don't hear from them and I defend for a turn and then decide wether to expand the truce, attack or defend again the next turn.

This just happened in a double world game with Ruthless and we revised the scope fo the original arrangement so it made sense based on the later board. Such negotiations are typical.

someone nominate me... let the hate flow through you...

PS, general denom's challenge of any settings any time isnt valid because he will only play me if he has a 1 min boot option, continues to decline normal games because i will work him

HAHAHA....wow....what a liar!!! Send me the game and see if I don't join loser... WOW, some of you guys just never give up do you...lol.....send me the game douche, I'll be waiting....lol Lying sack of shit!

LOL....what a liar....coward!

just sent it AGAIN, it was declined AGAIN

LOL....wow...what a liar.....finally sends me a game....and guess what? I joined!!! This is gonna be fun.....I'm gonna DENOMINATE you in that game worm!

good luck!