• Points are back! Read about it HERE


    current issues

    1 - NEW PLAYERS - Players who created an account on or after Oct 15 2023 are not able to log into the forum
    2 - AWOL - We do not have an AWOL button under the ACTIVE tab yet. Please check each game to see if you are AWOL.
    3 - STUCK GAMES - Some games will not load properly. If you encounter this, please post stuck games HERE

    Thanks.

  • Welcome to Major Command's RISK Game forum.

    If you are a registered player, please log in:

    LOG IN

    If you are new to Major Command and would like to
    play our RISK game online. Then please sign up here:

    SIGN UP

Diplomatic Agreements in the New Engine.

youredead

Member
Awesome Player
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
11
Well but if it is a flaw that may be corrected, why not? Besides, if treaties last for actual rounds, it enriches the game as you must pay attention to the moment in the round you sign the deal.
 

Tapeworm

Well-known member
Awesome Player
Cosa Nostra
M.C. Play Testers
The Wiki Bar
T.O's.
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
535
I like what Tape says. I might have missed it, but one thing that's grey to me. I don't do this, but it isn't against the rules, but when I send two or three diplo's to the same player over the same tert. and they agree to part, I like all or none as an option if possible.

+1

I like the idea of bundling a group of agreements together as "all or none."
 
Last edited:

Tapeworm

Well-known member
Awesome Player
Cosa Nostra
M.C. Play Testers
The Wiki Bar
T.O's.
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
535
As for eliminating the diplo messages in no diplo games, i don't understand the proposal, those messages are not for mandatory deals but for other negotiations ("if you leave france i will leave brazil" and so on). And anyway, players could still communicate through private messages, right?

Players would have to do that in public chat within the game. I think the alternative would lead to a lot of ugliness.

I consider communicating outside the game through private messages to be unethical.
 

Tapeworm

Well-known member
Awesome Player
Cosa Nostra
M.C. Play Testers
The Wiki Bar
T.O's.
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
535
Another important failure of the present system is that treaties last for official rounds, giving an unfair advantage to the players who play first. Treaties should start and finish in the moment of the round they are signed.

+1
 

youredead

Member
Awesome Player
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
11
I consider communicating outside the game through private messages to be unethical.

Agreed but if you can't communicate inside the game it would probably increase, and anyway if you're not involved in the conversation you can't realize there is a conversation. I don't think the diplo messages are a problem, usually you can know what they're about even if you can't read them. And finally i prefer that negotiations are private, though maybe there are exceptions like the 3 player games someone mentioned.
 

Sebrim

Well-known member
Moderator
Awesome Player
Fixed Force Club
Knights of MC Realm
M.C. Play Testers
The Borg
The Wiki Bar
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
1,513
Actually, one of the three thumb-rules for cheating on MC are:
"Communicating strategy or agreements with other players using any means other than the in-game chat or diplomatic message tab." (see WIKI)

I agree with much of what has been said here, but my idea would be to have a strong default, which is the way it is currently, meaning that in order to create a game with one of the other two options would neccessitate some extra clicks. Moreover, creatign games with the other two options could be limited to paying members.
 

riskyone

Well-known member
Awesome Player
Whiner & CryBaby
Fixed Force Club
Enemies of Diplomacy
Generals
Knights of MC Realm
M.C. Play Testers
Old Soldiers Club
The Borg
Kickstarter
Joined
Mar 7, 2012
Messages
774
Players would have to do that in public chat within the game. I think the alternative would lead to a lot of ugliness.

I consider communicating outside the game through private messages to be unethical.
I very much agree with this. One player and I got so into it over it that he went of on me in the chatter. To the point he doesn't play here anymore. I believe it's even in the wiki
 

riskyone

Well-known member
Awesome Player
Whiner & CryBaby
Fixed Force Club
Enemies of Diplomacy
Generals
Knights of MC Realm
M.C. Play Testers
Old Soldiers Club
The Borg
Kickstarter
Joined
Mar 7, 2012
Messages
774
Actually, one of the three thumb-rules for cheating on MC are:
"Communicating strategy or agreements with other players using any means other than the in-game chat or diplomatic message tab." (see WIKI)

I agree with much of what has been said here, but my idea would be to have a strong default, which is the way it is currently, meaning that in order to create a game with one of the other two options would neccessitate some extra clicks. Moreover, creatign games with the other two options could be limited to paying members.

It is unethical and cheating. I still like the all or none treaty option.
 

Cardinalsrule

Administrator
Staff member
CentCom
Awesome Player
Whiner & CryBaby
Fixed Force Club
AADOMM
Assassins Guild
Enemies of Diplomacy
Generals
Knights of MC Realm
M.C. Clan Council
M.C. Play Testers
The Borg
The Embassy
T.O's.
Kickstarter
Joined
Jan 2, 2011
Messages
4,780
Yes, like Sebrim and Riskyone said, communicating by PM outside of game is CHEATING and grounds for being banned. And, just so you know, CentCom CAN read those messages, so if someone suspects that someone is doing that, they can report and we'll be able to tell if it is occurring...

Hopefully very few will risk getting banned just to make a 'secret' agreement within a game.
 

engineerairborne

Well-known member
Awesome Player
Enemies of Diplomacy
Knights of MC Realm
Los Bambinos
M.C. Clan Council
M.C. Play Testers
Kickstarter
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
318
I think that people lose perspective that at the end of the day it is a game. It is suppose to be about fun, and learning new strategy and growing. What is the point of cheating in a game, that the most you can hope for is a higher rank in the game, or a few medals. I love the variety that the different options of the game gives for a player; Maps and settings keeps it fresh and interesting, and of course you just never know when the dice monster is going to get in the way LOL.

I digress, if you have to cheat playing a game here then you have your priorities screwed up.
 

honk

Member
Awesome Player
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
9
How about a round limit, and an expiry round for enactment? (decided at the game creation level)
 

Redstorm

Moderator
1299
Awesome Player
The 'B' Squad
Knights of MC Realm
M.C. Play Testers
The Embassy
T.O's.
Kickstarter
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
1,251
lots of good points here. I read them all here just now and am too lazy to go back so I can credit original ideas to others so here we go: I like the idea of two options here.....diplos or no diplos. it would be a very simple thing for everyone involved as it leaves the current diplo rules intact while offering the clear option of no diplos. black and white...cut and dried. Perhaps, if the breaking of diplos is to be discouraged, there could be a punishment of a certain amount of games, time or some event to those who do break a diplo. For instance, break a diplo and for the next 10 (or 20 or ??) games you play in u would not be able to break another diplo or perhaps simply not be allowed to enter into one. I just like the idea of simplicity and clarity regarding this subject. Quick shout out in favor of the prohibition of 3 player games diplos and would even extend that to three teams games. as always ur doing a great job and thanks
 

micky

Well-known member
Awesome Player
Fixed Force Club
Enemies of Diplomacy
M.C. Play Testers
The Canadian Club
T.O's.
Young Guns
Joined
Jan 17, 2017
Messages
544
Just throwing in another thought: If you have the option of "diplo" or "no diplo", why not simply programme so that this diplo cannot be broken by these 2 players for the agreed-upon rounds? And, like now, the diplo is no longer valid if a third player takes over one of the regions concerned. This will make players think/plan about how many rounds they want an agreement for, and the question of "punishment" (as mentioned above) is no longer an issue.
 

riskyone

Well-known member
Awesome Player
Whiner & CryBaby
Fixed Force Club
Enemies of Diplomacy
Generals
Knights of MC Realm
M.C. Play Testers
Old Soldiers Club
The Borg
Kickstarter
Joined
Mar 7, 2012
Messages
774
I think that people lose perspective that at the end of the day it is a game. It is suppose to be about fun, and learning new strategy and growing. What is the point of cheating in a game, that the most you can hope for is a higher rank in the game, or a few medals. I love the variety that the different options of the game gives for a player; Maps and settings keeps it fresh and interesting, and of course you just never know when the dice monster is going to get in the way LOL.

I digress, if you have to cheat playing a game here then you have your priorities screwed up.

This made me smile
 

F15FreeEagle

Well-known member
Awesome Player
The 'B' Squad
M.C. Clan Council
M.C. Play Testers
The Borg
T.O's.
Joined
Jan 23, 2016
Messages
508
To further "muddy the waters" here, I've had the following situation happen to me more than once and I know I am not the only one because I've seen it talked about on the forums:

I go to attack a territory that I've previously had a treaty with, the treaty is over/expired, and the system tells me "I am breaking a treaty, do I wish to continue?"

If we are going to "punish" players for breaking treaties, or going to make it to where treaties are unbreakable, this little glitch must be fixed first. :D

I would also add to what others have said:

No diplos or diplo chat when a game gets down to 3 players (or even 3 teams, for that matter.)
 

ericjkline

Well-known member
Awesome Player
Whiner & CryBaby
Enemies of Diplomacy
Generals
Knights of MC Realm
M.C. Play Testers
The Borg
Joined
Dec 15, 2013
Messages
179
There is a good reason for leaving breakable diplos. First, a 3rd party can use that diplo against a country the invade by leaving a single troop that a neighboring ally cannot break through. Second, and ally may choose to let someone pass through. If there are unbreakable diplos, then I propose to add a way for a diplo to be formally cancelled.
 

srjyj

Active member
Awesome Player
Joined
Jul 21, 2017
Messages
28
To further "muddy the waters" here, I've had the following situation happen to me more than once and I know I am not the only one because I've seen it talked about on the forums:

I go to attack a territory that I've previously had a treaty with, the treaty is over/expired, and the system tells me "I am breaking a treaty, do I wish to continue?"


this happens to me all the time
 

srjyj

Active member
Awesome Player
Joined
Jul 21, 2017
Messages
28
There is a good reason for leaving breakable diplos. First, a 3rd party can use that diplo against a country the invade by leaving a single troop that a neighboring ally cannot break through. Second, and ally may choose to let someone pass through. If there are unbreakable diplos, then I propose to add a way for a diplo to be formally cancelled.

i like this idea

i always thought it would make sense for diplos to be unbreakable

people get so worked up when you break them whatever the reason (accident [see above], game down to two players, etc)
i always felt like i was playing within the rules of the game if the game allowed me to do it

so i like the idea of diplos being unbreakable in the engine, as long as they are in effect, but also having the ability to formally break them

maybe even something like a one turn notice to the other player?
 

PITMAN212

Well-known member
Awesome Player
Fixed Force Club
Knights of MC Realm
M.C. Play Testers
The Duellers Society
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
291
I am all for no diplo in three player games but I think it is pretty much an un written rule around here, I like the way the game is set up now , when you break a treaty you loose points , then everyone sees your true colors
 

riskyone

Well-known member
Awesome Player
Whiner & CryBaby
Fixed Force Club
Enemies of Diplomacy
Generals
Knights of MC Realm
M.C. Play Testers
Old Soldiers Club
The Borg
Kickstarter
Joined
Mar 7, 2012
Messages
774
There is a good reason for leaving breakable diplos. First, a 3rd party can use that diplo against a country the invade by leaving a single troop that a neighboring ally cannot break through. Second, and ally may choose to let someone pass through. If there are unbreakable diplos, then I propose to add a way for a diplo to be formally cancelled.

I agree with eric here. I used this tactic against someone. Planned it a round earlier. I left open the door with 1 troop holding the gate and another player did some damage against a lot of commands that thought they were protected. The player the move was done against went crazy. Said that what I did was dishonorable. A feud in the forum broke out. He was attacking me in other games now for no reason. I reached out the olive branch and lost friends who had defended me and then said that I made nice to easy or something. Look I hate those feuds. I was even told by someone that I was being that guy. Let's not limit strategy, and yes the bug needs to be fixed. In 6.5 years I have made that move 3 times. Was I wrong?
 
Top