Is it kosher? (part one)

[adamlumpy]

So I was in a game recently where it came down to the last three players.

Player 1 was out in front, player 2 not far behind and player 3 (me) behind about 1/3 troops from player 1.

Player 1 sends this agreement via diplo message to player 3:

I'd love to buy some peace with you. In return for a truce for 10 rounds between the 2 of us, I will let you keep England, Ireland, Iceland and the entirely of Scandinavia completely safe. All I ask in return is that we don't attack each other at all for 10 rounds (with the exception of you taking over Scandinavia and me taking over netherlands and luxemburg. This would be our agreement until the end of round 43. Agreed?

Player 3 agrees.

Not even a full two rounds later, Player 2 is pretty much dead, only his few guys in Scandinavia left. Player 1 has attacked player 2 in Scandinavia, not only that has left 9 guys in Denmark and another tert.

Thing is, Player 3 reads the agreement as Player 1 not being able to set foot in Scandinavia, let alone leave guys there as the agreement says Player 3 gets the entirety of Scandinavia for the length of the agreement. So player 3 considers the agreement broken and proceeds to fuck up Player 1, eventually winning ;-)

Who was in the right? Both? One of them? Dodgy?

ps Player 3's plan was to leave Player 2 alive in Scandinavia to attack Player 1. I.e. not kill him and take his tert's.

 

[ThunderChile]

So I was in a game recently where it came down to the last three players.

Player 1 was out in front, player 2 not far behind and player 3 (me) behind about 1/3 troops from player 1.

Player 1 sends this agreement via diplo message to player 3:

I'd love to buy some peace with you. In return for a truce for 10 rounds between the 2 of us, I will let you keep England, Ireland, Iceland and the entirely of Scandinavia completely safe. All I ask in return is that we don't attack each other at all for 10 rounds (with the exception of you taking over Scandinavia and me taking over netherlands and luxemburg. This would be our agreement until the end of round 43. Agreed?

Player 3 agrees.

Not even a full two rounds later, Player 2 is pretty much dead, only his few guys in Scandinavia left. Player 1 has attacked player 2 in Scandinavia, not only that has left 9 guys in Denmark and another tert.

Thing is, Player 3 reads the agreement as Player 1 not being able to set foot in Scandinavia, let alone leave guys there as the agreement says Player 3 gets the entirety of Scandinavia for the length of the agreement. So player 3 considers the agreement broken and proceeds to fuck up Player 1, eventually winning ;-)

Who was in the right? Both? One of them? Dodgy?

ps Player 3's plan was to leave Player 2 alive in Scandinavia to attack Player 1. I.e. not kill him and take his tert's.

I think diplo messages or agreements should not be made at all when 3 players left. I don't do them even if it would increase my chances of winning because I think it's just plain wrong morally. So I find it hard to answer who is right as it goes wrong already before making any moves at all..

 

[Redstorm]

I think diplo messages or agreements should not be made at all when 3 players left. I don't do them even if it would increase my chances of winning because I think it's just plain wrong morally. So I find it hard to answer who is right as it goes wrong already before making any moves at all..

I agree completely.

 

[Sebrim]

Diplo in three-way games always favours the stronger player at the expense of the other two. The unwritten rule is: always attack the strongest player. Everything else just makes him stronger.

 

[riskyone]

I agree with the fact that he broke the agreement. The word entirely of Scandinavia. The thing is I agree even more with Sebrim. Everything else makes the strongest stronger. I agree most though with ThunderChile There should be only open chatter talk. No diplo's resulting in a two on one. So for me it's morals.

 

[adamlumpy]

Fair call on the 3 player thing having no diplo's, though if everyone always attacked the strongest the game would go forever (escalite).

I haven't really seen people speak openly about this type of stuff via chat, which you're right is kind of stink as when playing a real game of risk everyone's hearing and seeing what the other guys do

 

[adamlumpy]

ps it wasn't a 3 player game, was 6 of us to start

 

[Sebrim]

ps it wasn't a 3 player game, was 6 of us to start

A game with three players left is by definition a three-player game, no?

 

[Redstorm]

For me it all comes down to this....I don't play this 'game of entertainment" for reasons of winning games only and can't remember ever enjoying being the victim of this strategy. Besides, I don't want to be involved in a 'secret' agreement with one player against another in 3 player simply because how can I really trust that these 'secret' (no diplo, no open chat) agreements will be honored? You can't. When another player offers me this type of arrangement where I am certain that he is willingly giving me the superior position to win the game, I will report that in this forum........don't stay up waiting for it!!! LOL


:ridinghorse: