Q about how diplomatic treaties end

[armstrong]

Hi folks

So they expire. What are the other reasons for them to be no longer be valid (i.e. you are allowed to break it).

So country A and B sign one for Parana and Maghreb, respectively. This question assumes the treaty has not expired yet.

Country C takes Parana. Country A takes it back. Still valid or no longer valid?

There are other scenarios similar to this one, but I'm assuming that if this one here breaks the treaty, then the remaining ones break it too (e.g. Country C takes P and M, then A and B retake them respectively).

Thanks in advance.

 

[ericjkline]

If Player C takes a tert from A or B that has a treaty, the treaty is canceled. Sometimes two players in big games will make a treaty, but also honor and re-establish the treaty after it is broken by player C. The game even allows your teammate to break the treaty without anyone being able to mark down their Diplo rating, but that is generally taboo and you will get dishonorable ratings and make people pretty mad.

However, I personally think there are times where it is OK to break a treaty, particularly when a player from another team gives me permission. An example is that sometimes a third party will attack my neighbor from a different border and break their command, but leave a troop on the treaty border so that they are protected by the treaty. To me, the treaty is only between the *teams* of A and B, and team C cannot assume they are safe due to that treaty. I have often asked permission to break a treaty so I can help another team where it is our mutual benefit to fight off a third team who has become very strong, or who is using treaties of other teams to protect their back side. For this reason, I also keep some troops on borders; even when there is a treaty, because a strategic player can build up a big stack and rip through a lot of weakly defender borders breaking many commands. I even keep troops in my internal borders between commands as a type of firewall to discourage those big breakthroughs.

 

[riskyone]

If Player C takes a tert from A or B that has a treaty, the treaty is canceled. Sometimes two players in big games will make a treaty, but also honor and re-establish the treaty after it is broken by player C. The game even allows your teammate to break the treaty without anyone being able to mark down their Diplo rating, but that is generally taboo and you will get dishonorable ratings and make people pretty mad.

However, I personally think there are times where it is OK to break a treaty, particularly when a player from another team gives me permission. An example is that sometimes a third party will attack my neighbor from a different border and break their command, but leave a troop on the treaty border so that they are protected by the treaty. To me, the treaty is only between the *teams* of A and B, and team C cannot assume they are safe due to that treaty. I have often asked permission to break a treaty so I can help another team where it is our mutual benefit to fight off a third team who has become very strong, or who is using treaties of other teams to protect their back side. For this reason, I also keep some troops on borders; even when there is a treaty, because a strategic player can build up a big stack and rip through a lot of weakly defender borders breaking many commands. I even keep troops in my internal borders between commands as a type of firewall to discourage those big breakthroughs.

I think eric's answer was spot on. I also believe that there are times when it makes for a more challenging game. I would like to use the team mate diplo break as an example. I think it could add a whole other level of complexity. I did it once before I knew this unwritten rule and was chased to other games from this player. I believe in honor so if the signed treaty also had a verbal not to do that, then I believe that should be respected, but one must ask. eric brought up something else debated here a lot. When one team is to strong. If the two others don't work together they lose. I as we all have been on both sides of that. I also respect the player who feels that if one team built such a lead they deserve to win, but does it make it unhonorable to try and avoid just giving up?

 

[armstrong]

If Player C takes a tert from A or B that has a treaty, the treaty is canceled. Sometimes two players in big games will make a treaty, but also honor and re-establish the treaty after it is broken by player C. The game even allows your teammate to break the treaty without anyone being able to mark down their Diplo rating, but that is generally taboo and you will get dishonorable ratings and make people pretty mad.

However, I personally think there are times where it is OK to break a treaty, particularly when a player from another team gives me permission. An example is that sometimes a third party will attack my neighbor from a different border and break their command, but leave a troop on the treaty border so that they are protected by the treaty. To me, the treaty is only between the *teams* of A and B, and team C cannot assume they are safe due to that treaty. I have often asked permission to break a treaty so I can help another team where it is our mutual benefit to fight off a third team who has become very strong, or who is using treaties of other teams to protect their back side. For this reason, I also keep some troops on borders; even when there is a treaty, because a strategic player can build up a big stack and rip through a lot of weakly defender borders breaking many commands. I even keep troops in my internal borders between commands as a type of firewall to discourage those big breakthroughs.

Thanks for your replies as always. Sometimes (particularly in the other thread) your replies are a bit beyond my level of understanding (I think primarily because I'm asking the question from a 4-singles perspective, whereas you're considering team games on big maps), but I'll hopefully catch up at some point.

So WRT the scenario above, is it fair to say that the treaty is no longer valid the minute either country A no longer holds Parana, or country B no longer holds Mahgreb? As soon as this condition is met, no matter in what circumstance (except in the case that Country A attacks across Parana to Maghreb, or vice versa), then any subsequent assaults no longer affects diplo scores? I just want to make sure I understand what I need to do to not break a diplo.

Country A is not holding country

 

[riskyone]

Thanks for your replies as always. Sometimes (particularly in the other thread) your replies are a bit beyond my level of understanding (I think primarily because I'm asking the question from a 4-singles perspective, whereas you're considering team games on big maps), but I'll hopefully catch up at some point.

So WRT the scenario above, is it fair to say that the treaty is no longer valid the minute either country A no longer holds Parana, or country B no longer holds Mahgreb? As soon as this condition is met, no matter in what circumstance (except in the case that Country A attacks across Parana to Maghreb, or vice versa), then any subsequent assaults no longer affects diplo scores? I just want to make sure I understand what I need to do to not break a diplo.

Country A is not holding country

Your correct. If anything except the Parana-Maghreb direct occurs. The treaty is null and void. No longer valid. If it happens in the same round the computer will ask you are you sure because you might be breaking a truce, but your not and will not be charged. Hope that last part helps.

 

[ericjkline]

Yes, correct, Armstrong. You can’t lose diplo points once either tert in a treaty is taken by someone else. In terms of honor (as well as how to win!) it’s always helpful to put yourself in the other players position and think about what they would do, and how they will feel about your move. Regarding my more complex point, it applies to 4 player singles. Consider if you are Team A in Stans, and have a treaty with Team B in China. Team C attacks China from Indochina, and breaks command, leaving just 1-2 of Team B’s in Xinjiang. If Team C is trying to kill Team B and is much stronger than the other teams, I would ask Team B if I can break our treaty and attack Team C who may have several undefended commands. To me, he should not be able to use my treaty with B as a defense. It was between A and B, not to protect C.

 

[riskyone]

Yes, correct, Armstrong. You can’t lose diplo points once either tert in a treaty is taken by someone else. In terms of honor (as well as how to win!) it’s always helpful to put yourself in the other players position and think about what they would do, and how they will feel about your move. Regarding my more complex point, it applies to 4 player singles. Consider if you are Team A in Stans, and have a treaty with Team B in China. Team C attacks China from Indochina, and breaks command, leaving just 1-2 of Team B’s in Xinjiang. If Team C is trying to kill Team B and is much stronger than the other teams, I would ask Team B if I can break our treaty and attack Team C who may have several undefended commands. To me, he should not be able to use my treaty with B as a defense. It was between A and B, not to protect C.

eric said it best. It was between A and B, not to protect C. That's why it's smart to leave a few at those borders.

 

[youredead]

I don't agree with those advices. Truces are public and every player should build the strategy having them in mind and assuming the others are decent players who won't break them. If player A and player B sign a deal that, eventually, gives the game to player C, then player A and player B should admit they have been outwitted, lose the game if they can't do something legitimate and learn the lesson.

 

[riskyone]

I don't agree with those advices. Truces are public and every player should build the strategy having them in mind and assuming the others are decent players who won't break them. If player A and player B sign a deal that, eventually, gives the game to player C, then player A and player B should admit they have been outwitted, lose the game if they can't do something legitimate and learn the lesson.

I have been in many games that have 6-8 players and because A and B make a truce, it effects all. I don't think players should leave single borders because they are trying to build a strong front. It opens the game up. When there are more players and they all start trucing and just building up their borders without regard to their back side. Just my opinion and I do respect your opinion. I would just like it to be understood that this isn't breaking a rule and I don't feel that strategy is dishonorable. We are all allowed to our opinions and mine isn't worth more or less then your's just different.

 

[armstrong]

Ok - Q. Hopefully someone answers in the next 60 mins before my time runs out to make my play.

A player in my game has been banned. I have a diplo with him. I just remembered as I wanted to attack across the forgotten treaty. So... is there a way around this? I already made my deployment right beside it. Obviously, anyone banned from the game shouldn't have their truces stay in effect...

 

[Sebrim]

if the player is banned, there is nobody there to confirm you have broken the treaty, so it's good to be broken.
However, there is no guarantee the other players won't give you a dishonourable for that move, though...

 

[armstrong]

So if I attack across the treaty, it won't affect my diplo score?

 

[empirejeff]

So if I attack across the treaty, it won't affect my diplo score?

The other player would have to confirm that the treaty was broken.

 

[riskyone]

Ok - Q. Hopefully someone answers in the next 60 mins before my time runs out to make my play.

A player in my game has been banned. I have a diplo with him. I just remembered as I wanted to attack across the forgotten treaty. So... is there a way around this? I already made my deployment right beside it. Obviously, anyone banned from the game shouldn't have their truces stay in effect...

Great question. I'm to late to answer, plus I don't know the answer but would like to.

 

[riskyone]

The other player would have to confirm that the treaty was broken.

This man said it. I should have remembered that.:banghead:

 

[Sebrim]

yes, but as long as he's banned, he can't log on to confirm anything, so in this case it wouldn't affect the score....