Treaties question....

[ajdedo]

Lets say BOB occupied MAGHREB and ALICE occupied PARANA. And there was a treaty between them.

Then ALICE came around from behind and attacked MAGHREB from Nile and took it away from BOB.

Would the treaty be void?

And what if BOB took MAGHREB back from ALICE the following turn, then continued on to take PARANA? Would BOB have broken the treaty?

Thanks.

 

[Sebrim]

The first question is 'YES'
The second question is not a question
The third question is 'NO'

A treaty is a singular act, in force only between the owner of territory A and the owner of territory B across that one border. If the owner of territory A or B changes, the treaty is canceled and must eventually be renewed.

 

[hat7rick]

Lets say BOB occupied MAGHREB and ALICE occupied PARANA. And there was a treaty between them.

Then ALICE came around from behind and attacked MAGHREB from Nile and took it away from BOB.

Would the treaty be void?

And what if BOB took MAGHREB back from ALICE the following turn, then continued on to take PARANA? Would BOB have broken the treaty?

Thanks.

your example reminds me of the slides my professors gave at the university for a security class

 

[TheGeneral]

I think this question is aimed at a game myself and ajdedo played in. The way this game works the treaty remains valid if the territories are retaken. It might not be the best rule and it certainly could be viewed as reviewable.

However, if they are the rules that this site uses then these must be played within as it is the same for all players whether they are agreed with or not.

These considerations all must be considered when making the original treaty.

 

[masterjskye]

I don't think it does remain valid. It may show a message saying that you may be charged with a break if you attack from it later after recapturing it, but if you go ahead and attack it properly does not charge you with a break. The message is the bug here. Unless you've seen a game where someone has been hit with an official break after re-taking a territory? I'd be interested to see that, because it's never happened any of my games.

 

[hat7rick]

I don't think it does remain valid. It may show a message saying that you may be charged with a break if you attack from it later after recapturing it, but if you go ahead and attack it properly does not charge you with a break. The message is the bug here. Unless you've seen a game where someone has been hit with an official break after re-taking a territory? I'd be interested to see that, because it's never happened any of my games.

this is the case in my experience as well. I noticed this bug and it was annoying because i didn't know whether id be charged with a break or not

 

[TheGeneral]

http://www.majorcommand.com/Games/Game.php?gameid=177099

It might have happened in this game. I honestly felt that I played within the rules and Ajdedo had broken them. As a result I confirmed that a treaty had been broken.

If this was indeed a bug and my misreading of the situation then I apologise for this. In this case the bug in the game should be fixed and also if possible I would retract my confirmation and give ajdedo a clean slate as well.

 

[ajdedo]

The first question is 'YES'
The second question is not a question
The third question is 'NO'

A treaty is a singular act, in force only between the owner of territory A and the owner of territory B across that one border. If the owner of territory A or B changes, the treaty is canceled and must eventually be renewed.

LOL - You're right. The second is NOT a question. ;-p

I don't think it does remain valid. It may show a message saying that you may be charged with a break if you attack from it later after recapturing it, but if you go ahead and attack it properly does not charge you with a break. The message is the bug here. Unless you've seen a game where someone has been hit with an official break after re-taking a territory? I'd be interested to see that, because it's never happened any of my games.

Yes, That has been my experience. The message pops up but nothing happens. Or at least no player has ever confirmed it, until now.

The link TheGeneral provided is to a game where I have been officially charged with breaking a treaty - The game did not recognize the fact that I lost control of the territory for a turn, and when I retook it it gave TheGeneral the choice to charge me with an official break. He did.

I agree, the bug can confuse some people and cause problems, it should be near the top of the "to do list" now that the site is running smoother.

 

[stone123]

I don't think it does remain valid. It may show a message saying that you may be charged with a break if you attack from it later after recapturing it, but if you go ahead and attack it properly does not charge you with a break. The message is the bug here. Unless you've seen a game where someone has been hit with an official break after re-taking a territory? I'd be interested to see that, because it's never happened any of my games.

Yep exactly right. The message is the bug.

Looks like this may also be a bug. I don't believe anyone was at fault here.


In a nut shell, the diplo programme does not recognise when a treaty has been broken legitimately from a DIFFERENT boarder by 1 of the 2 persons with whom the diplo agreement is originally made.

Now i think the bug in this scenario is that when General took Algeria from aj at 10/18/13 13:49 legitimately from behind (without breaking diplo across diplo boarders between libya/Algeria) the programme has failed to recognise that the treaty FROM THIS MOMENT, is no longer valid..Backed up by the lack of message sent to Ajdedo to confirm if treaty was broken (i assume, as nothing in the log).....So when Ajdedo takes back Algeria legitimately, as the diplo treaty SHOULD NOT BE applicible anymore, it confuses the programme and thinks diplo has been broken and sends General a message to confirm treaty broken

I have a headache after that. Pretty sure this is correct after reading the log. Apologies if i got it wrong though.

EDIT: Same as AJ has said above...but i believe the detail is the programme not recognising when a diplo tert has been taken from a Different border by 1 of the persons whom have that diplomacy

 

[Cardinalsrule]

I think this question is aimed at a game myself and ajdedo played in. The way this game works the treaty remains valid if the territories are retaken. It might not be the best rule and it certainly could be viewed as reviewable.

However, if they are the rules that this site uses then these must be played within as it is the same for all players whether they are agreed with or not.

These considerations all must be considered when making the original treaty.

I don't believe that this is correct. If you dinged Ajdedo for breaking that treaty, I believe you owe him an apology...

This should be reported to CentCom as a glitch that needs to be fixed.

EDIT: I see that TheGeneral did, indeed, issue an apology for this, good man. Bug needs to be reported and fixed.

 

[ajdedo]

Thanks. I think he kinda did in post #7.

And yes, Everyone should be aware of this, and it should be fixed too....

 

[TheGeneral]

Thanks. I think he kinda did in post #7.

And yes, Everyone should be aware of this, and it should be fixed too....

I didn't kind of apologise. I quite clearly did!

 

[ajdedo]

LOL - Okay Fine. You did. ;-)

I withdraw my jihad.

 

[TheGeneral]

LOL - Okay Fine. You did. ;-)

I withdraw my jihad.

OK - pleased we can move forward. I play this site everyday and hate bad feeling between fellow majcommers.

 

[KmfG]

in a game im in, someone gave "permission" to break a treaty only to attack me since treaties were set up on my other borders, and the two other players were unsuccessful in breaking through my defense, is that cheating?

 

[masterjskye]

in a game im in, someone gave "permission" to break a treaty only to attack me since treaties were set up on my other borders, and the two other players were unsuccessful in breaking through my defense, is that cheating?

No. They are breakable exactly for cases like this.

 

[KmfG]

in my opinion they shouldnt have made a treaty in the length they were not willing to honor

 

[linkinpark]

Damn, I got the same problem.
http://www.majorcommand.com/Games/Game.php?gameid=185864
I attacked from the 'other side' and there wasn't even a message to warn me so I didn't find out about it til today so today I played my turn and got the news that edsdad confirmed I had broken a treaty.
Is there a way to undo this manually since I really care about my diplomacy rating?

EDIT: I just noticed that my situation isn't exactly the same so I wanna explain here:
1. I had a treaty with edsdad between Gyor (mine) and Zagreb (his) (see picture)
2. He took Gyor from the back.
3. I took Zagreb from the back.
4. I took Gyor with troops from Zagreb.
5. I got charged.

 

[edsdad]

Sorry buddy,wasn't aware,if there's a way of reversing it I'm good with that.