Forum
Truce v. Flag Question
|
tryin' wrote
at 10:58 AM, Tuesday October 14, 2008 EDT
So, the guy behind you asks for a truce. He could cause you some damage, so you say "yes." Then, even though he has the dice to attack others, he just sits there. You end up large and in charge because of this. This is on a map with a single land connecting the top and bottom portions. No one else has truced against you. The guy blocking the entrance to the other part of the map flags third and the other guy on the bottom flags second. Your trucemate expects you to attack these flagged parties to get him higher that fourth. What do you do?
|
|
detenmile wrote
at 11:06 AM, Tuesday October 14, 2008 EDT whatever the hell you want to
sounds to me like he was a crappy truce though |
|
MadHat_Sam wrote
at 3:45 PM, Tuesday October 14, 2008 EDT Truce > Flag, not everyone agrees with this but honestly if you are going to bother trucing you get them 2nd unless they are cool with lower.
|
|
rrroll wrote
at 4:07 PM, Tuesday October 14, 2008 EDT I generally agree with sam that truce>flag.
You also have responsibility to give your truce partner some direction if he isn't acting reasonably. In this case, should have told him to gain some other lands; if he doesn't then he couldn't really expect 2nd. Sounds like a crappy player... getting 2nd wouldn't help him much if he just sat there all game losing dom. |
|
moneymango wrote
at 6:39 AM, Wednesday October 15, 2008 EDT This is a perfect situation. If you are big enough,run over everyone claiming "truces over flags" and farm that shit.
|
|
|
detenmile wrote
at 6:59 AM, Wednesday October 15, 2008 EDT oh yeah and generally truce before flag, but i think this was a special case. If somebody truces me and then sits and does absolutely nothing the rest of the game, i would give them the worst position on the table. im sure ill take criticism for that, but im not about to reward somebody for my hard work. Now the above is also void if the original agreement is that they wont do anything. for example "hey purp ill give you second if you just sit there"
|
|
ChristianSoldier wrote
at 8:12 AM, Wednesday October 15, 2008 EDT Given the map layout, his ally 'doing something' would have included taking the lands that he may have needed to defeat the other hemisphere.
I'd smoke the 3rd place flagger, and then tell my truce buddy to stfu. And I've been making friends since 1962. |
|
Embair wrote
at 11:30 AM, Wednesday October 15, 2008 EDT I would take a few lands if it helps my partner to get higher, but if he's way behind 2nd and 3rd then stfu and flag 4th, no discussion. And it also presumes he had some understandable reason for sitting there and doing nothing. If he just sat there while he should fight, he's getting 4th and my sincere lols.
Generally, I don't agree with flags>truce and i absolutely don't agree with truce>flags. It simply depends. You wanna be fair? Just be fair the best way you can - these "rules" are just excuses for farmers and crybabies. |
|
|
moneymango wrote
at 10:04 PM, Wednesday October 15, 2008 EDT you generally dont agree with flags > truces and you dont agree with truces > flags?
What does that mean? truces = flags to you then? Really, I dont see how anyone can disagree with truces > flags for most situations. |
|
|
Embair wrote
at 2:25 AM, Thursday October 16, 2008 EDT Maybe you can call that flags=truces. What i mean, is that it depends on a particular situation. When my truce partner saves my life and we fight bravely againts big counter-truce, of course i will get him second. In the other hand when 7th player wants to be cool, so that he can stay alive with his last stack, he of course cant expect, that ill clear all the others for him to get 2nd.
I simply think that trying to put a simpe equation between this two things can only lead to more unfair games and more angry players. |
|
|
moneymango wrote
at 2:44 AM, Thursday October 16, 2008 EDT I geuss the general feel for me is, if someone helps you significantly then reward them. If not, screw them
|
