A friend and a "known opponent" are two different things. When I played regularly there were plenty of non-friends who's playing styles I knew very well. I knew who I could trust to truce and who I couldn't. Guess what, I wouldn't offer a truce to the untrusting kind unless it was the absolute only strategic move I could use. That's human nature. I never favored friends, but I definitely favored certain playing styles. But I'd always be just as likely to 1-hit hoe, or pierce, or monte, or sam, or das.....as I would be to silent truce them.

It's strategy, not favortism.......at least my style was. That isn't to say there isn't friendgotting going on too...

This game is about friendship... this is why there is a chatbox at the bottom. Does it make some situation unfair? Yes but we all have the opportunities to make friends ( I know, I have none), like Fon did.

The chat is the best part of the game. The only interesting part in the game. The rest is some small strategies, luck and it is boring.

So please grow up...

I don't really understand this conversation. Is KDice saying that game theory is illegal? I guess I'm confused about how you are supposed to play this game without using knowledge from previous games.

KDice is constantly arguing over whether using social play is "fair". My opinion is that it is fair.

I don't get what the big deal is. It is fairly easy to spot alliances and friendly play if you are looking for it. I think most here are just being lazy.

In the real world; nations talk behind others backs and plot all types of things. Meanwhile we elect fools to represent us in that game; so how about we all just get used to playing a social war game; instead of trying to make it into something that just isn't in it's nature.

Good post deadcode (no sarcasm)