Exactly....accepting truces in a FFA generally is a bad idea because in terms of trust, you can't trust anyone.

I used to get really angry when someone backstabbed me in a FFA, but now, since it's all part of the game, I just smile....and blacklist the person.

Another reason treaties are unstable is because when the person surrenders and turns into an AI, the truce is not withheld which annoys me...becuase I get my bonus cut down from lack of AI not knowing what else to do.

I generally would like 1 turn notice...but if you don't....not my problem.

|> Another reason treaties are unstable is because when the person surrenders and turns into an AI, the truce is not withheld which annoys me...becuase I get my bonus cut down from lack of AI not knowing what else to do.

This. I'm playing FFA on USA Big, and person I was truced (with like 800 income) with turned into AI. :(

I don't have any problem with breaking truce, although I rarely if ever do it myself, I would simply use it to form an opinion of the player and their playing style.

There's a diplomacy card for this purpose in Warlight in case any of you are not aware, if it's not available in the particular match you're in then you're not supposed to be able to do it. It's all well and good making a verbal agreement with someone and even moreso if you're both able to stick to it, but it's by no means absolute.

WhenI play on a ffa, usualy the only time I break a truce is if I either have no more room to expand, or if need to go somewhere. I actualy don't mind if someone breaks a truce. In real life wars, people don't say they are going to break a truce.

Oh i like to suicide into backstabbers and ruin their chance of winning always works.

Actauly i rarely break truces. Usualy i would wait until he dies then kill the invader when hes unprepared. I just wait for the events to play out and then i strike. Which is why I usualy go to the top 3 in a 24 ffa match.

I with Ironheart and Reza on this one. Sometimes I even get an unspoken truce with someone (you don't attack me, I don't attack you), but these are very risky.

Breaking a truce is okay, but you have to have a tactical reason to do it, and ensure that you breaking the truce will pay off.

In a FFA, if you go 100% head to head with the first person that you meet, (depending on specifics of size of map, turn you encounter, number of players, etc) you will lose. The best case scenario is that you break his only bonus, you have a bonus, and can quickly put him away so you can restart your expansion and not be too far behind by the time you reach your next opponent. That is rare, and you'll probably endlessly fight each other while everyone else expands and you've both lost.

So, Truces (or non-aggression pacts) are essential when you encounter someone early. But you need to know how far you can trust it. If you're meeting at bottlenecks, and each of you have 15 armies at the bottleneck and base income is only in the low 20's, you're probably okay just leaving your armies at a standoff.

It gets trickier when you can easily be flanked, or overcome by a single turn of armies deployed.

Eventually, you will need to break your truce, unless you are voteing to end the game. So, when you do end your truce? It can either be agreed upon or a suprise. Either way, the person that generally comes out on top is the one that has been sandbagging expansion elsewhere and stacking behind the lines next to your border.

Regardless of when the truce is officially broken, whoever stacked the most prior will generally win.

A major part of the outcome is how the other member of the truce reacts.

Did he stack armies behind the truce line too, and have an attack only order issued that will trounce you when you break it? If so, you're now getting steamrolled. Or will he just stop deploying against anyone else, let them walk all over his territories and gain income, while you are trying to fight him off 100%?

Just some considerations you need to take into account. Sorry for rambling.

I challenge what you say, (though i agree that it is 90% correct that you will loose if you fight someone 1v1 from the start, it is not always the case):
http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=2783732


diplomacy is the most important part of BFFA's (big FFA's) as seen here:
http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=2871118

the only reason why i might be against it is for tactical reasons (if u brake a truth u may get the other guy suiciding on u. except for that i would brake them every time i thought i might take an advantage out of it

It's so hypocritical to see people say treaties can be broken and it's okay, but direct booting is not. One is part of the game, the other is fabricated by players.

FWIW, I always follow through with my treaties and give warning if I'm breaking. I expect my opponent to do the same.

i said u may brake treatises, as i say u may boot directly. U might decide to wait some more time, but u rnt forced to wait for a player which might never return

direct booting is not against the rules, but really annoying when you are about to win the game :P

free for alls, you are free to do whatever

as long as it isnt in breach of the rules, then you are able to do it (though i try not to break truces)

My 2 cents:

1 cent: If you sign a treaty that has no bearing of when it is going to end, expect it to be broken at any turn. Whenever I sign certain treaties, one of the provisions I focus on in turn limit. This way I don't suddenly get backstabbed, and if I do, the other person's honor is compromised. If you play a lot of FFA/Diplomacy-type games, not being trusted is an easy way to lose. People are more apt to betray you, or ignore your treaties. So keep that in mind.

1 cent: Direct booting is a setting, not a rule. This means that you can boot whenever you please so long as the settings say so. However, if you boot when you don't have the clear advantage, or it's very clear that your opponent is about to win.. don't expect people to be happy about that. I work full-time school and work now, and sometimes I'm not able to access Warlight for long periods of time. Thus, my bootrate has gone up. Sadly, some of those games were ones I had the clear advantage over and was about to win. Now my 1v1 winrate suffers. How is that fair? Some of those games I even apologized for my inability to play in a timely manner. ;/. Anyways, both of these actions are gray-area imo and depend on who you ask.

I don`t like it, but... this is the way that war is. Another part of the strategy. But personally, I never break a truce without announcing, or if the other side act this way against me.

I will ask people to tell me a few turns beforehand (or perhaps just one, but not the turn itself) if they're going to attack me when we have a truce. Initially, I hoped this was the norm. We're not at war, we're playing a game, so it's not necessarily to be like that. Of course, some people have other views, so I blacklist them. I wish to have fun in my matches.

Most of the time, though, whenever someone breaks their truce unnannounced, I will retrieve all of my armies to pull them towards that player and place my income strategically as if it was a 1v1. I'll truce with people around me (usually already the case) so that I won't lose any income from other players. This will completely annihilate his chance to win the map, most of the times, and he'll be taught a lesson, not to do it again. I usually don't blacklist when I achieve this, since he'll have been taught. However, I will when he does win, as I do not play with backstabbers that win through backstabbing.

There are no rules on this. As with booting, you are capable of doing anything within the game that it offers to you. If you choose not to place armies and/or attack one of your opponents, it is your decision. This is entirely within your capability. You are free to choose when and with how much you attack your opponents. Any private messaging is purely visuals. So, I do not report backstabbers. They did not break any rules. But they did break my requirements to play matches with me. That is why I blacklist.

one solution to booting conundrum autoboot.More games need AUTOBOOT.

How is autoboot an improvement over somebody booting at the limit?
It seems like it just automates the 'booting at the limit' behavior that is the problem in the first place...

I agree with Lolowut

If you don't set a time limit on it, you are begging for a backstab. Doesn't mean it will happen, but sets yourself up for a very good possibility. When I do truces with people I like to set the conditions. Like I will stay out of this bonus if you stay out of this one. Or if someone wants to keep a certain territory I say that is fine, but when I have the rest of the bonus I am going to take that said territory. Then they know when they will be attacked and since there were no broad terms, everything that doesn't fall within the specific terms is fair game and not really a backstab.

If you just say truce to each other that makes for a shaky agreement.

in my opinion you should tell someone at the beginning of a turn that you are going to break the truce. but to soften the blow you should send them a complimentary cookie :D