Could either BigPie16 or Octavious just post a link to the game. Otherwise, I do not think that there is much more to say.

id never think i hear myself say this but im sorta tired or FFA truce threads... but even soo my 2 sense is that in a game that is generally known as a "Free For All" youd think anything goes?

I hear what your saying. Ive been backstabed on too many times and I'm sick of it

Oh, I play Diplomacy for fun, as I do this game. I just believe that more fun is had when everyone strives to win. Diplomacy includes the option to draw, so in some ways can be considered less fundamentally bloodthirsty than Warlight, but the art of making and breaking of alliances is considered a cornerstone of the game and one of the most enjoyable elements.

Both are good games and I would encourage anyone to check out Diplomacy if they have the time. I just see no reason why the cut and thrust nature of Diplomacy can't be applied here as it breaks no rules I can see and seems rather effective. If I am mistaken in this please tell me.

But you do agree that if someone wants to make an allience they would honor that... Not to sound too goody goody but is there any trust in this game anymore?

I trust each player to act in their best interests and not to cheat. To ask for any more or less than that strikes me as being unreasonable.

i think Octavious is right when he says in an ffa truces will always fail, but i also think you should tell the person and give them a notice a turn in advance.

Oh believe me i am always prepared for any act of betrayal

How about making multiple alliances and sitting back stacking up armies... hows that for fair gameplay. But that's how they do it a diplomacy

It's not really... We have far fewer armies and all are clearly visable at all times.

A question on this "turn in advance" warning idea. In our game (sorry... don't know how to post a link to it) the act of betrayal was a slow build-up of armies out of sight but close to our boarder. This betrayal became obvious when I moved my armies up to our shared boarder, but naturally this involved no physical invasion during that turn. Does that not count as a "fair" warning by your one turn definition? If not how many turns would be required to be fair warning for an army too big to be stopped?

Hang on... maybe I do...

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=3270090

Oh and one more thing... he knew what he was doing when he was doing it. He made multiple alliances knowing how things would work out. If anyone thinks that that is the best way to win, well... you should consider diplomacy. And remember to look out for alliances and truces because they more than not will fail. Tell me if I'm wrong bu warlight topics tend to get around and everyone knows who the 'cheaters' are. But in diploymacy there are no limits. It depends if you want a social, fair, competative game vs. a bloodthirsty, backstabing, fend for yourself now and forever game. a where there are no limits those people think it's ok to do something in that matter and be proud of the win. I win about half of the 6 player ffa and i still ebd up having a great game. Ive even surrendered a game to a few players who i think played batter than me (we were in an alliance.) Is that not right?!?!

"a bloodthirsty, backstabing, fend for yourself now and forever game. a where there are no limits those people think it's ok to do something in that matter and be proud of the win"

That has to be one of the best adverts for Diplomacy I've ever seen! :D

"Ive even surrendered a game to a few players who i think played batter than me (we were in an alliance.) Is that not right?!?!"

No, sir. No, it is not.

Coming from someone who lives for diplomacy... Im sorry but Warlight is different. And after one of those surrenders i was offered a spot in a clan because of my actions. Warlight is different!

Interesting, it's unusual to see one person post a thread complaining about a betrayal and have the person who did the betraying post back to make it a debate (let alone find the thread in the first place).

In my opinion you both make very valid points. It's no fun being betrayed, so it can be good to warn people about someone known to play both sides so that anyone who ends up in a game with that person will be aware, but since there are no rules about alliances it's nothing to get too angry about.

As for stacking armies out of site but near the border, I find that it can be a very effective strategy, as most people are doing the same thing to me anyways.

Oh believe me ive done that before... but for one we were never in an alliance and two would you feel proud knowing you one a game because you were aliened with everyone and you just sat there laughing

ps... did you see the link? He chatted me asking why i had so many on the border. 10 turns later... WELL THAT'S WHY!

Diplomacy is FAR different, and I'm glad that's established

What I totally fail to understand, BigPie, is how your prefered tactic of using an ally to achieve a dominant position on the board and then saying "Dreadfully sorry, but I have to declare war on you next turn", when you know victory will be certain, is any more honourable than what I did? It is still a betrayal. It is still planned. You are simply putting a pig in a silk dress and pretending its a lady. In some ways what I did is more honest.

Its like watching a soap opera. you really feel for the characters.:P

Are you kidding me!?!?! You said i caould have europe and africa while you got asia Please tell me how in anyway did i try to screw you over! I even attacked the other player while u were planning both our deaths!

Perhaps you could write a poem to fit the occasion? :)