| Author |
Messages |
|
G.I. Joe
Strategist
Posts:17
 |
| 29 Apr 2008 5:54 PM |
|
From time to time I find myself in a position where it seems as though a treaty with everyone would be most beneficial. I have seen a few of my friends end up with a “No Attack” Treaty with all of the players at once and it doesn't usually work out as well as I think it could. I was wondering what everyone’s opinions were on having a short (maybe 1-2 turn) No Attack Treaty with all of the other players in, say, a 4 player game. I have an opinion on the subject but I was hoping to hear some or your thoughts before sharing mine.
~G.I. Joe~ |
|
|
|
|
Ehsan Honary
Site Admin
King
Posts:268
|
| 01 May 2008 12:41 PM |
|
Personnally I dont phrase the threaties like that. No attack with every other player means that you wont get any cards and it simply slows the game down. Besides I also dont think blanket alliances are that beneficial since you may not be better of. In fact someone else might benefit a lot more from this that you do. On top of that, its a very short term issue. All that hastle to go through to get this may not be that profitable.
So my simple answer is, I dont think it's that good. So what is your own opinion. |
|
Ehsan Honary
|
|
|
G.I. Joe
Strategist
Posts:17
|
| 01 May 2008 4:34 PM |
|
Thanks for the input on this. I have seen my friends do this, and as you suggest, I benefit more than they do. I think that with proper timing this could work well.
If the other players are about to start a big war at a front that I am not able to reach, I would tell them that they can be certain that I won't attack their territories near me (ONLY if I can share a territory with one of them so that we can both get a card). I would play sort of "innocent" by saying that I would stay out of their territories so they can use their full power to fight the big battle. Should they trust me on this, they will probably end their turn by reinforcing thier troops to the main battlefield. Hopefully, this battle will consume a good sum of their forces with not much progress by anyone (this is the part that worries me because of the freak chance that one person gets on a hot streak of good dice throws). If all goes as planned, the others will be significantly weaker, thus making it easier to conquer them.
This is my opinion on the matter, though it is definitely subject to change because I have never been in a situation where I could completely try this. Also, I would like to add that I may have not been clear with the way I named the treaty. I completely agree with you that saying, "I won't attack you," is not the best treaty. In this case, it technically is a single border treaty with multiple people, though I would CHOOSE not attack anyone (other than at the shared territory) to keep the attention on the main battle.
I hope to hear some opinions from everyone else here. Thanks.
~G.I. Joe~
|
|
|
|
|
Great Alan
Diplomat
Posts:62
|
| 03 May 2008 6:29 AM |
|
Well,I ever had some experiences of making treaty.The treaty is nothing more than 'don't attack each other' is quite not a good idea.It means that you can't even attack some strategic terrtories where is not his 'main base' and weakly defended.
My view is you can 'create the particular terrtories' which can't be attacked,then you can have more free manuever.For example,in one game,I played the European Map.In that game,I signed 'Pyrenees Treaty'(Pyrenees is the border between Spain and France) with him,admit he 'obtain' Iberia Peninsula,North Africa while he recognized me 'control' Britain,France and particular border at Northern Germany.
And one more important thing is you must judge what is the best opportunity to break the alliance with him.For example,when your ally is seriously depleted by the emeny,then it's a good time to consider to breaking alliance.
Also,the treaty can be used for 'strategic withdrawal'.For example,you have 2 continents,but two is faraway and can't support each other.And if you have the new strategic objective,you may consider to 'cede' 1 of your continents to your opponent.Ensuring you won't be attacked by him,you should make a treaty with him.
(Indeed,the classic map is small.Hence,there're rare chance to perform this great strategic plan)
Treaty is a good tool if you use well.But you shouldn't let this tool hinder your expansion.
Indeed,'the non-agreement treaty' which is both sides keep not increasing border army is better than agreeing treaty.If it's necessary,then try to use the short term cease-fire agreement or non-aggression treaty to replace the long term treaty.
Every decision depend on the situation,there're no solid plan.Remember this and then you can exploit the diplomacy well.(Diplomacy is just not like 'alliance' and 'treaty' so simple)
|
|
|
|
|
Ehsan Honary
Site Admin
King
Posts:268
|
| 03 May 2008 6:54 AM |
|
In regard with the situation that you want to get all others engaged in a war of attrition while you play the innocent, it's all perfect on paper if they all become weaker as a result. You mentioned this yourself too.
It's a good try, though my experience shows that sometimes it can go like this. One player in that war of attrition gets a better outcome and another player becomes weak very quickly while card possession is building up. As a result the weak player becomes a target. Now, you have gained considerably and have been waiting for this. The best move is to get in, eliminate the weak player, cash the cards and get yourself reinforced against the others ready to enter into a conflict with them since they will now see you as a threat. This way you can start a chain of elimination or keep the upper hand until you win, hopefully.
The problem is that you might have made a treaty with the weak player earlier on, now you risk your reputation if you attack him. After all he relied on you and your treaty, went to battle with others (to your advantage) and had bad luck. He wont be pleased when he realises that he has been stabbed in the back!
So, what do you think you should do or prepare for when you find yourself as the innocent player while others are fighting it out? |
|
Ehsan Honary
|
|
|
G.I. Joe
Strategist
Posts:17
|
| 03 May 2008 2:38 PM |
|
I really like the situation that Ehsan Honary gave here. It would definitely leave you in a very poor position if you did not time this plan properly. By timing, I mean you would have to make the treaties DIRECTLY before the battle ensued and the treaties would have to be the exact length so that the treaty ends right after the worst part of the battle. If both of those are timed correctly (which, I know, would be difficult), you won't have to worry about breaking any treaties.
In regard to Ehsan Honary's question, I would either try this plan out for the first time, or try to ally with another player to perform somewhat of a pincer move around a weaker player (ensuring that I would be the one to eliminate him/her).
~G.I. Joe~ |
|
|
|
|
Dan12
Diplomat
Posts:81
|
| 04 May 2008 2:26 AM |
|
G.I. Joe, I like the last part of your solution. To ally with another player and divide them up so much that you can then benefit from it. The most difficult move is to make sure that you are the only player who is going to eliminate the weaker player. Would be a shame if after all that effort someone else comes and steals the prize.
|
|
|
|
|
G.I. Joe
Strategist
Posts:17
|
| 04 May 2008 6:35 PM |
|
Yeah, Dan, that would be really bad. Plus, if the game is at the point where someone is being eliminated, one slip up that causes someone else to take the cards can be the defining factor of a game. Once someone takes someone's cards in the middle of a turn, they can continue on a longer campaign and really leave you in the dust.
In regard to the topic at hand, I really like the opinions that have came up. But the big question now is: Considering the chance that one player might dominate the dice and become much stronger, is this strategy worth trying in a game?
~G.I. Joe~ |
|
|
|
|
DearCyrus
Tactician
Posts:8
|
| 16 Jul 2013 10:09 AM |
|
| All Strategies are worth considering, Situations determine which are worth trying... Keep Your eye open for the circumstances that match up with your scenario. When the winds blow in your favor, try it out. And don't assume something is a bad strategy if it doesn't go off flawlessly the first time; Sometimes you are the one with the bad dice rolls. |
|
|
|
|
|