"Can you describe to me how "effective truces" is a bogus way to win, or doesn't involve a skillset?"

As I said, I'm completely not proud of the recent 20-player FFA I won. It involved being lucky with my truces. They have to be both the strongest players on the board (which you don't know in the beginning), and weaker than you in the end (which involves so many factors outside of your control). I disagree it is more based on skill than luck. But, don't get me wrong, I naturally like the game, otherwise I would not have played it. Every FFA with a high amount of players I join is a game I don't expect to win. I expect at least several players that don't have a clue and will be eliminated soon. I expect several people to be below my skill level and will be eliminated in the heat of the game. However, I also expect there to be people who have the basic skill set and are just as "skillful" at making truces (being lucky in having people accept your truce or not being treacherous). It is easy to lose due to factors outside of your control. You do not control your supposed truces. You only control who you talk to. I make truces in the beginning without leaving me unable to expand. Borders need to be secure. I know the drill. There's, once again, a basic skill set required.

"Picking the right people to attack and the right people to truce is an incredibly valuable set of skills for large games. Truces also tend to happen organically between decent players. There's a huge amount of skill involved in presenting a strong border (that would be hard to attack), while not appearing aggressive. You have to say the right things at the right time to influence board position and alliances. You have to be prepared to truce out a war and give up concessions in order to capitalize elsewhere."

It seems to me you're describing games with light or no fog, or with easily available spy cards. In most games you play you would want to have truces in the beginning to not waste your early advantage, otherwise those with truces from the beginning will roll over you. You cannot really tell from the beginning who is going to win against whom.

"http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=1657983"

Poland Big is not really the right example. When I saw the map I expected exactly what I saw when I scrolled back to the beginning. You started out in cities of Slaskie, and were able to capture them not too long after. The game is pretty much won unless you get ganged up on. The several games I played in Poland Big with 24 players, the one who ended up with that bonus always won. It is too much of a starting advantage. Sorry to say, I'm sure you're skillful and I'm really admitting that you're better than a lot of players, but this one is unfortunately not really showing how you win a balanced 24-player FFA.

As a short summary:

1. There is a basic skill set involved in individual actions.
2. There is a basic skill set of communication involved (the shy or those bad in English will not win a 24-player FFA).
3. There are a lot of factors outside of your control that can make you win or lose.

The third pretty much allows me to say that it is not that much based on skill as you would like when you win a 24-player FFA (or any high amount of players). But generally when I say that people misunderstand me in saying that it's fully luck-based. It isn't. You should both know things about individual playstyles and about communication. You will lose if you have neither, or only one of the two. So, I'm not sure if that means I'm agreeing with you, because I certainly believe you have those two skillsets. I simply believe that regardless of having those two skillsets, it is still easy to lose to players with less skills in those areas due to unfortunate issues.

I mean, just as a funny example, I just started an FFA where my rather remotely chosen bonus also happens to be occupied by another player. A player that refuses to answer my PMs and I currently don't know whether or not he would agree to my truce. The direct boot time is approaching and I would have to assume he won't go into a truce with me, which pretty much spells my doom (and his). In another game I had a guy in truce with me attack me for "becoming too strong". I still don't understand this type of thoughts, as it merely lead to me performing massive attacks on his bonuses, basically spelling both the doom of myself and that player. It is not a strategic choice of him, but even having basic skill sets in the required fields apparently weren't enough. If I wanted to keep him as an ally, I should have not attacked another player and gained income, basically meaning another player was becoming stronger. I once again disagree that you cannot lose due to many factors outside of your control, but as always I agree that you have much more chance to win if you have the basic skill sets I pointed out.