Okay, first time creating this kind of post, but you have to see this:
http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=1795807

I had a truce with bloodnok, just as I had with a few other players. We agreed to leave 10 armies on our border as a sort of trust guarantee, but in turn 43 he attacked me without any warning! I thought truces were supposed to make the game more fun, but this guy apparently didn't get the message...

i would have done the same

I am no expert, but I think that only Machiavellian methods work in big FFA games.

"He who won, fought fair"
"The victor makes the rules"

in War, which is what warlight represents, truces are made, often secretly, and often with a show of force so as to hide the actual presence of the truce...
often times truces are broken.. most times w/o adequate warning.. that is a very un-warlike attitude that has been adopted by some players in warlight, *primarily because* the people they have beaten manage to survive past the encounter.. and many people will carry grudges that should stay in each game into other games.

your just pissed that you didnt attack first

haha! it is a FFA after all so any truces are only as good as the person word and after all it will have to be broken at some stage.

if only I had a dollar for every time someone has stabed me in the back after making truces.

Breaking a truce is a very risky proposition most of the time. When it's not, then it should have been obvious to both sides that it was coming (last two players who had a truce all game, or something).

Though it is sometimes necessary, it should never be done lightly or without a clear advantage from doing so.

To me, that's a lot of what makes large FFA games fun. You need to actually pick your allies and enemies based on board position and the players themselves. You don't just truce with anyone who asks and attack everyone else, because that's a great way to die. It also invites the people you truced with to break the truce when they see you get weak and trusting.

That said, when someone does break a truce with you, it should rarely come as a surprise (if the player breaking it is a skilled player, poor players do that whenever the mood hits). Board position and relative power should tell you everything you need to know about who wants to attack you and why they would want to.

The good thing about poor players being the truce-breakers is that it's entirely likely that you can beat them militarily if they do break a treaty. Or, better yet, you recognize them as your victim early on, and never give them a chance.

Personally, Unless I am militarily weak/strapped for armies, I always keep a sufficient force on my -allies- borders, just behind the FOW... doing otherwise is just silly.. Imho ofc'

Yeah, one of the worst mistakes I see people make is to stretch themselves thin in various wars, and not have the leftover troops to maintain a backup plan. A single troop on the border means that it can be overcome by 2 troops. If you have 5 territories on the border, then 10 troops will work, causing you to lose 1 or more bonuses, while your former ally can't be attacked directly at all during the next turn.

Always try to keep more than 1 troop on the border, so that they can't easily take your entire border, and if you can, have an army just out of sight in the backfield in case it's needed. Doing those two things will greatly increase your ability to deal with backstabs, and having a couple of troops on the border may prevent it entirely.

5 troops is an amazing disincentive to attack, compared to 1.

He's a douchebag, sure (it was an obvious truce and he's pretending it wasn't), and I'm sure you've already blacklisted him. That's all you can do. I've never actually had anyone break a truce with me without warning, but most of the times that's because they know they are dead if they do as such. I'll put my full income and forces into a truce-breaker so that they understand winning cannot be achieved by such tactics. The only way it could is if he is much stronger, in which case he would have won the aftermath any way.

Wait... The game was a Free For All. That means only one person can win. Any person with half a brain would know that the truce was going to be broken at some point.

I have one thing to say to you: U mad?

Those people who break truces are assholes, period, but then again, it's ffa, so watch for the people you trust, and if you don't wana play with that person again, you can blacklist him/her. Of course, i don't want to play a person who's unfaithful and dishonest, thus i'm going to blacklist that person, but then again, i don't play much ffas.

my philosophy is that its a FFA- so free for all. So everybody is on their own. If someone breaks a truce on me, I don't really get mad because its the name of the game.

take a look at history... many 'truces' are broken by acts of war, not declarations of war.. anyone that makes their actions historically accurate I would love to play in FFA's with.. Backstabbing is no more underhanded then secret alliances are in the first place..

Always beware the truce for 2 reasons:

1) Many players do not honour them and give no warning when they break them.

2) If the AI setting for booted or surrendered players is active and a player you have a truce with turns into AI the truce is no longer valid and quite often the AI will attack immediately. This can be very frustrating on finely balanced games and can turn a possible win into a certain loss so if you do have a truce with someone it is always good to have plenty of troops on the border regardless.

this happpened to me in same tournament with fourkpr he lost thanks to me i sabotaged his chance of winning

truces should be made a setting both players agree they can't attack each other unless they untruce and the setting war notice should be put at minimum of 1 turn .Also other players should be able to see who is truced with who.plus host should be given choice of this settings .Plus host will be given the choice of including this in their games

fourkpr had same colour too

Aren't the most fundamental properties of a treaty its secrecy and transience?
They make the game more realistic.

Ironheart,
If we both agree not to fight.. then ten minutes later I decide I should hit you in the face.. the agreement is broken.. whether you agree to it or not