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

I learned my lesson just the other day to not put territorial limits on your truces. At the very beginning of the game I thought my position was hopeless so I tried to make peace with my closest opponent, thinking I probably wouldn't last long regardless. I said "Peace in Russia? 1 turn notice before you attack" to which they agreed. It just so happens that we had some new players in the game so my poor starting position wasn't a death sentence and I was able to survive and start to build up. The person I had made peace with ended up taking over North America and attacked me in Alaska. Clearly this is outside of Russia and thus was not part of our deal, so they didn't give a warning before attacking, which is technically fine. I told them that I was taking that as their notice and that our truce was effectively over, to which they were surprised. Perhaps I was in the wrong for that, I don't know. I however don't hold it against them for attacking me without warning since it was outside of the terms of our deal, but I did learn a valuable lesson on paying attention to verbiage of my peace treaties.

I don't sneak attack, but I also don't get too mad when others do it to me. It is a game, after all.

One shouldn't break a truce. Honor is more than win and character is more than games. Everything else might sound clever but is actually stupidity. I am convinced there are several connections to your human being beyond maybe winning by treachery or maybe getting blacklisted because of treachery. Just looking at those two alternatives, getting blacklisted for a very good reason is already a more permanent effect than that shame of a win you might get from treachery. And by mentioning shame I already mentioned a far worse and far permanent effect than the possible win. It taints the win, but that shame is deeper than games. It could well be or come that this situative treachery permeates your whole being over time or the other way round, because you are permeated by such you break truces in games. Getting blacklisted by unknown people is less than getting despised by people you know when they get to know your machiavellian personality. And so on and so on. There is so much more to say than just these stuttered words. In short: Love is clever, everything else will prove stupid. So please keep your promises. That will become you.

But....what happens if you 2 are the only ones left?

http://warlight.net/Profile.aspx?p=3911759573

This guy backstabbed me on a Austria-Hungary Map Game...

Here is the game; http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=3121570

Turn 15 he decides to attack....with no warning.

ah well, these days i usually just ask them to be friends and warn me before attacking. sometimes they ask me to put no troops on mutual borders, so i'l put all my spare troops in areas next to the mutual borders :P