Hi all.
I'm currently in a game, and have offended another player. I won't give his name or the game number unless he agrees, but I'm directing him to this thread.
Early in the game (freestyle on world 2.1), I was building in Africa, and he was building in Europe and the middle east. I suggested, and I quote:
"Hey, ****, are you interested in a treaty across the africa / europe + middle east border? Say, 2 turnms notification required to terminate?"
He agreed, and all went swimmingly. We each took a few of the others isolated territories, as happens, but the border stayed nice and peaceful.
Later on, at the point where I was way in the lead, and he was the only real threat left, I placed a pile of armies on an isolated territory in east asia and moved west, hoping (and succeeding) in breaking his bonuses and essentially eliminating him as a serious threat. Though i had 7 or 8 armies facing his singles across the border (egypt, somalia, and morocco), I refrained from violating the treaty by using them in the attack, though once the border states were clear and my attacks finished, I free moved my forces across into the middle east.
I have now been accused of backstabbing, being a cheapskate by using loopholes, and being a bastard for not giving 2 turns notice before attacking. He's implied that he'll be leaving me negative feedback. He came online while i was making my move, so he's quite aware i didn't violate the letter of the treaty. He seems to think i should have given 2 turns notice before attacking him at all.
I was quite surprised and dismayed by this response. This guy's a lieutenant with 88 completed games! I'd have thought he'd know the limitations on a border treaty! I can live with a neg, if it comes to that. Really, I'm just upset at having upset someone else.
I need a reality check, here. Was I out of line, or is he being unreasonable?
