Haha, Owen is saying (in his nicest wording) that truces aren't a good idea, ever. I tend to agree with that. There are a handful of games where I've been involved in a truce and in all of them I broke them, because I felt it hurt the game-mechanic.
You won't hear me say it's always bad. A truce can get you the victory, for sure. I believe we've had some (later 'convicted', but still) genius strategists who came close to Conqueror, using diplomacy as their primary weapon; truces being their biggest trademark. I forgot their names, but they played the Third Crusade map (someone please fill it in).
The way I see it, is not whether it's ethical or moral or strategic or whatever. The way I see it is that a truce is just another manmade form of the thousands of forms we use to end this game in a victorious way. I'll never blame anyone for using it or breaking it, because it's their form of strategy. However, I do think truces make you lazy (about the few involved territories, when you should actually read the entire map all the time) and make you interpret the map and game-mechanic in a wrong way, because of the truce.
I haven't got the feeling I'm making my point here at all, but let's assume I did. Don't make truces, just play the game. It's difficult enough as it is! And if it isn't, you're not playing the right games
- JBlombier
