Treaties

What if we added treaties to the game between boarders. Say two players wanted a treaty between North Africa and Brazil. Nothing would be enforcing the treaty necessarily. But you would lose points if you broke it and we could have treaty rankings. Appreciate thoughts.

This is a game of strategy, of deception. Any such way to regulate treaties would make the game pointless - a large part of tactics is forming and breaking truces at the right time while understating your own strength.

I agree with ultrasplot. There's nothing wrong with breaking treaties as long as you know what you're doing and you think it will help you win the game.

The problem with breaking threaties is that not everyone realises that you can just break them - and by breaking them you can ruin the fun of a game for them.
Also, it's not a very sportive thing to do.

I personally prefer never to make threaties, makes the game a lot nicer.

i also play risk on another side called Majorcommand, where treaties r an integrated part of the gameplay, and it works well. It is possible to break them without consequences, but people will "hate" u and try to kill u...Actually everybody respects the treaties, even when they r no longer favorable for the player. u can always agree to end them early or allow other player through chat to break it if they like. also the treaties r announced public in chat and everybody can see exactly what treaties r in place and when they end. I actually think they r a great tactical addition to the game, although it does change the gameplay (but not THAT much). furthermore one does not have to accept proposed treaties so if u prefer not to have treaties, no problem.

I'm against anything that coerces someone to keep a diplomatic agreement. Treaties are made to be broken.

i can understand that, and dont get me wrong; i actually enjoy that this site does not have treaties, which means that i have two different gameplays two switch between.