Treaties
Have you ever had this happen to you? You've just started a Red Alert Game and all of the sudden your opponent messages you, "Ore Truck Treay!"
I then usually message them back with "What the @#$@#!? No! No Treaties!" They then whine and so, "It'll make the game more fair!?" Well boo hoo. "Go play the game Little Miss Muppet then! This is Red Alert, not Dimplomacy R Us!" They then leave the game. Yep, Red Alert Treaties are abundant and are everywhere where their is multiplay involved. (I wouldn't be surprised if some of these people tried to make a treaty with the computer! :)
Red Alert Treaties are a plague in multiplayer gaming. How did they come to exist? Lamers that really suck at Red Alert created them just so they'd have a shot at winning (or living at least fifteen minutes in the game :) If someone proposes a 'treaty', ignore him. You aren't 'required' or 'supposed to' play by their rules. Only one set of rules matter: the game's. Here is the type of treaties I know:
Ore Truck Treaty- "No attacking Ore Trucks!" Gee, that sucks. The result of the Ore Truck Treaty is that we can throw half of all known RA strategies out the window. This means you can't conquer the ore or hurt your opponent's economy unless you get to his refinery or silos. This means if the enemy's ore truck comes waltzing into your base to collect ore, you can't attack it. Pretty silly, huh? The main stupidity of this treaty is that there is no conquering the ore. In most Red Alert games (witht he exception of those custom maps that are FULL of ore) the victory and defeat are decided by who conquers the most ore. If you ever play a game with this treaty, make some ore trucks and send them inside the enemy's base while at the same time have your tanks/air units/boats etc. positioned at atting his ore trucks. Then guide your ore trucks that are in his base to run over all his infantry (Roadkill! :) Always make sure you get the tanyas, since that'll make the player really pissed. He'll then have a choice. He could either allow you to keep on making speedbumps of all his infantry or he could break the treaty. If he breaks the treaty and blows up your ore trucks, no loss. The reason why is that you have an army of units that will immediatly attack on his ore trucks once he breaks the treaty. Then he dies. Expect a lot of whining to come from him as you blow him up (I've never seen a treaty maker win once the treaty is gone). The player will then call you unpleasant names (typical of a lamer) and will keep whining at you (Would you like some food with that whine? Haha! :) Sometimes its fun to play the ore truck treaty only so you can do this 'cruel' tactic :)
Tanya Treaty- "No using tanyas! They're too cheap!" Well, so are you! Tanyas aren't cheap at all. They're especially handy at ending stalemate wars. The only danger a tanya can do is only to the unprepared. The people who make this treaty are the ones who don't know how to defend against tanyas. I have played several Tanya Treaty games and I thought it was really lame (Sometimes there'd be no difference because many games don't reach the point of using tanyas anyway!) Only a few good players I know will like this treaty.
No Tank Rushing Treaty- Oh man, talk about LAME! Henceforth, another tank rush whiner. You CAN defend against tank rushes if you quit whining, and start to figure out how to defend. The main problem with this treaty is that there is a loose definition of a tank rush. I think of a tank rush as tanks attacking the enemy's base as soon as they're built, a little bit after the first war factory is made. People have accused me of tank rushing when its late in the game (GPS satelllites are up, nukes have been fired, and tanyas litter the map). Everyone seems to have their own definition of tank rushing. Mostly it based purely on emotions at the time. For example if I was dying by enemy tanks late in the game I could call that tank rushing. But, I could do the same thing to another play and say, "Its not tank rushing, but Large-tank-buildup-at-a-fast-pace-and-then-destroy-you type tactic."
No Tank Treaty- Geez, and when you think it couldn't of gotten any worse, it has. "Tank making is not allowed." Uh ok. So now what do we use to fight with? Infantry? Radar Jammers? Ore trucks!? C'mon people, Red Alert is a game based on WAR. Let me say it again so people won't be confused. Red Alert is about WAR, not DIPLOMACY! If you can't use tanks, what comes next? No warfactories!? If someone wants to play without tanks they can just set the tech level down and avoid this, the stupidest of all treaties.
If you're in a game in which someone wants to play with treaties politely say, "No way, you freakin $#%@#!!!!!" If they refuse to play it the 'real' way then just say you'll leave if you're pplaying with treaties. If they refuse to give up their treaties, either beat them at their own game, or just leave and not waste your time.