Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Could not disagree more.
Put me in the 'no' column.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Uhh...

So why did you vote no then?

I mean you may not like how peter does things, but clearly you don't think these things are set in stone either.

I think the issue with the NAP under discussion (from the game, not the hypothetical) is that the two parties had different interpretations of what NAP means and what it takes for it to be acceptable to break an underdefined NAP.

Well more's the pity for them if they didn't set up all the caveats up front, but playing with rule lawyers sucks, and it would seem the spirit of the game should ultimately trump anyones hard feelings over this kind of an issue.

And again, the spirit of the game is try to win correct?

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Rule-lawyers suck. Crushing your enemies with a devilish plan and lots of deception rule. That simple.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Let me pose a question as I am not in the game and know none of the players.

This actually happened in my first MP game and we all had something to say about it.

I hope it gives a different perspective to your discussion.

Player A was in a 15 turn, 3/turn notice NAP with player B.

Player A was also in a Immediate Mutual defense Treaty with player C.

Well of course player B attacked player C (sigh...who didn't see that coming).

Player A annonced that he had a treaty to help Player C Immediately and was terminating his Long term Nap with player B and was attacking the next turn UNLESS player B ceased his invasion of player C.

(hope you followed all that)

As expected an argument of the same sort that your facing broke out.

Some of us said that an agreement was an agreement and the deciding factor should be which was made first.

Others said that was an excuse and you could always have 2 or 3 of those Immediate Defense Agreements so ANY time you wanted you could break your NAP because someone was ALWAYS starting a war with someone.

As usual there is never a clear right and wrong.

However, One thing I have learned and has worked for me and a number of others is this (and there will be some that think its too open).

When you make a treaty you post it on your individual game forum (I know it screws up 'secret treaties' but I think you all will agree they are screwed up here anyway).

Then when something changes you can post your 3 turn warning and if he doesn't check the board, its his own fault when he's attacked (no PM required).

It also makes Player C think twice before attacking player B if he knows in advance that Player A will go to the defence of his announced Immediate Defense Pact.

Last thought... all of this STILL doesn't work if any of the players are not honorable (I think Honor is what it is all about, but I also know that circumstances DO change) and won't honor anything.

But players know in thier heart what happened and who they agreed with BUT will usually keep that in mind when playing with that person agian.

SORRY for butting into your conversation, just wanted to say how we handled it.

Thanaks

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

No, it is a bit different situation. It is the agreement collision and in the situation we're talking about there's only one agreement and thus no collision.
Btw, I find mutual defense agreements a bit strange and worthless but that is only my opinion.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

LOL...actually I agree, I just said they had one.

I like the idea of posting on the individual game site the agreement when made and when over...there is never a argument unless you can't count to 3 before attacking....

Just my opinion:)

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

[quote=ano;636208]Where were you during WWI? We could've scrapped the whole thing! :p

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

BTW, after reading it agian you are right. It is somewhat different.

You ARE talking about a Collision of thoughts in 1 agreement type.

We had more than 1 agreement type collide,

Different situation

Sorry for butting in gentlemen...:doh:

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

You make good points, that I personally don't feel hold value in a game that happens to involve many strangers, and takes months to unfold. If people want to be evil scheming bastards, in a community such as this, that is their prerogative. However, you will find the community torn into two camps. The first camp, being the "honorable and noble men of their word", who will only only do business with one another, not wanting to negotiate with someone who, as you basically put it, is currently looking for the place in your back where the knife goes. Then the other camp, the "evil scheming bastards", will have no choice but to only negotiate with eachother, because no one whose word is worth a damn is going to want to deal with a liar, a thief, or a backastabber.

I've played in other communities where games took ~2 months, and in one of them, the general convention was that if someone broke a NAP without observing the agreed upon terms, they were generally subject to a game-wide gangbang. Unless people were embroiled in a life-or-death fight at that very moment, they would tend to drop what they were doing, to grab a piece of the one whose word was worth nothing.



There is a price for every deal made, no exceptions. If no money or goods are exchanged, then the price is the value of your word, and your "honor", so to speak. When the terms of the agreement are fulfilled, you may redeem them for the full purchase price of the "value of your word", plus a small dividend in the value of your word. If you break it early, you will not be compensated by honor, sympathy, or admiration.




Also, this whole situation cracks me up. Such a big stink, about deciding 5 turns before a timed NAP ends, that giving 3 turn notice (that's not part of the agreement), is the answer between failure, and possible victory. I completely fail to see why it's better to attack on turn 58 with 3 turns notice, than to attack on turn 60 with no notice at all. This wasn't a "let's meet back and war ON turn 60" agreement, but merely an agreement not to fight before then. If the other party is hip-deep in another war, then silence is the best option, by far, especially if it only costs an extra 2 turns that can be spent building and preparing.



Obviously the moral here - Don't NAP anyone significantly smaller than you, or they are apparently totally justified in dishonoring that NAP. The converse of course, do not NAP anyone significantly stronger than you, or you will be tempted to break the NAP, and cause a giant piss-storm that could threaten your cornflakes.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Or just realize that playing with these iron clad NAPs makes for rather boring games all around.

YMMV

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Well, one thing I find terribly boring, is to end 60 hours worth of my gaming time, with a lie. Maybe it's just my upbringing. My father backstabbed in a game of MULE when I was 12. I was clearly winning until he did so.

What did I learn from that? Don't betray your friends, because that's f***ed up. I consider the people here (largely) as friends. This is a friendly game here, not high stakes poker. Don't give your word if you don't mean it - it makes people not like you - and who wants to play a game for 3 months with someone that they don't like....?


Trust me, I understand the cutthroat style "logic". I just don't agree that it applies in THIS community.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

It doesn't apply to the community, it applies to the game.

In the game you play to win. To do this you use what means you have at your disposal (except cheating), because that is the goal of the game.

On the forum you make friends and obey the forum rules. To do this you respect your fellow forumites, and that includes being honest and keeping your word - just as you would do in the real world.

A game of Dominions 3 = a tiny universe with its own clearly stated rules (the game code). Here you play someone else (a pretender).

The Forum = Part of the real world with similar rules and laws. Here you are yourself.

Cheers! :)

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Maybe administrator of the game should post NAP rules in the game thread to avoid such disputes, so those who honor NAP and those who always deceive, backstab, lure into a trap and expect the same from the others play separate games.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

I think that's really a very good idea. The main reason for the disagreements is that people are working on different assumptions about how honor applies in a game. If, however, people signed up to a game in which it was specified that NAPs should not be broken, I would be very surprised if anyone broke one. In other games, where it was specified that Machiavellian politics should be used, people could hardly be upset if they were backstabbed.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

By the way, in one of my first games I was approached by another player who offered an alliance against third party. It was a 'nap until the war against Pythium is over'.
Just a few turns later he attacked me, with all my troops at Pythiums border. He explained that he never entered the war against Pythium in the first place, hence his word didnt bind him.
Was I angry? Hell I was. But I understood him. It was wicked, and it was veeeery far-stretched, but such things happen - all is fair in love and war. Of course, words are to be kept - otherwise they wont be believed next time. But sometimes curcumstances do apply, 'all is fair in love and war'.
But of course, when you have a victory almost in your grasp, its hard not to get mad at the one who tries to thwart you.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Bang on. If you want to play with inviolate NAP's or for that matter any other house rule, whether it's no SC's or disallowing certain globals, then you should agree it with the other players beforehand. It takes less than five minutes for the host to list any house rules they want in the game, or for that matter for any number of reasonable players to agree to certain restrictions or a certain style of play, it prevents these situations occurring and usually means a much better time for all concerned. The other advantage of course is that if a player disagrees with particular restrictions they can give up their slot and let someone else play.

With other groups I play with, whether it's board games or computer games, we follow a golden rule that if no house rules or similar restrictions are announced at the start of the game then the only rules applicable are those enforced by the game. Sucks to be on the receiving end of a double cross when you thought you had a binding agreement, but at the same time it's also unfair to the other players to suddenly decide some rule applies halfway through the game (particularly when you're in a strong position).

In this situation I'd be inclined to apply said rule and say the pact can be broken this time. I'd also encourage all parties to seek clarification of such rules BEFORE starting the game next time.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Actually, I´d say the actual lesson to be learned from there is "Trust noone". :p

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

I don't really see how you can get around the reputation thing no matter what. Even if there are no "house rules" against breaking your word someone known for following agreements will be in a different position when it comes to diplomacy than someone known to backstab at the first opportunity.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Then that person probably deserves it because backstabbing at first opportunity doesn't sound like a good strategy. Everything that makes you predictable is bad in that sense.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Keeping in mind that this is a GAME, I'd break my word without fearing ripercussion on my REAL honour lol - expecially if I find funny to roleplay my race of crazy everburning daemons and I see a small-mid-long term advantage in playing the bastard. And I would find it funny to be betrayed too, shame on me for trusting those slimy lizard ppl ^_^

If *obviously* the house rules permit this, as I would hope ^^

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Yep, indeed, thank God not a single guy with bad reputation is smart enough to change his account name.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

This is a very interesting discussion! I'd like to add my two cents :)

After reading the whole thread, I've noticed a number of people on the 'no breaking NAP' side seem to be angry. Read their posts again. I see a lot of serious and emotive language being used, and an overarching implication that anybody who breaks NAP's in game is an inherently bad person in real life.

I don't see this anger from the 'break NAP ok' side.

I'd rather not get angry over a game, it seems to defeat the purpose, and is definitely negative for me as a person. Such a waste of energy!

An early contributor to this thread stated that 'no breaking NAP's' was this community's standard. The following discussion proves this to clearly not be the case! :) The community seems to hold a range of views on the topic, so in the absence of a clear view "backstab possible" must logically be the default stance on this topic.

The suggestion to specify whether NAP's are 100% binding before the start of the game seems very sensible and should end the debate. "Backstab possible" can be the default, "backstab not possible" can be specified before the game is started.

I believe it is incumbent upon people wanting NAPs to be binding to start their own games with this rule (which btw would be a much more effective solution than trying to get unbreakable NAPs coded into the game!)

Any further debate represents a desire by the 'no break' side to impose their will on the entire gaming community. You may be in the moral right, who knows, but don't waste your time guys, it's never going to happen! :)

The 'break ok' side have raised no concerns with people starting 'no break' games, so the solution is clear. (I reckon)


P.S. I wouldn't break an NAP unless the game was about to be lost (reputation is important!), but I feel the default should be 'break NAP ok', so I have sympathies for both sides!

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Re: getting unbreakable NAPs getting coded into the game

Or into the DOM playing population's heads!

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Couldn't agree more.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

The issue is pretty simple really. People are free to break agreements and people are free to let others know when that happens. There's no need for any special "NAPs are 100% binding" rules. How would that be enforced anyway? By whom?

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Yes, they'll be seen as gullible fools who'll happily let you build up enough force to crush their empire utterly without raising a finger to stop you :p

Depends on the game and the players and whether they can read the relative strength charts. A lot of it is bluffing, politic and social skills though. Whether you stick to agreements or break them with glee isn't as important as how you make it appear. A good player who regularly backstabs and manages to last well into the game will be careful to spin it in such a way that they appear strong enough to do what they like. A bad player needs to be careful to avoid diplomatic isolation or having their opponents believe they are desperate for more territory (and thus probably weaker than themselves)
The same applies to the opposite approach. A good player will convince their opponents that the reason they have long standing alliances is because nobody else dare attack them. Again, if they're not careful it may look like they are seeking stronger allies because they are incapable of fending for themselves.
Reputation across games should never be relied on. A good player will use any pre-conceived notions of how they play against you - switching from one style of play to the other can be useful to gull regular opponents into believing you are stronger than you actually are, or conversely trick them into attacking early because you appear weak.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

The position will be different, not necessarily better. I'm not saying I think NAPs should be binding in the sense that they would be enforced in any way, the point is that one should not complain if breaking your word affects how others value it in the future.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

I'm in the 'no break' side. I haven't advocated for getting naps enforced in the game; probably cause I haven't thought of it.

There are a whole bunch of things I WOULD like to see.
It would be cool, if you could walk across an 'allies' lands.
It would be cool if you could detach units and send them to an ally.
It would be cool if you could trade spell research (but only on individual spells, levels are too huge).

As for anger, well thats a whole can of worms right there.

I would say that its probably because a "no break" napper has been stabbed in the back once, twice, or possibly *every* game they have played by a *ho hum I'm bored* napper.

The "no break" napper puts a lot of time and energy into one of these games, hoping to get a good ally, or at least a reliable neutral. And then is usually snuck attacked. Even if the attack does not succeed, it leaves such a taste in ones mouth, he really doesn't want to play the game.

People that are "hohum" nappers have written about how much fun it is looking for the right opportunity to backstab. Great. Fun for you. Not at *ALL* fun for a lot of us.

Look, "hohum" nappers have a tactical advantage in the game - but I think they should at least be willing to meet the "no break" nappers half way. Just say up front in the game I'm a hohum napper.

I would say the anger is compounded because efforts to compile a list of either "ho hum" nappers or "no break" nappers have been disallowed (aka threads frozen).

As for "Any further debate represents a desire by the 'no break' side to impose their will on the entire gaming community." I find that really offensive. Enough so I wrote this lengthy post. Last I heard, God only gave the commandments once; - the purpose of these boards is discussion of ideas. Me offering *my opinion* for whatever reason - is just as valid as you posting yours.

I don't want Nap or No Nap games - I just want to know what standards OTHER people are playing under.

Your lofty "hohum" nappers don't have any anger is .. condescending - what do "ho-hum" nappers have to be angry about?
And why do they flame threads where their breaking a nap is documented?

As for setting up games "hohum" or "nobreak" nap - its too difficult to set up games as it is - dealing with naps or no naps is just way too much headache.

Sorry that there *were* some emotive words in there. I've actually never been backstabbed by someone with whom I have a Nap

But seriously, what is wrong with a sticky thread where handles are registered something like

1: will break a nap in a heartbeat.
3: Will break a nap in duress
4: Will break a nap to prevent game loss
5: Won't break a Nap


So then all that would be necessary would be to rate -

SnowWhite 4
Gurmpy - 5
GlointheDark 1

Or declare it at the beginning of the game. I'm gloin in the dark, I'm a hohum napper and I'd like lanka please.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

It all boils down to how well you hammer out the terms of the NAP upfront. Personally I would never agree to a nonbreakable NAP, so its really not an issue for me, but I sense that alot of this debate isn't about what a NAP is, but how people interpret the unbreakableness of underdefined NAPs. The example is you simply ask for a 'NAP' with some neighbor and never really specify anything, or the specifications are somewhat nebulous (and 'NAP to turn 60' is nebulous in my opinion, not that I'd agree to it anyway, but whatever).

Protect yourself as much as you can upfront to avoid these 'misunderstandings', and if you feel you were taken advantage of feel free to hold the grudge, no one can stop you from doing so anyway.

You have to be in diplomatic contact with your NAP partners constantly anyway (well you should be...) otherwise play team games with no NAPs and you don't have to worry about it.

Of course collusion will always be an issue in any MP arena, but I don't get the feeling its a huge issue in this community.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

There is nothing wrong to break a NAP, it is human nature and human nature is dark by nature. :doh:

Besides, unless specified in game setup, there are no punishment for breaking a NAP. :)

Now if you break a NAP, others will note it and play with you (or not) accordingly. This information is also useful for anyone who may considering playing with you (or not). :eek:

So this "I broke NAP for a thousand reasons and I believe I am right so you do not tell others about me or you are angry and sissy" attitude from "NAP is for losers to stick to" camp is quite disturbing to me. I see whole lot of justifying in breaking NAP, but for what? You do what you want to do, but a thousand excuses still do not make you as trustworthy (in the game anyway).

Without trust, there is no point in NAP whatsoever. You showed your excuses, you even convinced yourself, now let's move on. No you cannot change other's perception of you by finding even convincing excuses.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

If by "time and energy" you mean buying a lot of province defence, sending scouts everywhere, putting effort in magic intelligence, studying the scoregraphs to know what's going on in the world, and having a plan B (C,D,E,F, etc) if something goes wrong - YES, seems like a PERFECT target to me. Try to backstab someone with this description, I'm sure you succeed.

Oh, the victory condition was to find a good ally? Why didn't anyone told me about that? So much time down the drain...

Thats the spirit wars are usually won with!

Don't say a word, it's really upsetting when someone strikes on you in the wargame with "destroy them all" objective.


A good suggestion indeed. I would also suggest to add a special victory condition for nations played by people with tag 5: "Build a spaceship and fly to Alpha Centauri".

Just play and consider everyone is tag 1, it would save you some nerve.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Just how I feel WingedDog.

Please stop this silliness that we all should obey your rules when the game (yes, it is a game) says otherwise.

Oh, and if anyone wants to play a game with different objectives than the default ones, that is fine by me, just state it before the game starts so that everyone can agree upon it.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Well, no one is forcing you to obey "their" rules. There likely is nothing they can do in game for your liberal breaching of NAP. The real silly thing is, there are those who breach NAPs and then hate other people for talking about it.

The real funny thing is, despite all the excuses, no one in this thread is acknowledging he will freely break NAP when it suits him. After all the "intrigue" talk that is quite a strange thing.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Both you and winged dog have just demonstrated the attitude and sarcasm I spoke about in the original post.

Almost half of the shrapnel community feels differently than you do: rather than respecting their opinion and agreeing to disagree you deride it as "silliness".

My suggestion would increase the enjoyment of about half the people - and do nothing to impede the satisfaction of the other half, and take little effort.

Your suggestion leaves a sizeable perentage of the population unhappy.

Look: Case in point. I picked up a position in Jotunland, where the original player was in contention for either the first or second place.

He was backstabbed by Winged - when he thought he had a NAP. It upset him so much that he dropped out of the game.

Now, everyone in the game loses, as they had to find a sub, and the sub had to get familiar with the position, and probably played inferior to the original player.

And no, I don't think its silly to try to avoid situations like this arising.

Lastly, just to correct an error of fact...

"Please stop this silliness that we all should obey your rules when the game (yes, it is a game) says otherwise"

The game does not say otherwise - the game is silent on the question of what is socially acceptable, and what is not. Indeed, there has been considerable discussion about what constitutes cheating; what constitutes an exploit; what should and should not be allowed in a game.

That consensus was formed here. Its why things like MoD mods were made; while copying Bogus's order is usually banned; etc.
And its a significant issue enough that I think it probably should be part of the game setup for every game - just like bug exploits.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Well the 'back stabber' crowd (though I think that's an inaccurate description, but whatever) wants you to do exactly what you are seemingly trying to do.

That is come up with all the rules and regulation *YOU* expect in your NAPs before anyone has to agree to something which you (generally, not personally) then decide later isn't what you thought everyone understood it to be.

Its simple, make the caveats in your NAPs iron clad, or accept the fact that they simply are tools of temporary convenience. I would imagine it is rare for someone to sign a NAP with the full intention of breaking it, rather as events transpire in the game which forces them to have to reconsider the value of the NAP they make their decision as to whether or not its worth 'breaking'.

Again, all of this is rendered moot by not agreeing to these ultraridiculous limiting NAPs in the first place, and yes, that means that even if you want that kind of NAP you need to be sure that the other party understands exactly what you think he's getting into.

But yes, there is always a price to be paid if you break any agreement, no one disputes that, however, the notion of some master list of who's a 'good' player and who's a 'bad' player is going to be so completely subjective and fraught with arguments over who broke what when that I think it would be more distraction and hard feelings than its worth.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

@chrispedersen
The only part of the community I do not respect is the part that tries to force their social rules down everyone's throat. If you want to add social rules to the game rules you are free to do that (as I've wrote above) and if I join such a game I will of course respect those rules. But don't try to tell me that specific social rules is needed to play the game "right". The game has its own rules and boundaries clearly stated by the code. Breaking those rules however, is not acceptable and is to be considered cheating.

On this forum there are social rules, we are not "in-game" here if not otherwise stated.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

My question is, why did you even warn the other team you were going to break the NAP? If you're going to, go ahead and backstab them fully so you get the most advantage out of it.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

It's a middle way.

Respecting or breaking NAPs is about a scale with honourable conduct and good reputation at one end, and game effectiveness at the other. Cutting short a NAP but still giving some warning trades off some of the effectiveness to recover some of the damage to reputation. Obviously, you'd need a long (5+ turns) NAP to make a middle way viable, which is a position most players wouldn't be in.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

You could apply the same to the no break nappers. Again though, it's all about setting out the expectations for the game before you start playing. If I'm in a game where NAP's are unbreakable then I'm going to have a different criteria for signing a NAP than I am in a game where I'm free to break a NAP at any point, for obvious reasons. It's no fun for any player to suddenly find out the rules are different to what they thought mid-way through the game.
If nobody has stated beforehand that NAPS are unbreakable then you can't blame a player for thinking otherwise; after all there's no recognition in the game for diplomacy. The same applies in reverse naturally. In both cases the fault isn't necessarily with the player, it's the fault of all players involved in the game for not agreeing beforehand how diplomacy would be handled. Of course, in a case where the rules have been agreed and a player still breaks them then the host should take action, but I'm not sure that would be a matter for the forum.
Too much bait for flaming. We can't verify whether someone should be pilloried for breaking a nap or whether it's a case of sour grapes or a simple misunderstanding. You'd have nothing but arguments and accusations as a result of it.

A better solution would simply be to ask the person hosting or looking to get the game together to state in the description what level of political intrigue is expected. As long as everyone is aware when joining the game whether to expect NAPS to be broken, permanent or not then they have no cause to complain.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

I've never broken an NAP, and probably never will. Nevertheless, I'm not sure it's really fair to get angry at NAP-breakers when it's never been explicitly stated that people have to stick to agreements made.

I expect that last statement will annoy people - surely you don't have to have it explicitly stated that you'll stick to agreements? That should be a part of normal human decency, you'd say. Well, you have to view this in the context of a couple of points:

1) This is essentially a role-playing game. You're role-playing a power-hungry god (or perhaps a benevolent god, or perhaps an insane god). Such a god might well make agreements and then break them. Not all players play in character, but you have to have respect for those that do, not least because they generally contribute a lot of fun to the game.

2) Almost all other wargames take it as read that agreements may be freely broken. In some games, like Diplomacy, the constant threat of back-stabbing is an integral part of the game. Many players come here from those other games and have no idea about the unusual conventions that exist here. They may well break an NAP, and then be startled and upset when people get angry at them.

KO himself was quite surprised to hear that NAPs are often considered inviolable in Dominions. When he found out, he commented, as I remember, that he didn't think it was a very good convention.

Now, I must admit that I don't really mind either way between games where NAPs must be adhered to, and there's where there is no such requirement. Well, probably I prefer the ones where NAPs are binding. However, I think it's very important that people start stating explicitly what kind of game each game is going to be. If it wasn't stated in the first post that NAPs were binding, I'm not sure it's fair to get angry if you are backstabbed.

So people, next time you join an MP game, make sure to ask what the NAP policy is if it hasn't already been stated. This way, everyone can play in games of the type they like and there'll be no more need for any upset.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

I'd just like to say that I'm not disrespecting the feelings of those who have been backstabbed and have been upset by it. If they had the understanding that backstabbing was not allowed, I can easily see that it would ruin the game for them. That's why I think it's important we make NAP policies explicit from now on.

I will add a bit to the FAQ about starting LlamaServer games.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

I added this to the LlamaServer FAQ text on organising games:

"- Make sure that you state what the game's policy towards treaties and non-aggression pacts is. Should they be inviolable, as many players prefer, or should they be mere words, as in real life? The choice is yours but it's important the players know the ground rules."

I hope people will consider that helpful.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

@chrispedersen:
I always considered this the defaults:
1) No MoD (well at least before 3.20)
2) Don't copy Bogus orders
3) Whether you respect a NAP is your own decision, but be aware that it can have consequences on your reputation

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

<O:p</O:p
<O:p
This is the heart of the issue though, this is exactly what some of us believe and have been led to believe. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p
I have played a few different mp games apart from Dom3 and few have had any binding agreements. I.e. in most games you would be able and expected in some cases to ‘stab in the back’ an ally and do some double dealing in diplomacy. The boardgame Diplomacy would be one, the Pitboss Civ4 community another (although there is no ‘NAP’ convention there).
<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
However from following threads here I was led to believe that NAPs here were to be honoured. If you sign up for one you keep it. There are plenty of threads (often quickly closed due to the flames!) with people moaning about betrayals of NAPs. Often people back off to and agree to back off for a couple of turns if they are revealed to have broken their word.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

From that I assumed that the community took these NAPs as binding. I didn’t think they were binding because I blindly trust people on the internet :p But because the community gave me that impression and seemed to police this. There have been and are plenty of occasions when it would have been in my (and that games' longevity) that I stab rather than give the required warning but have always refrained from doing so as I believed and have been led to believe that doing otherwise would be the equivalent of cheating.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

But if they are not they are not. I can play either way. It is just that I don’t think you can happily have half the people thinking they are binding and the other half thinking they can be broken.
<O:p</O:p

So I am all for making it clear which way it is at the start of the game.
<O:p</O:p

It is not obvious that NAPs can be broken. There are conventions in this game as there are in nearly all games.
<O:p</O:p

For example I was very surprised when I started playing that in most if not all none team games on these boards only one person wins rather than the players forming teams/alliance blocks in the game and declaring joint or three / four way wins as happens say in your standard game of the boardgame Diplomacy. Where at the start of the game does the game creator say these are not allowed? Yet most people won’t accept these joint wins and most people use diplomacy to break up such blocks using the arguments ‘only one of you can win’ to encourage part of the alliance to attack the other.
<O:p</O:p

People don’t play the game like that by convention. Just as I thought they didn’t break NAPs. You can play it either way with both. But everyone should know at the start.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

The "only one person can win" thing kind of comes from the game itself. I think KO and JK were keen to emphasize that one of you is going to be the new god. There can only be one.

I think that's a good thing, because it means all alliances are ultimately temporary, which I think makes the diplomacy more interesting.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

These comments are intended for chrispedersen primarily, but relate to the discussion as a whole too.

First of all I agree that being 'betrayed', in a game feels bad (hey, so does getting eliminated!), and I agree that people who have broken agreements do get angry when someone attempts to make their treaty-break public. So fair enough, it's not all one way!


What was most interesting in chrispedersen's reply was that he rejected the proposal to start games as "break NAP ok" or "break NAP not ok", saying that: "its too difficult to set up games as it is - dealing with naps or no naps is just way too much headache."

However his alternative solution, to set up a sticky thread which rates each person in the entire community with a number between 1 and 5, indicating their attitude to NAPs, seems like a chain-reaction migraine in comparison!

For starters, who determines these numbers?!?! I think a few quiet moments are enough to realise that bird ain't gonna fly!


chrispedersen also mentions that: "I would say the anger is compounded because efforts to compile a list of either "ho hum" nappers or "no break" nappers have been disallowed (aka threads frozen)."

Have a think about why that is.


One more: "I don't want Nap or No Nap games - I just want to know what standards OTHER people are playing under."

Chris, I respect your opinions, and with hindsight I regret some of the more extreme comments I made in my last post. I mean no offense mate.

But this is just an impossible dream! People won't do it! It's a computer game!


P.S. I get the feeling this discussion is taking place between 'no break NAPers' and 'no break NAPers who nevertheless believe in the right of others to break NAPs"...the filthy rotten no NAP respect kids are just ignoring this and sending wave after wave of their own men at us :)

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Oh yeah and word up for llamabeast for taking appropriate action to address this issue in his FAQ...just another touch of class from the dashing Lord Warden of this Dominions 3 community!

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Yes, it is fortunate that we have the Llamabeast around to solve a situation like this. Thank you! :)

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

A part of the problem is that I can't imagine even bothering to make a NAP in a game specifically labeled "Breaking NAPs is fine." -- the "hohum napper" strawman. If betrayal is that encouraged by the nature of the game, what's the point in diplomacy at all. Maybe really short-term deals.

But it doesn't seem like anyone's really for that. Even those here who are arguing that NAPs shouldn't be inviolable seem to be claiming they'd do so rarely, when doing so is likely win the game (or not doing so, lose it) not just on a casual whim or for a momentary advantage.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Very simple. Two or more people sign a NAP when they all believe they have something to gain from it. When one or more of them feel that isn't the case anymore the NAP agreement should not be considered very solid anymore. That is why you have to keep a close eye on your surroundings by putting time and resources into intelligence. Just one of the things that makes real diplomacy so interesting.