Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

Doesn't it go like this?

"Treach me once, shame on — shame on you. Treach me — you can't get treached again."

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

I am not sure how much of the game Diplomacy you have played - but unless you were playing 'blind' or against people you have never met and would not meeet again reputations were very important. And they did not stop back stabbing or make the game 'nice'.

The whole craft of the game was to gather allies so you could take out enemies without having to worry about all your flanks. Then you turned on one of your allies. But you didn't really need surprise if things were working well. He would be engaged elsewhere and could not fight both you and his current opponent. You could afford to give notice that your agreement was over (although no formal NAPs were involved in games I played) and it was obvious to everyone what was happening a turn or two before that as you repositioned your forces.

In games were people simply lied to each other all the time people tended to simply fall out. Outside of the game to. And I associate such games with very young, immature players.

Most people are understandably upset when they get ganged up on or when their (ex) allies attack them. But if later you can see why it happened and it makes it easier to take. A good stab is rarely a surprise in either Dom3 or Diplomacy. In hindsight while you may not like it you can see why it happened.

Most of us are playing for fun. If you are really desperate to win play single player! Continual lying and duplicity in mp - unless everyone knows that beforehand - will just reduce the enjoyment and skill for most of us. This goes dor Dom 3 and Diplomacy.

I don't think Zenphos had a NAP in this example but I think the general honouring of NAPs here is a good thing. I doubt the mp community would last for long without it. Most of us would have better things to do. I've played a lot of boardgames with Diplomacy as well as Diplomacy and no group of players lasts for long as friends or players in a free for all, say anything, do anything atmosphere.

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

The point of backstabbing is that the gain has to be really big and obvious that it will work out. Say you backstab an ally to gain /some/ advantage and are not killing him outright is usually a bad idea because you are sure to make a permanent enemy in the game that will eventually convince others to gang on you.

Therefore, it is usually better to keep your 'honorable' face and rather take advantage of dubious contracts, find some excuses why you had to attack or the like. You should always look like the good guy, even though you plotted your neighbours into fighting each other because you didn't want to attack straight away.

I think it is a good idea to roleplay the pretender god. The more convincing you play, the less out-of-game consequences this will have on your reputation, I think, or at least hope.

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

I agree reputations are important.

I used to play board games with friends. There was one guy who always, always, betrayed people he agreed an alliance with, more often than not the first turn they'd agreed to ally. Everyone quickly knew never, ever, to make an agreement with him.

This is the real danger. There's a community here, and people play against the player. Experienced players will smash new players because it's easy territory, and players will not form NAPs with untrustworthy players. If you have have a bad reputation, you're stuffed in MP because diplomacy is so important.

Breaking NAPs can be done 'fairly', but I think the justification must be that there is a crisis situtation, such as the guy being about to get unbeatably powerful.

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

I agree, both Diplomacy and Dominions do and should shift on the larger power issues. Once should expect and understand that allies will change and stabs will happen. A good stab will make sense and people will see it coming. Hopefully, a turn after it is too late! However, not all stabs will be good or successful, which is also part of the game. I had expected more of this, a kind of agreement to disagree. Diplomacy is very transparent, while Dominions is not, so I would expect a higher level of deception, as there are more tools to do so.

What I am more concerned about is the perception, largely on the forums, that any breaking of a NAP should result in your name being blacklisted. Creating a second identity is an option, but is a real deceit. I would rather accept that deceit will happen within the game, but that people understand and accept some degree of it. When you trust someone, there is a risk.

A certain level of trust is needed for NAP, but there are ways to generate that in game. Scouts in your neighbor’s territory, messages that armies will be moving in a certain way at a certain time, frequent discussions, hostage provinces. All those build trust that a NAP is being upheld. Sure, it is more work, but isn’t it worth the assurance? Isn’t it also more “realistic?” You can gauge your level of risk.

In any case, it is interesting to discuss this point, as it does reflect on a fundamental part of the game, but one that is not in the code or the manual.

On the role playing side, I am personally biased. If a game is role playing, great, you should all go for it. Just agree on the rules. Remember that not everyone agrees who is good and evil. There was a poll on this recently, which suggested that this is a muddy area. Further, you have to deal with the real person, the forum person and the role playing pretender, so be ready for some confusion. Am I Dave, Saxon or The Unhappy One? What if I slip up?

If it is not role playing, don’t expect anyone to do anything based on their nation. It is simpler.

Finally, on Hoplosternum’s point about winning. People who really want to win come in at least two sizes. Some will be happy beating the AI, even though there is no challenge. Others recognize that SP is the third division and will only be happy if they win in the premiership. They are two very different personality types with two very different motivations. I hope that the second type will have the thoughtfulness to realize that they need to ensure they are playing exactly the game they want to be in and leave the less hard core to our games. That way they can be fully satisfied when they win and the rest of us are fully satisfied with our games.

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

The Shrapnel Board Rules state:
So using another username to play certain MP games and another to post is against the rules.

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

On a related note...

Would casting "harm enemy" globals be NAP breaking (e.g. burden of time among others)?

Casting a global that bumps another off?

Do they constitute "aggression"? I think so but I bet others would differ.

-SSJ

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

On globals I personally would say that:
1) Whether they will be counted as a pact breach should be agreed upon when terms of NAP are discussed;
2) Burden of Time is NAP breach against almost anyone (except death-heavy/demon-heavy nations), while Purgatory can be counted as such against, e.g., LA/MA Ermor. However, if it wasn't said so at the time of agreement, it's not direct breach, but is reason enough for other player to cancel agreement (or threaten such cancelement at least);
3) Casting global that dispels another isn't NAP breach at all. Though if all globals were by one player, he can assume this as "agression" & probably nobody would be in position to say him that he isn't right. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

Globals that harm enemies, if you don't have dominion in your NAP neighbor, I can say they should hardly be concerned about it. If you do have dominion, you should either mention it in a message (as surprise is probably a pretty big harm multiplier, and most likely a bigger deal than the harm itself), or prepare for the consequences.

As for globals that bump off globals, that's part of the game. Only 5 global slots, nothing to be done about that. Everyone is free to recast their own if they really want to.

As for the atmosphere of honor, vs. the atmosphere of betrayal... I feel that the former gives an advantage to the honorable, the latter to the betrayers. As the minority wouldn't be taking optimal advantage of the situation as it exists.

So while it's certainly true that a moderate/strong level of deceit can be fun at least occasionally, or for certain types of games... I'd have to be pretty strongly opposed to anything which actively set the tables against honorable players as partaking in a fools errand. (Since betrayals are a stronger tactic than not, inherently.)

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

Yeah, I think if the global you cast has no negative impact on your neighbor - like the gem generators, or something dominion based like Purgatory, then there is no problem. But if the spell directly and negatively impacts them, like Burden of Time or Wild Hunt, then you definitely need to warn them.

As for bumping existing globals with one of your own - there are two ways you can do this. First by recasting the same spell, and second by casting a different spell which bumps off thier spell due to the global limit. In the first case, if I was working closely with that nation I would probably take issue and end the NAP. In the second case there is really nothing to be done.