Re: Greenrow: noobs, slowpace -- game on
 

Yeah, sorry. I got panicked bcuz for a 20 minutes the server was telling me "there doesn't exist a game with this name" in that same page. Dunno what happened :D

-

On the other topic, I am heartily in favour of the Machiavellian diplomacy. While I will keep my word, it's ok for me to keep pacts secret and not-so-much-binding ^_^

Re: Greenrow: noobs, slowpace -- game on
 

Yep, for me too now. I was panicked bcuz for around 20 minutes the server said "there wasn't a game with that name" in the same page. :p

Oh, it's ok for me too so forgive me if I sent you a forum pm before you said that :)

Btw I agree with covert treaties, i find them more fun and roleplay-friendly. Having to describe on the forum every little change of the relationship with neighbour and friends and enemies would be terribly boring, also :D

EDIT Sorry, almost double post, thought the old one wasn't posted and I can't edit them now no more.

Re: Greenrow: noobs, slowpace -- game on
 

As far as 'Covert' Alliances and NAP's go, they are fine and perfectly acceptable.

The purpose of the 'Public' declaration is to ensure that Naps and Alliances have a way of being recognized and regulated.

In a nut shell.....IF you have a covert NAP with a 3 turn warning with me and for some reason I just decide its over and attack you, then there is no whining that the agreement wasn't kept because it WASN'T public.

IF you put your agreement in public the other players in the game know who is honorable and who isn't and will react to the agreement breaker in there own way.

Re: Greenrow: noobs, slowpace -- game on
 

That's the way I see it, what would be really realistic would be a requirement that you can only send messages if you have troops in or adjacent to the recipient's provinces. Just an observation, it's not how Dom3 works, I'm not suggesting we play that way.

That's a very good point, is this how things usually work? I think perhaps I mistook solmyr's initial suggestion for something more restrictive than it actually is. We don't seem to be talking about a requirement that treaties are made public, only using the forums as a, uh, forum from making proclamations of the public parts. This is IMO a good idea, it will make it easy to keep track of events.

Assuming we do this I will begin in-game negotiations concerning exactly what details are made public next turn.

Re: Greenrow: noobs, slowpace -- game on
 

The fact that an agreement of any sort is not made public is not an excuse to break it on a whim.

Re: Greenrow: noobs, slowpace -- game on
 

Eh, not really. I could imagine that each group would be capable of sending messengers alone or with a small entourage to other groups even if they weren't neighboring each other. If you look at it in that light it works with how messages are dealt with now as the turn it takes for the message to reach the recipient acts as that month of travel time for the messenger.

Re: Greenrow: noobs, slowpace -- game on
 

I'm perfectly satisfied as it is, I was just thinking aloud really. Stealth units could play the role you describe. Are they still taking feature requests for Dom4?

Re: Greenrow: noobs, slowpace -- game on
 

Are you suggesting that we not communicate via PMs on this board?

I get the 'realism' of the in game messaging, but honestly its a PITA for trying to arrange any coordination.

Re: Greenrow: noobs, slowpace -- game on
 

Eh, I'll talk to people either in game or through PMs here. It's a lot easier to use PMs when dealing with issues that require a fair amount of back and forth, such as planning out a joint attack or something similar.

Oh and Klepto, out of curiosity, did you happen to have a character by that same name in a WoW server a few years ago?

Re: Greenrow: noobs, slowpace -- game on
 

I think all this is being taken out of context...

Should you break an agreement...EVER, for ANY reason?

There was a 24 page Post on that exact subject along with a 30 page post on what actually CONSTITUTES a nap and trying to come up with one that could be used as a 'Norm' for most games.

The outcome....just what you think, there where 100 different opinions on everything from WHEN a Nap started and ended to when it could be broken ect.

Bottom line, I personally believe in 'Covert agreements' for lack of a better word.

But BEWARE, there are people that will break an agreement in a win all attitude on this sight.

The biggest and easiest way to break a Nap in IMHO is to simply come on the forum and say "I dissolve our nap starting the 3 turn notice on turn 32".

If the person doesn't check the forums reguarly then its his fault but you WILL start hearing and knowing of people that "skirt" the rules.

I personally have a list of Honorable Players and Dishonerable players and while I will ALWAYS keep my word it does reflect how I view players that are a game with me. And its added to and subtracted from all the time.

Keep your Covert agreements because this game can't be played with everything in public...HOWEVER, just because you SHOULD never break an alliance doesn't mean it won't be broke. It WILL be your word agianst his when the time comes and you will BOTH have a very convincing argument I am sure.

Just an opinion