.com.unity Forums - newbtopia- ea game for new players(started)

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Multiplayer and AARs (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=145)

- - newbtopia- ea game for new players(started) (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=38126)

Well Dominions without war isn't Dominions. And the saying goes that in war (as in love) everything is permitted. So if someone decides to attack you, even if he has a NAP with you, there isn't really much you can do about it. Just prepare your defenses the best you can. At least you will know with whom to negotiate in your future games and who to stay clear off. Everybody is making a reputation for himself.

Partly Psycho. But I think there has been a genuine misunderstanding here. Both sides believe they are playing it fairly.

It isn't that one side thinks NAPs don't need to be kept (which is the view of some on the board). They both do. But one side does not think they have a NAP.

What is more NAPs affect diplomacy and the whole direction of the game. If Zenephos believed that the NAP deal had been agreed then he may NOT have built up to attack Moderation. He may well have found a new enemy or concentrated on research and held his armies in reserve. Likewise had Moderation realised there was no NAP then he may not have got involved elsewhere and so have been more prepared, or even struck first, along their border.

I am not sure anything can be done but carry on now, although that obviously is not that great for Mictlan.

I don't think (unless someone is flat out lying) that either have behaved dishonourably. It is simply a misunderstanding. I think I would have assumed, as Zenephos did, that when his counter offer was not agreed to it wasn't accepted. Although I would have asked for a clarification.

If I offer a 3 turn one I may not consider a 2 turn NAP counter offer as sufficent guarnatee and so I may be better fighting hm now rather than later when I am engaged elsewhere. It would depend on the situation I was in and the other player's situation as I saw it. But there are no rules here that I know of and I can see why Moderation might believe he had the deal. I would certainly trust either one - at least to sign a NAP with http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Actually I was Lanka and Arcosephale attacked me long before I went AI. It's the entire reason I went AI - I didn't really stand a chance against a nation with a fire bless on one side and elephants on the other. :p

So zenphos is lying on at least that point. Maybe more?

Hmmmmmmm,

Was that at the same time as Mictlan was besieging your capital? Or was that very early in the game, turn 4 or 5 I think,, which I admit I had forgotten about, when I pushed your army back across the river and then sent a message saying you stay on your side of the river and I will stay on mine and that will be an end to it. And then stayed on my side of the river for the next 10 or more turns when I could have easily joined in the Lanka land grab, until you had been AI for 2 turns. Oh and EA Arcoscephale don't get elephants. So Gowb is wrong about this, who knows what else he might be wrong about?

Heh, sorry. I didn't even watch the battle. Mictlan wasn't at my capital, but with you being so mean and him not even trying to communicate I got frustrated and gave up.

So is it time to revert to 24 hour turns yet?

It doesn't really matter what is the clock set to. As soon as everyone sends their turn, it will host. And if we were on 24h and someone was about to stall, wouldn't it be better to postpone the hosting so that he has the chance to finish then to see him stall?

Well, at least I personally have no problem with 48h. When everyone sends their turns fast it will host fast, and when someone needs a little more time he doesn't have to ask and then hope the host will see it in time.

Moderation has been subbed by Klagrok. He was the only guy who really wanted a 48 hour timer that I talked to. But since it's already turn 21 it's getting to the time to put it to 48 anyway.

Anyway I put it to a vote to reset the timer back to 24, at least for a while.

I don't mind the 48 hour timer but it seemed that every turn took that long. It was very hard to get any sort of interest generating in the early game when there is not much happening anyway and the thing that keeps you interested is the fact that turns come quickly.
But to get interest going again I think that 24 hours for the next 5 turns, followed by a reversion back to 48 hours would be good.
But if the vote goes for 48 hours I am cool with it.