Question about diplomacy
 

Hello.

I'd like to know your disposition towards ingame diplomacy in Dominions, namely truces.
In one such game we've struck a long-time NAP with another side (its a team game), but now they are dominating the game in such maneer that there wont be much left to do once our truce is over.
When I told them that since our party is close to its Apocalypse, we dont want to sit idly and watch, and informed them we're going to attack in 3 turns (as if we had a standard NAP 3) - exactly 5 turns before our original treaty expires.

Player in question made a whole show, treatening to name'n'shame me all over the forum if I do such thing. Others claim they'd break the NAP if they were me rather than losing game by not doing anything.

So, I'd like to know players opinions regarding such matters. Your are welcome.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

I think it's worth clarifying things a bit...
First, the game situation is very far from what Kuritza describes, believe me.
Second, this agreement was proposed by person who now tries to violate it. We've been engaged into constant never-ending war while their team was killing easy targets and fighting nobody in fact. And as they thought they could grow even fatter until turn 60, they suggested a NAP until then. We really had no choice other than to accept it, because we were fighting several other teams at the moment. As usual...
But all this has nothing to do with the poll. The issue of the poll is not "Will you break an agreement under some circumstances?", it is "Do you think it is possible to break an agreement and not keep your word?". In my opinion, no conditions may justify breaking the word you gave. Otherwise your word costs nothing and everyone should now that you can't be trusted. You always have a choice (in game as well as in real life) - you may either keep your word and lose or not keep it and win but don't expect people to trust you ever again.
And I'm rather surprised with the poll results. I wish it was made public so that everyone could see who thinks that violating agreements is normal and acceptable.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

And, by the way, I didn't and don't threaten you. I just told you that if you break the agreement I will tell the world about it. And will do the same with anybody who acts in this way.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

ano:

Poll is not surprising when it comes to question. He made it sound like you have just 1 VP needed to win or smth like that :)

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

I think breaking it is justified if you give the nominal warning. I mean NAPs are all fine and well, but if you wind up NAPed into a corner what are you going to do? Personally (even though I don't do much MP) if you want these kinds of NAPs you should play with team mates and treat everything else as temporary.

The question seems to be do you want to try to win. If you don't, then pick who you want to win and just help them win, playing spoiler is all fine and well, but realize at the same time that you're usually only helping someone else along the way, so as long as you're ok with that its all good.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Since behind this poll there's also a live real world issue I'd try my best to tread carefully here. So I want to note that I'm just stating my opinions as objectively as possible. And for the record, I'm also playing in the mentioned game and am one of the guys being trounced by ano's team .

All that said I'd like to say that:
A. I think Kuritza has it right. Esp. about the state of the game. ano's team has the forge and earth well up. Are largest nations, very high on research, have SCs, mind hunt squads and beating the two nations facing them currently. Game is on turn 52 and to me it seems that ano's team are very close to victory.

B. While I sympathize with ano (nobody likes almost sure victory taken from them and much less when broken NAP is involved), I can not see how in a scenario when someone is close to victory and don't even have a normal NAP (NAP+3, NAP+5 etc, instead having a NAP until turn 60) I can not see how he can reasonably expect the NAP to be kept.
In a real world scenario agreements are binding both morally and legally. However, this is a game. Games are for fun. What is the fun of signing a NAP until turn 60 and from turn 40 on watch as the game goes away while you can do 0 about it.

C. Players keep NAP b/c its worthwhile to both parties. When NAP is no more in the interest of one party it can be broken. If it can't be broken then what kind of NAP is it?- Its a peace agreement, or a surrender agreement.

So while I personally usually respect NAPs I would break a NAP in such a scenario. If it were a normal NAP, like a NAP+3 then I'd give notice and that's it. If by some rare reason I have signed a NAP until turn XXX and the game is almost lost 20 or 30 turns before XXX then I'd break that NAP w/o a second thought.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

No VPs. But IMO (as an involved players) its very close to that. You know at the end game there's this point one can reach with his nation of research, income, lands, deployed SCs that from this point on he can not be stopped anymore. Well I think ano's team is very close to this point.

Maybe Kuritza can show some score graphs along with post, though score graphs alone don't reflect SC power so well, still they could prove a good indication of what's going on.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

The whole Dom 3 community usually takes NAPs as binding. In other mp games I have played treaties have been treated with less respect.

But here a NAP really is binding. Both sides should be aware of that when they sign up. It's only a game and if you have been out played in your treaties then you've been out played. No need to become a treaty breaker to stay competitive, just as most of us wouldn't break a house rule just because another player was getting the better of us.

Personally I don't like long term NAPs and would be very suspicious of signing one under any circumstances. Once I signed up for a NAP for the first two game years with a neighbour to my West (I was against the Eastern MAP edge) only to find my NAP partner had already cut off my only expansion route to the south. I should have scouted more, or even just been more suspicious of what I was signing and done more negociating. I didn't break the pact and chalked it up to experience.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Situation is just what I described, dont believe him. :)

First off, hydra-happy Pythium was in no way an easy target for Caelum.
Second, when we offered that truce, you were crushing your neighbours without facing any opposition at all.
Third, you keep posting about how you wage a 'never-ending war' but forget to mention that your first opponent fell without even giving you casualties, and you even attacked his teammate (who also fell fast) - kinda proves that you felt very confident.
Fourth, I did not make a poll about "Do you think it is possible to break an agreement and not keep your word?". Stop twisting my words. It *was* about very special circumstances I have described.

>> He made it sound like you have just 1 VP needed to win or smth like that
Yes, it is something like that. :)

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

WraithLord
Understand that it doesn't matter in fact what the agreement is. The main thing to be thought of is that it IS an agreement and both sides thought more than twice before entering it (not even taking into account the fact that it was not our idea at all). It was proposed by Kuritza's team because they thought they could grow very, very fat by the time turn 60 is reached. It was their decision, they thought of it a lot and should be responsible for it.
I don't really distinguish game and "not-game" and see no difference between keeping your word in game and in real life. If someone breaks his word he is not worth trusting anymore in my opinion.
And game situation has nothing to do with it. At all. Breaking an agreement is only possible if both sides agree to it.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Wow) You're a liar in addition to all the rest)).
No circumstances (almost) can justify breaking an agreement be it game or real life. It is my point of view.

I won't comment your posts any more. It makes no sense.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

>> It was proposed by Kuritza's team because they thought they could grow very, very fat by the time turn 60 is reached.
You try to put words in my mouth, dont you? We offered you that truce because we felt f@$cking hopeless. Ask my teammate if you wish. We saw that your opponents fall one by one, we didnt see ANY way we can change that, so we decided - to hell with this game, lets just sign a treaty with them and have some fun against somebody else before its over.

>> Wow) You're a liar in addition to all the rest)).
Personal insults now? I'm no liar, game history proves me right easily.
And you have just disgraced yourself, congratulations.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

If there are other teams still in the game and fighting Ano's team why not send money, gems and equipment to them to slow Ano up instead? Why is breaking the treaty that his team proposed now acceptable?

<?xml:namTo stop Ano winning you may say, but ultimately one team will win. If everyone can break his treaties when one team gets powerful I am not sure you improve the game. The same thing simply happens later when one of victors gets to a similar position. <O:p

Are all Kuritza’s deals considered void once he hits a certain province/power threshold? Maybe that is not a bad house rule to adopt for games but I think those signing up for the game and the treaties should know in advance that is the score. <O:p

PS I suspect I was the ‘Hydra Happy Pythium’ in this game :) I was a fairly easy kill for Caelum who crushed me early fair and square. But then I started the war so can have no complaints.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Once again, we didn't propose it.
Yes, it were you;)

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Hehe :) It wasnt easy for us, trust me. We had to test every damn combat many times, experimenting with items and formations.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Be careful. Discuss the subject in general terms only please.
If this gets to be about specific people then it will go away.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Wow! I didn't imagine I had caused you so much trouble :)

Ano - yes that came out wrong. I meant that Kuritza's team had suggested it but it kind of doesn't read that way :p

What I meant was if Kuritza's team want's to help stop you but have a treaty they can't break in place why don't they help your opponents instead? They say they want to break the treaty to help save the game but they can do that without breaking the treaty. Sometimes a NAP stops you from casting direct spells at your treaty partner but rarely who or what you can give away.

Kuritza's proposal helps his team as much as help save the game from Ano's domination while bank rolling the opposition just helps save the game.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Sure, I understand your point of view and I can tell you that to date I have broken zero NAPs. Then again, I haven't usually signed NAPs of the until turn X kind. Still when I think of it I can't help but get the feeling the the dom community is too much honorable. I mean if you have signed a NAP that puts you in a losing position you should be able to break it.
Imagine you have a NAP until turn 70 and on turn 50 the guy has put AN up, what now?- you have played 50 turns for naught.
Its ok to respect NAPs in game but in ridiculous situations it should be possible to break them.

Its an opinion, my opinion. And I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, just that there are other perspectives.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Perhaps you were thinking about something when you were signing such agreement, weren't you? Maybe, you should have stated some conditions which could automatically break the agreement (In our situation condition could be not casting FotA or similar spell). And once again, it was a decision you made and so you and you only should be responsible for it. It was your mistake and if it costs you a game then all you may do is be a bit wiser next time.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

There are no hard and fast "rules" regarding NAPs - it's all convention. You can and should be as honourable or treacherous as you like. The trade-off for the advantage of backstabbing is that your reputation, both within the game you're playing and in the general community will suffer. It's up to players to decide whether to take that risk - personally, I think the long term damage is far worse than the short-term gain, but that's me. If players want NAPs to be utterly binding in a game, they should make it a condition of play during the set-up.

The situation listed here is just about the only situation in serious play where I'd think it's not dishonourable to break a NAP. If an opponent is so close to victory that there isn't time to cancel the NAP, by all means launch a sneak attack. You're playing to win, after all. Anyone in the position of being about to win should really be prepared for everyone left to attack at any moment to stop them.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Don't agree to a NAP you can't live with down the road. Don't break a NAP without being prepared to be known as someone who breaks NAPs.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Huh, I voted "yep!" but after reading this thread, I see that I misunderstood the expression : "to break a NAP".

In my mind, if I have a NAP 5 with a player and if I say : "end of the NAP, I'll attack you in 5 turns", that I called breaking the NAP. Just a normal thing. I voted "yes" with that meaning in mind.

Now, I see that "breaking a NAP" would mean here me telling the guy : "Hello ! We have a NAP 5 but I'll attack you in 2 turns anyway because [whatever]".
Here, my answer is definitely : no, I don't break any NAP because it's useless to make promises if you don't respect your word. If you've been waiting for too long before putting an end to the NAP, then it's your fault and you deserve to loose :smirk:

So : no matter what the context is : a pact has to be respected. If you don't, nobody will trust you later. Period.

And please count -1 yes and +1 no on your poll.
BTW, I am amazed and worried by the number of positive votes...

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

So am I :shock:

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

In general I´d say that word is bond, but a NAP (not an alliance, mind you, a NAP)? in a game where "in the end, there can be only one"?

I´d say in these circumstances a Non Aggression Pact is not as much a guarantee of peace as it is of delayed conflict. Sooner or later someone will break it.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

I have nothing to add.
+1

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

In general, I think that (any roleplaying games aside) a player should stick to all agreements that they make. The single exception is if the other party is going to win the game out from under you. IMO, this is the only justifiable reason to violate an agreement. And even then, it should never be done lightly.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

I think the difficulty is that people value NAP differently from Alliance.

If you sign an Alliance then that is until the end of days, or until the two parties agree to break it, but honestly it sounds like the people who expect these NAPs to be arbitrarily binding don't want to actually use diplomacy.

Its all fine and well to say 'don't sign a NAP you don't want to keep' but my guess is that unless you want to force rather cumbersome definitions and conditions into your agreements it's not really worth the head ache.

More likely you'd see someone agree to one of these NAPs once, and then realize how utterly ridiculous they are and never agree to them again, so the reputation issue probably isn't as much of a consideration as people here think.

It gets back to why you play the game though, if you think you have a chance to win and realize that your 'partner' (though there are no true partners...) is going to beat you to the goal what are your choices?

If that's your approach just go AI and be done with it.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

There is a difference between being completely untrustworthy where NAPs and other deals have no meaning whatsoever and breaking a pact to avoid losing the game.

Would I trust someone less who did this? Yes. Especially when I started to get too powerful.

Would I never trust them again? No. I have no reason to believe he'd break a deal under normal circumstances. Breaking a deal to keep someone from winning is different than breaking one just to grab some of their land (or whatever.) And he didn't sneak attack, but gave 3 turns of warning.

Personally, I suspect the main lesson is to avoid long-term pacts like this one. The game can change too much, too quickly. I have made deals for peace until a particular enemy is beaten, but that's much more situational.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Breaking NAP when the other party grows too powerful reflects either his poor judgement (when signing the NAP) or his poor character. Either way, I personally would not sign anything in good faith with him ever again.

I think this is a good example. One party seems desperate not to be an target and proposed a NAP so the powerful party will attack someone else. When the weaker party became not so desperate (maybe under the protection of said NAP) and maybe even has a chance to win, he finds his previous dealing inconvinient. Well, you be the judge.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Ah, the good old NAP discussion. Just wanted to say I voted YES. If you want to know why just do a simple search on NAPs. There are plenty to choose from.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Fail. We were not going to be their next target, absolutely. We just knew they are going to win game, I was worried about Agartha/Tien Chi combination since turn 1, and we wanted to have our share of fun as well. And we had.
But other parties asked me to reconsider the truce, urgently and repeatedly. So I did what I though will be right - proposed to break the NAP that allows them to win this game unchallenged, and even give them 3 turns to prepare as if we had a standard agreement.

Anyway - screw this, I'm waiting for turn 60. Not worth the nerves, I have already been called a liar by a liar in this thread.
Oh, and of course as someone's said, I'm not entering long-term agreements anymore. Something to be learned out of this game.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

I love these MP threads that make it to the main forum. ALWAYS interesting.

I voted No.

You agreed to a set of conditions and they didn't work out in your favor. So what. As you said, "It's just a game".

Learn and go on. It is more honorable to keep your word. And that is life honor, not game honor.

Ask yourself what your thoughts would be if you were on the better side of the agreement. How would you feel if somone proposed to renege on an agreement because it was futile for them to continue?

"It's just a game." I'm guessing here, but I'm willing to bet that the entrance exam at heaven doesn't ask about your won/lost record in Dom3 MP but probably will ask if you ever broke your word.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Any agreement that lasts a fixed amount of time is dangerous since you don't know what the future brings. If the agreement is for a long time it's pretty much guaranteed it will begin to hurt one party before it ends. I'd avoid such pacts.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

As would I, but I'm thinking more that there are two camps of people, those who assume NAPs as permanent unbreakable restrictive walls, and those who don't look at the fine print (even when it doesn't exist).

Obviously to get around this you have to either be willing to accept a somewhat underspecified NAP getting broken (so long as reasonable reason is given) or you have to hammer in all the clauses you are worried about.

In the case specified here I would be fine (though unhappy) with the NAP being broken as outlined (with 'fair' warning). Its not as though the breaker is doing a surprise attack.

Diplomacy should be more than just NAP to turn 60 and then stop talking.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

I think people should include some information about the meaning of naps in the game in to the first post when they post about the game. Meaning that they should tell what naps stand for him, the host, and what everybody should think about them in that game. I tend to think it makes the game more interesting if agreements are nothing but mere words, as in real life. But of course its just my opinion.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Enter dominions III the game of high fantasy and bloody wars, Err the game of pen and paper and crafty lawyers :D

Just kidding though it would seem dom community is much too honorable, given that we're talking about a game, and that we're not talking break a NAP+3 or something. We're talking about breaking a long term NAP that gives one side a victory and the other a sure loss.

But anyway, as a player who never broke a NAP in the past I'm probably not a good indication of the un-honorable.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Honestly back when I was doing MP Dom2 I don't remember NAPs being this big of a sticking point. Then again it may have just been the group of guys I normally MPed with. NAPs were occasionally broken early, but rarely with a surprise attack, unless the surprise led to an immediate victory (and in that case more power to the winner...).

Seems to me if you rely solely on the NAP to defend yourself and your NAPper can basically crush you out with a coordinated strike that's on you, not him. Of course if all he can do is poach a couple of provinces then its pretty stupid of him to break the NAP.

I don't know, maybe I'm more paranoid than most, but at some point in the game you have to figure everyone who has a chance is going to try to actually win and not just wait around for someone else to do it.

As I said earlier, if that's your expectation play in defined team games, or exercise more care in your diplomatic dealings with your neighbors.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

I skipped the whole argument which seems to be about the MP situation that preceded this thread and say that yes, if you're about to lose (or think you will) I think you should go for it and break the treaty. They're words, nothing more, and this is not real life but a game. From a role-playing standpoint, no wannabe god is going to let someone (or something) else take his (her, or its) fame. From a game standpoint, well, it's much funner to lose fighting to the bitter end in an epic war full of many SCs, powerful mages, and massive aermies (massive armies optional) then to lose because your enemy could defeat you within a year due to you not having the cojones to break your NAP and save yourself. Not that there's anything wrong with honor; the diplomatic ramifications of breaking an NAP are generally going to be far and wide and possibly involve being steamrolled by elephants within the first year of another game because you broke an NAP once (maybe with someone else).

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

It still begs the question "why make a NAP with someone who sees it like this?".

So, if you had approached Ano, and instead of saying, "Hi, we would like a mutual NAP until turn 60 so we can focus on other people", you had instead said, "OMG please leave us alone until we find the opportune time to kick you in the balls". -- Do you think that he would have accepted.

Erego, if you arbitrarily break the agreement that had a set ending point (this is why people favor ordinary NAP3 BTW, 3 turns notice is given, and honor is preserved), then it becomes harder for others to trust you later. There is a bit of "suspension of disbelief" involved in diplomacy in games like this. It is foolish to claim that anyone thinks they are not benefiting from their diplomacy - even when violently forced, they enter that agreement because it is a more promising option than death. So again, why should anyone spare you from death, if they know you will just strike back from the shadows?


People like to fall back to "RP reasoning" for all of this. It's bullocks. The pretenders would not toss NAPs around like people do, so if you play 3/4 of the game out as a person, with human reasoning, then it's quite unfair to in the late game suddenly say, "But my pretender hates you vile scum, and will do anything to see you perish!". Well, THAT entity likely would never have signed a peace agreement, or vice versa. You just can't have it both ways. Thematically, diplomacy should be almost nonexistent in this game. So by objective reasoning, 90% of all agreements you make, have no basis but your human, gameplaying machinations. So if you break a treaty out of hand, it is you doing it.


So to sum up - if you make a treaty, you bought the results, it was your choice. If you break a treaty, you can also hardly complain about the repercussions, it was your choice.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

WraithLord
I still don't see any difference between these agreements. Once again, it was their suggestion and decision to enter such agreement and if they did enter it they should be responsible for the consequences.
Btw, I understand everything but saying "sure loss" is a bit early and you overestimate our powers. It is only turn 52 now and 13 nations alive. Some are stronger, some are weaker but there's no absolute and unquestionable leader who is higher as all the others. Yes, we have power, yes, we have some sc's but we are not THAT powerful now as you try to describe.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Uhh...

And how are they not being responsible for the consequences?

You can whine about it all you want, but in the end everyone should do what they think they need to do to win right? Or would you just sit there and watch some one else win when you had the ability to stop them?

Look I get what you're saying about this NAP, but I think all NAPs are meaningless if one side is ready to win the game, of course you can argue all you want about whether or not you have that kind of lead, I don't know, and I don't care.

What matters is what your neighbor thinks, and what gives them a chance. I don't see this as being an outright stab either, he's giving you 3 turns, changing the nature of the NAP on the fly. Big deal? To you it is, since you obviously think it will ruin your chance to win, but that's the whole point of playing the game isn't it?!?!???

You are of course free to carry over hard feelings to the next game, and to try and poison his reputation if you want, but realize that's a double edged sword. The more you slag on him, the less likely others may be to enter agreements with you in other games since they won't want to deal with the possibility that you get bent out of shape and slag them publicaly.

Personally I find all these instances of people taking out their frustrations on other people in OTHER games to be much much worse than someone breaking a NAP in the first place.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Since the topic is (or was supposed) to be general I'll try to answer in general terms, that what I state is my opinion. I do think there's a difference between breaking a NAP+3 (bad!) and breaking a NAP+30 or some such b/c you think the other side is on the brink of victory. This is my opinion, I could never exercise it in real game since I'd never accept the latter agreement.

Sure there is an element of he agreed or wanted this NAP let him suck it up but there's also an element that in dynamic game like dominions such long term NAP can put one of the parties in an unreasonable (from a fun game standpoint) point where he must do nothing while losing the game.

A word about our game. I honestly think you're very close to winning. This is my opinion based on all the intel I have. I may be wrong of course, but I'm stating my opinion as I see things, not trying to create a false show. Nothing wrong with you winning, your team plays very well and if other players made mistakes along the way (some of them diplomatic, other passive) well its their problem, and you're free and right to rip the rewards :)

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Do you really see no difference between "the opportune time to kick you in the balls" and "we might as well just go AI, because by the time the treaty is up, you'll be unstoppable"?
(I'm not in this game, so I can't comment on whether they'll be unstoppable by turn 60 or not, so I'm speaking generically.)
The first is obviously bad, the second is what we're disputing. Is it valid to break a deal when that's the only way to keep someone from winning? Or from achieving such dominance they can't be stopped?

And I'd feel fine making a deal with someone who saw things like that. I'd just be wary if I was getting too dominant. But I would still expect him to honor the deal if I was vulnerable because of another war, for example.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Yes, I'd break it. There's being honorable and then there's just being goddamn stupid. I would think less of anyone who actually held to the NAP down into death and defeat if they could have made a fight of it by breaking it.

I would warn the person I was breaking the NAP with to the effect that "Sorry, would have liked to hold it but deal's done because otherwise I have no fighting chance." Doesn't mean I'd automatically break NAPs in future games. I prefer to hold to my word, but anyone who takes NAPs as ironclad restrictions that cannot ever be deviated from even when it's the only viable choice for survival is living in la-la land.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Your word is your word, some will break it if doing that benefits you, some wont.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Since I don't play MP via these forums but with friends, I probably have a very different approach to diplomacy than that which appears, from the statements earlier in the thread, to be the general case here.

Namely the case that diplomacy appears to be about assurances divinely held sacred as if they were a part of the game itself and imposing strict in-game limitations on actions rather than being mutually beneficial agreements that you have to nurture to maintain and, as such, are likely to be broken when one party thinks it is no longer of advantage to itself to follow it and the disadvantages of being known to break an agreement in a particular game are less than the advantages.

I realize I won't change your minds on the NAP issue if what you prefer playing with is a NAP that must be obeyed just as if it was an actual in-game rule (which it is not) - it is a convention of your gameplay, and if that's how you like to play it, that's certainly fair enough, but from a practical perspective it is nothing more than a convention - there's certainly no rational argument for why it should be that way, and there's no reason to expect your opponents to play by such player created rules unless they've agreed to do so.

In fact, diplomacy where verbal or written agreements between players must be kept no matter the circumstances is in general in games considerably less interesting and presents fewer opportunities to excel at the art of diplomacy than games running a more commonly accepted convention in board and card games featuring intrigue and player elimination: Anything that is agreed between players to be done "now" in the current turn must be done, anything that is agreed for the future is enforced solely by the might and diplomatic capabilities of the players involved. (That is again only one convention and not necessarily the one you'll have most fun with, but it makes for considerably more challenging diplomacy and demonstrates one of the core values of real-life diplomacy: false security.)

If I'm playing with my friends and I agree an alliance, a turn limited NAP, a truce, or any other diplomatic relationship lasting more then the current turn, then I expect my great friend and wonderful player, who'm I'll liberally praise while searching for the right place to knife him in the back come the day I need him no longer, to follow it so long as the advantages of doing so outweigh the disadvantages of not doing so and not a moment longer. Of course, there are advantages to "doing the right thing" and being a "man of your word", so betraying somebody has a significant negative impact on your diplomatic abilities long-term in the same game in most cases, which requires an equally significant advantage to make betrayal worth it... but that's just one aspect of the evaluation of whether to break an agreement or not.

I'll regret it publicly when the nasty deed gets done and appeal to world peace, the international order, or the maintenance of the balance of power... should I be the one betrayed... and I'll explain why it was a necessity to break with the untrustworthy ruthless powermongering bastard, who was clearly setting up his game plan for an overwhelming attack on myself, which I only twarted by preempting him at the last possible moment, sacrificing myself for the good of all.... should I be the one doing the betraying. (Actually, to better sell this idea, I'll of course be buttering up the other players who are not directly affected preferably one or two turns in advance - it risks being counter-betrayed or preempted, but establishing the moral high ground and laying the foundations for general acceptance of your actions amongst those who might tip either way is usually very important in game where diplomacy really matters)

Now, THAT is part of what real diplomacy is about in the sort of games I like to play, including Dominions 3 MP, diplomacy that does not force compliance with your words when you no longer intend to honour them - diplomacy where your ability to nurture a strategic relationship is as important as your ability to get somebody to sign an agreement with you in the first place.

....So to answer the poll - in the situation as described, I'd break the agreement in a heartbeat unless I had explicitly agreed to a convention of enforcing agreements regardless of what's happening in the game. :)

Backstab, betray, deceive, and destroy as necessary, aid, selflessly sacrifice, work for the common good when it benefits yourself..... all these make for wonderful moments in diplomacy, even though they do tend to create short-lived bursts of temper.... so long as players don't bring grudges from one game to another or let the actions in one game affect their actions in another. Somebody pulled a clever betrayal of you in one game that you didn't see coming? Good for them, that's a good lesson for you to be more wary in the future and perhaps even more diplomatically aggressive - next time it might be your knife in somebody's back. :)

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Well said!

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Great post, I loved it. That's how real diplomacy works. Where's the fun if not in plotting and scheming.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Is anyone forced to agree to something they won't stick to? What exactly is the problem with telling people someone did not follow an agreement?

After that everyone is free to make up their own mind, and assuming people will act in accordance to their own interest is always a safe bet, assuming you can figure out what they think their interest is.

Consistently sticking to your word is a hindrance unless people know you to do so, in which case it may still be a hindrance since it makes you more predictable.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

If you look at my thread about RNap's - this is why I think certain globals should automatically terminate a NAP. Forge is a case in point - a longterm nap with the casting of of forge basically ensures a victory.

LIkewise, if the victory conditions are not complete annihilation, then naps should have an out, when it becomes clear that one party threatens to become dominant.