Quote:
Kristoffer O said:
> To be fair a dominions convention is that NAPs are meant to be inviolable, but many players don't know that yet (it isn't true in a lot of other turn-based games).
Huh? I didn't know that.
I have never played a game of strategy and diplomacy in wich pacts are not expected to be broken.
|
Hear, hear. One of the prototypical games of diplomacy is Diplomacy itself, and as the manual for that game states, "These discussions and written agreements, however, do
not bind a player to anything he/she may say. Deciding whom to trust as situations arise is an important part of the game." I feel that Dominions should be played the same way.
Many times in history and mythology, rulers have decided that a treaty wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. The deeds of gods are not recorded in history (reliably anyway), but in mythology many are treacherous bastards. It is both a better fit with the game-world and more fun to allow treachery without restriction (other than the *in-game* revenge of the betrayed).
Treason never prospers: what's the reason?
Because if it prospers, none dare call it treason.