Quote:
Beorne said:
This is strange, I find the mayority of posts saying that NAP are freely breakable without utter consequencies. If NAP are freely breakable then NAP does not exist, point. If someone breaks a NAP on me he will have a broken reputation for me and for players I urge to communicate. I'd exclude public lists for the load of issues raised before.
|
In my interpretation, the majority of people are saying that NAP are breakable with consequences lasting only the length of the game. Personally, if someone broke a non-agression pact with me, I'd be ticked in the short term, but wouldn't bother to remember it into the next game under most circumstances. The very nature of victory in this game (No allied wins), only one victor, all other pretenders must die theme, makes me trust no-one, and expect betrayal- only hoping for honor.
Even my alliances are buttered along by reserves and constant artifact exchanges and gem trades and such. Mutually speaking, but addicting to the other party. I make sure there are benefits for me and them, while the cost of breaking that treaty outweigh the rewards. I may keep a reserve of forces, except when things get real desperate. Even in this state of uneasy trust, NAP are still beneficial. While I have some hanging around using upkeep, these guards aren't dying and in need of replacement, and I'm freed to spend my remaining money elsewhere.
This paranoia isn't a reflection of my opinion of the other person- if I met my secret alliance partner [classified] in real life, I'd be willing to fully trust him/her. I trust my sister with a lot of things, for instance, but if my sister was a gamer, I'd fully expect her to backstab me in-game. She's not a gamer though, so, meh...