View Single Post
  #70  
Old February 3rd, 2010, 02:13 PM

Belac Belac is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 282
Thanks: 8
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Belac is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Diplomacy ethics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarkko View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belac View Post
All binding diplomacy does is ensure that you get some warning before you become a potential conquest.
That is the whole point, isn't it? The whole concept of strategical suprise is gone. Will you ever attack an opponent who is stronger than you if you have to tell him many turns before that you are going to attack? No you won't, it would be suicide. In a game with binding diplomacy, when you notice somebody is heading for victory the game is already over, there is nothing you can do.

Based on my limited experience with binding diplo games, the games are *very* boring. To me they feel like playing single-player game, except some nations are scripted to be unable to attack or harm you in any way. I will rather watch paint dry than join a game with binding diplo ever again
3 turns is not sufficient to prepare against an opponent who has spent several turns preparing before retiring the NAP. It's sufficient warning to get -something- up, but a good player won't retire a NAP without having spent several turns getting ready. So the attacker is doing his final tuneup while the defender is still recruiting/repositioning a main force, unless the defender was prepared through scouting and other means. Signing a NAP and then treating the other player as unable to attack you is never wise.
Reply With Quote