Question about diplomacy

Kuritza · #1 September 3rd, 2008, 08:36 AM

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.

ano · #2 September 3rd, 2008, 09:50 AM

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.

WraithLord · #3 September 3rd, 2008, 10:16 AM

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.

chrispedersen · #4 September 3rd, 2008, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WraithLord

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.

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.

licker · #5 September 3rd, 2008, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

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.

Uhh...

So why did you vote no then?

I mean you may not like how peter does things, but clearly you don't think these things are set in stone either.

I think the issue with the NAP under discussion (from the game, not the hypothetical) is that the two parties had different interpretations of what NAP means and what it takes for it to be acceptable to break an underdefined NAP.

Well more's the pity for them if they didn't set up all the caveats up front, but playing with rule lawyers sucks, and it would seem the spirit of the game should ultimately trump anyones hard feelings over this kind of an issue.

And again, the spirit of the game is try to win correct?

Archonsod · #6 September 4th, 2008, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by licker

Well more's the pity for them if they didn't set up all the caveats up front,

Bang on. If you want to play with inviolate NAP's or for that matter any other house rule, whether it's no SC's or disallowing certain globals, then you should agree it with the other players beforehand. It takes less than five minutes for the host to list any house rules they want in the game, or for that matter for any number of reasonable players to agree to certain restrictions or a certain style of play, it prevents these situations occurring and usually means a much better time for all concerned. The other advantage of course is that if a player disagrees with particular restrictions they can give up their slot and let someone else play.

With other groups I play with, whether it's board games or computer games, we follow a golden rule that if no house rules or similar restrictions are announced at the start of the game then the only rules applicable are those enforced by the game. Sucks to be on the receiving end of a double cross when you thought you had a binding agreement, but at the same time it's also unfair to the other players to suddenly decide some rule applies halfway through the game (particularly when you're in a strong position).

In this situation I'd be inclined to apply said rule and say the pact can be broken this time. I'd also encourage all parties to seek clarification of such rules BEFORE starting the game next time.

ano · #7 September 3rd, 2008, 09:58 AM

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.

Zeldor · #8 September 3rd, 2008, 10:04 AM

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

WraithLord · #9 September 3rd, 2008, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeldor

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

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.

licker · #10 September 3rd, 2008, 10:13 AM

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.