MP etiquette for war...

[parone]

the clueless newb is back

i prob spelled etiquette wrong...

in my first game, and wondering how it works, declaring war?

i have three neighbors,and have est. reasonable diplo with all. its early(turn 10). what happens later if i want to declare? or, what should i expect from them?

will i just boot up a turn and have a bunch of giants/tigers/seraphs land in a province and they say "war!"

do i have to declare b4 attacking?

i really have no idea. i know there are no set rules, just don't want to come across as a major Dbag in the game, as the other players have been very cool in helping me get started in MP.

thanks for any advice.

[Bwaha]

If you have a non-aggression treaty active you have to give notice...

Ie, most common is a nap-3...

This means you (have) to give a three turn notice before attacking...

Other than that, all is fair in love and war...

[TigerBlood]

Originally Posted by Bwaha

If you have a non-aggression treaty active you have to give notice...

You don't have to give notice. While I try and keep deals in games, some players have no problems breaking deals. Relying on another player to honour a deal is something you should think carefully about. Relying exclusively on diplomacy for defence against another nation is not a situation you should place yourself in.

I have had to learn this the hard way. Even so, you should assume other players are trustworthy until they prove otherwise.

[RonD]

You are always at war with everybody, unless you have negotiated a specific peace treaty with someone. The terms of that treaty should determine what kind of notice either party needs to give in order to break the treaty and go to war.

As in real life, actually abiding by the terms of a treaty is sometimes optional - but most people prefer to be known around the forum as someone who keeps their word, rather than as someone not to be trusted.

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by RonD

You are always at war with everybody, unless you have negotiated a specific peace treaty with someone. The terms of that treaty should determine what kind of notice either party needs to give in order to break the treaty and go to war.

As in real life, actually abiding by the terms of a treaty is sometimes optional - but most people prefer to be known around the forum as someone who keeps their word, rather than as someone not to be trusted.

One caveat to this: certain very powerful or ball breaking globals are considered to be an open declaration of war on the entire world, because whoever runs them gains huge advantages. In this case, I believe it is considered acceptable to void any existing agreements and attack immediately, because leaving someone who's got them unmolested for three turns is basically handing them the game.

The globals in question are: Utterdark, Forge of the Ancients, Arcane Nexus, Burden of Time, usually Gift of Nature's Bounty and Astral Corruption as well.

[Soyweiser]

It also really depends, seeing somebody getting dogpiled while he still has a nap3 with you means you should make a decision. Either, kill your former NAP parter a bit quicker and get more provinces for yourself (and possibly, lose an army when it hits one of the other afgressors armies). Or be honorable and let your later enemies take the provinces.

Personally, I would just brake nap and take those lands from the already dead nation. (More provinces = more gold/gems/tactical options). You always want to deny those provinces to other nations.

[Peter Ebbesen]

This is a game of religious warfare by megalomaniacs seeking godhood. Unless anything else is agreed between those who are playing, everything goes - just as in normal diplomacy.

As such, if you are going to be playing together with other players, the most important thing to do before you start is to check whether they play with house rules, and, if they do, to decide whether they are house rules you can accept playing with or not.

Barring house rules to the contrary, you should expect that the troops on your lawn pissing in your plants and hogging your booze are all the warning of impending war you'll ever receive, previous treaties or mutual understandings notwithstanding.

Expect any alliance to be an alliance of convenience and any treaty to be one of mutual interest that won't last long once it ceases to be in the interest of those who agree to it and you should be well prepared.

Some players have problems coping with such real world diplomacy or just dislike the playing style and prefer to play with house rules prohibiting the breaking of agreements without prior warning (see e.g. earlier posters in this very thread requiring prior warning to breaking NAPs), but they should be courteous enough to tell you of any such house rules if you join a game with them before the game starts.

You'll never go wrong with asking, though.

[Immaculate]

One thing to be aware of regarding diplomacy however is that trade agreements are pretty much sacred.

If you agree to give someone 10 death gems for a skull mentor, and you send those gems... usually he MUST send the skull mentor (or at least send the death gems back). This is a function of the game's archaic messaging system more than anything else. Reneging on a swap is bad form.

[JonBrave]

Originally Posted by Immaculate

If you agree to give someone 10 death gems for a skull mentor, and you send those gems... usually he MUST send the skull mentor (or at least send the death gems back). This is a function of the game's archaic messaging system more than anything else. Reneging on a swap is bad form.

Are swaps "simultaneous" (same turn), or do the gems have to be sent first?

[Olm]

Originally Posted by JonBrave

Are swaps "simultaneous" (same turn), or do the gems have to be sent first?

You agree on that.