Question about diplomacy

[chrispedersen]

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]

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]

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.