MP: Chlorolera is made of contagious and deadly!

[cleveland]

Originally Posted by DonCorazon

2. Don't sign a NAP longer than 5 turns

When I think back on how many glorious wars Machaka could have been embroiled in, I'm going to learn this lesson as "Don't sign a NAP ever." Better to die on your feet than live on your knees, Lord Obamono.

ps - BillyWitchDoctor.com takes the top spot in the Hall of Fame! With an aesthetically pleasing 2^8 kills!

[Quitti]

Heh, I should've attacked Shin the second I got a border with them. Even refused to sign a NAP with them to keep opportunities open - but unfortunately I was on my way to start a war with Jotunheim - should've paid more attention to graphs at that point. I never even did get the chance to break the NAP with Jotunheim - I was still building army for that moment, and getting holy pyre (and other evocations) researched in case their master lich would've provided some nasty skeletal surprises. And then came BoT, which really hurt us - all mages of ma marig are old age (except for f1 nonsacred somewhat useless ones). Actually I think I had only one commander without afflictions in the force I was gathering to shin's border (After giving up on the Jotunheim part and seeing that shin was such a threat).

It really sounds like you had the ultimate starting position - 5 out of 6 with 10k pop is insane. It would provide the fuel for the rest of the game. All I had was some random forests :/

[Zapmeister]

Originally Posted by cleveland

When I think back on how many glorious wars Machaka could have been embroiled in, I'm going to learn this lesson as "Don't sign a NAP ever." Better to die on your feet than live on your knees, Lord Obamono.

First up, congratulations to the Admiral and thanks to Juffos for running the game, but I'd also like to comment on this NAP business.

I'm not going to admit my age here, but suffice it to say that I cut my MP teeth on a boardgame called Diplomacy shortly after it was invented, in which agreements between players was the central theme.

The thing is, everyone understood that treaties and the like, while being essential tools for sorting out your friends from your enemies and arranging short-term operations, were never regarded as binding.

It's was a little disconcerting, I suppose, to come into this community and discover that these "NAPs" are regarded by many people as similar to legal contracts that cannot be broken, even in the extreme situation we faced in this game.

This is not a whine just an observation about the evolution of diplomacy in multiplayer games. While I acknowledge that others see it differently, I do still believe that trying to make treaties binding in a game does not improve the game.

I actually regard myself as a reliable ally. In-game relationships built up through a history of co-operation are the most valuable, I think, and I try to build a lot of them. I just hate it when people ask for certainty. I always want the option to stab, even if I rarely use it.

Just my 2c,
Zap.

[Jazzepi]

Originally Posted by Zapmeister

It's was a little disconcerting, I suppose, to come into this community and discover that these "NAPs" are regarded by many people as similar to legal contracts that cannot be broken, even in the extreme situation we faced in this game.

Those are the ones I enjoy backstabbing the most

Jazzepi

[Quitti]

Originally Posted by Zapmeister

It's was a little disconcerting, I suppose, to come into this community and discover that these "NAPs" are regarded by many people as similar to legal contracts that cannot be broken, even in the extreme situation we faced in this game.

And that's exactly the reason why Discharge (another MP game) has "machiavellian" diplomacies - like real world. Breaking a treaty might benefit you, forging a solid trust can benefit you even more. It all depends. Just keep in mind, it's said in llamaserver faq about starting a game:

Now, this first post needs to include all the details of the game:
...
- Diplomacy policy (are treaties considered unbreakable, or is this a Machiavellian world?)

I usually consider it a machiavellian game if it's not stated that it's not. I suggest everyone do the same. If something is not EXPLICTLY forbidden, it must be allowed. There's no gray area between them in this case.