MP: Smiting Season (newb-intermediate, LA, CBM 1.92) smiting has begun!

[Whollaborg]

I am having a bit of second though on binding diplomacy. How is it enforced in not so rare cases of conflicting treaties the inevitable wars and such would bring?

[Legendary League]

Originally Posted by Whollaborg

I am having a bit of second though on binding diplomacy. How is it enforced in not so rare cases of conflicting treaties the inevitable wars and such would bring?

Define conflicting treaties?

In general, people only really sign NAPs. Alliances, if any, are always temporary (and never written or binding in any way). You rarely see anything that may be considered, say, a mutual defense pact or somesuch (i.e. X attacks Y, Ys treaty with Z forces them to attack X), because there is only one winner at the end.

I suppose someone can try more zany treaty ideas (and go for things like a double victory), but in the overwhelming majority of cases, you don't see it. And things like gem/item trades are basically always honored, even in games where diplomacy isn't binding. Even in non-binding diplo games, the majority of treaties which are signed are generally maintained (due to the reputation cost of breaking them).

[Slobby]

gath please

[Carpetbagger]

I would like a spot. Will post nation in a bit.

[Groundworm]

Welcome aboard, Slobby and Carpetbagger. I'm glad to see at least a few more people interested, since no one had been joining.

If binding diplomacy is really such an issue, I'm willing to change it to non-binding. Those of you who've joined, let me know what you think.

[Bat/man]

Count me in.

I'm a glutton for punishment .. so LA-Agartha.
If thats taken- LA-Mictlan.

and I'll have a surprise for anyone that wants to rush me = )

I'm fine with binding diplomacy, in fact it would be fun to find an "honorouble" game.
but these kinds of games are rare - people are more used to cut throat.
I'm fine with either but prefer binding.

[Groundworm]

Greetings, Bat/man!

What's your MP experience like?

[Whollaborg]

You might notice that even a simple NAP cannot be maintained trough the game as there "can be only one".

Originally Posted by Legendary League

Define conflicting treaties?

In general, people only really sign NAPs. Alliances, if any, are always temporary (and never written or binding in any way). You rarely see anything that may be considered, say, a mutual defense pact or somesuch (i.e. X attacks Y, Ys treaty with Z forces them to attack X), because there is only one winner at the end.

I suppose someone can try more zany treaty ideas (and go for things like a double victory), but in the overwhelming majority of cases, you don't see it. And things like gem/item trades are basically always honored, even in games where diplomacy isn't binding. Even in non-binding diplo games, the majority of treaties which are signed are generally maintained (due to the reputation cost of breaking them).

[Legendary League]

Originally Posted by Whollaborg

You might notice that even a simple NAP cannot be maintained trough the game as there "can be only one".

Well, that's why every NAP has an expiration clause (either it's timed to last only X amount of turns before being renewed, or, more popularly, there is a cancellation clause which requires X turn notice before the treaty is dissolved and attacks may commence).

[Whollaborg]

Perhaps this doesn't qualify as a "simple NAP" any more

Originally Posted by Legendary League

Well, that's why every NAP has an expiration clause (either it's timed to last only X amount of turns before being renewed, or, more popularly, there is a cancellation clause which requires X turn notice before the treaty is dissolved and attacks may commence).