KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!

[Micah]

Originally Posted by Xietor

He has been informed as to my current diplomatic situation, which of course a permanent sub is free to ignore.

Without revealing his identity...

Where the hell did the idea that subs have a get-out-of-diplo-free card come from? Obviously there's no binding diplomacy in nearly all games, but within the normal framework of honor-based and word-of-mouth Dominions diplomacy repercussions I certainly don't see how changing a player changes diplomacy any faster than the original player could (don't like a NAP as a sub? Fine, give warning, not a big deal...)

Also, the idea that a sub gets to be anonymous when every other player in the game is not strikes me as completely ridiculous.

Anyhow, I'm (thankfully) not in this game, but I've been following it since I subbed a bit for the big Z, and I was taken aback enough at some of the assumptions here to want to chime in, FWIW.

[Xietor]

Permanent subs are never bound by the departing player's diplomatic arrangements. I encouraged my sub to honor my treaties, but you cannot bind a permanent sub to past treaties. A temporary sub IS expected to honor all treaties of the player for whom he is subbing.

That has been the rule in both Big Games, including Velusions, and every other mp game I have played in. And it makes sense.

My sub is not unknown. He is very well known on the forums. The game admin, hadrian, knows who he is. I choose not to announce who my sub is. But that does not mean it is a secret. Or it is a mystery. I am sure he will announce himself, either on this thread or in game. That is his prerogative.

I posted for a sub and no one claimed the spot for several days. But it was open to the first player who claimed it, including you Micah. It is my hope that my treaties are honored. But the fact of the matter is I do not have many.

A 6 turn nap with formoria, 6 turn nap with la caelum, and I am at war with la marignon and Bandar Log. That is the extent of my treaties. So there is not a lot to honor in any event. I have no treaty with niefelheim or LA agartha, the 2 frontrunners.

I do have good relations with several nations, but no formal treaty, and I passed that information along to my sub.

[Micah]

Originally Posted by Xietor

Permanent subs are never bound by the departing player's diplomatic arrangements. I encouraged my sub to honor my treaties, but you cannot bind a permanent sub to past treaties.

That has been the rule in both Big Games, including Velusions, and every other mp game I have played in. And it makes sense.

My sub is not unknown. He is very well known on the forums. The game admin, hadrian, knows who he is. I choose not to announce who my sub is. But that does not mean it is a secret. Or it is a mystery. I am sure he will announce himself, either on this thread or in game. That is his prerogative.

Quote was snipped as appropriate.

I searched the rules post and the rest of the top 50 posts for the game and found no mention of this perm-sub "rule" that you speak about. Did I miss it? I don't see why you can't bind a sub to old treaties, it's a game choice like every other choice. Your sub is bound by your previous decisions in how to purchase troops, spend gems, site search, research, and every other aspect of the game, why should diplomacy be any different?

IMO it is most certainly NOT a player's prerogative to play by different rules than everyone else in the game, in this case by not disclosing his/her identity when the rest of the game participants have, and an option not to was not readily given.

[DonCorazon]

X - "sunlight is the best disinfectant; electric light the best policeman"

[Xietor]

Micah, I am not sure where you are headed with this? The perm sub/temp sub is not a "rule." And it is not my intent to argue about a game I am no longer a part of. This debate may be one more appropriate for the general thread.

But to try and choose my words precisely, and I have been playing mp dominions for years, just not on this forum(here only since Katrina). So this is just my understanding of things. It is not a set rule. Certainly not a game rule.

1. Diplomacy/treaties Players are free to break ignore naps anytime they want. KO has said he sees nothing wrong with this. Personally I have never broken a treaty. But that is just me. But Diplomacy/treaties/naps are not set rules. There is no penalty for breaking them in any game I know of. Your reputation may take a nosedive if you get known as a person who breaks treaties. The "penalty" for being a treaty breaker is you may find it difficult in future games to get a treaty with anyone if no one trusts your word.

2. Temp. Subs-my understanding is a temp sub is not free to break a player's treaties. he must obey the player's wishes as he is just standing in for the player, who will be returning to take the reins of his empire after a break. I have seen game administers, when they are forced to find subs, tell the temp sub to obey the treaties of the player.

3. Permanent sub. A permanent sub is taking a position over from a fresh perspective.
He does not inherit the treaties of the other players. In kingmaker I had a 6 turn nap with lolomo who plays la caelum. Lolomo may trust me, but he may not trust the perm sub as far as he can throw him. So lolomo's nap is personal to me, not my nation.

The same cuts both ways. The perm sub may not trust a player that i trust. And he may not want to be bound by a 6 turn nap when he feels he will be attacked at any time by the other player.

Therefore in every mp game I have been in, the 1st thing a perm sub does is reaffirm existing treaties of the former player, or reject them.

That is my understanding of the situation. But if you start a thread on the meaning of a 3 turn nap, you will quickly see it means 100 different things to different players. So I likely should not have assumed my viewpoint on permanent subs was a universally accepted one. But I have never before heard it questioned.

As to the identity of my sub, it is not a secret, and should not be a secret. On that I agree. But I just handed off the position a few hours ago, and I see no reason to steal my sub's thunder. If for some reason he does not announce himself by tomorrow, I will post his name..

At the moment the sub is likely downloading a map, a mod, and trying to read this long thread, and look at a very complicated position. In short I bet he has no clue what he wants to do yet. If anyone with whom I have a treaty wants to know who my sub is, they can pm me and i will tell you.

[Lingchih]

I think that, should we make it a new rule, that, for new perm subs, the new sub has one turn under the old treaties. All treaties have to be re-negotiated in that turn. If they are not re-negotiated, they are void.

I've not been in this game for a long time, but I follow the thread.

Oh, and Xietor, all this stuff about keeping your sub secret is just goofy. My lord man, just tell us who the sub is.

[DrPraetorious]

The following rules apply:
1) *Temp* subs are expected to obey the intentions of the player for whom they are subbing. This is explicitly stated for some games, I believe Xietor mentioned it at some point. This would include treaties, unless the original player wants those broken/ignored...

2) I'll take Micah's word that no rules were specified for permanent subs. Therefore, they can do whatever they want.

[Zeldor]

Xietor:

You seem to have really strange idea for some basic MP rules. And it's even stranger considering your MP experience. I think that it is absolutely common, normal and expected that perm-sub takes over a nation with all good and bad things coming from it. So perm sub should honor all NAPs and alliances. If he does not it is almost as he broke them. Of course that is jut a rule of honor, but same applies to all other diplomatic agreements here. The fact that neighbours may be ready for the possibility of new owner picking new path does not mean that he can just come and launch an invasion on an old ally of a previous player.

[Micah]

I posted because I felt that your characterization of the situation was, shall we say, oversimplified and subject to misinterpretation. "Where I was going with it" was making an attempt to clear things up, since you were presenting things as fact or consensus that I pretty strongly disagree with, and I didn't want other people to read it and assume that everyone was in agreement with how things work.

Your latest post makes a whole lot more sense to me than the one I initially replied to. You're now making reasonable arguments for why things should change, as opposed to just saying "it's the rule."

I still disagree with your conclusion, as well as the assertion that treaties are not inherited, but I can at least see where you're coming from.

IMO, if a player doesn't trust your sub (or the sub doesn't trust the player) he is, of course, free to break the treaty and claim extenuating circumstances. It's up to the other players to decide how much tarnish that would put on his reputation. But I think it would be pretty clearly a flat-out violation of a treaty if he just attacked with no warning whatsoever, or used the sub as an excuse to duck out of a NAP that had been given notice on and still had multiple turns left until hostilities commenced just to get an advantage over the former ally. That was the conclusion I got from your initial characterization of what happens when a sub takes over. Treaty-breaking is, of course, an option with non-binding diplomacy regardless, but I don't see why the sub should be able to get out of the political fallout from such a move just based on being a sub.

Reaffirming treaties is smart, but every time I've done it I assumed that it was in relation to the ongoing portion of the treaty, not the static part...so if my 3-turn warning NAP partner subbed out I would be confirming that the sub didn't want to give notice on the treaty, not that he could ignore the whole thing.

And yes, you're right about not needing to immediately disclose who the sub is, but again, I feel that the way you posted about it initially was subject to misinterpretation for long-term plans to do so.

[Xietor]

As I said Zeldor my understanding of the custom comes from the games and players in the games in which i have participated.

In fact, in this game, you have two very experienced players, K and Baalz, who took over positions as perm. subs. K for sure felt he was not bound by my nap with the former player. And I am not sure how Baalz approached his role when he took over MA Arcos.

But it is hard enough to get perm subs as it is, and it may be harder to get them if they cannot play the race as they see fit. While I am not motivated enough to read Perpetuality thread, I think that was Velusion's logic. In Fallacy I also had to reconfirm my treaties with the players that took over MA Ctis. In any event, it is not something I made up out of thin air.

It is just something that has been a part of my gaming experience. Other players may well have had different gaming experiences. From Zeldor's perspective, it really is not relevant as I had no treaty with him anyway.

And I certainly did not get a sub because I wanted LA Arcos to attack either of the nations with whom i had naps, la caelum or formoria. In fact it is my strong hope my sub would see that as a futile course of action if he wishes to influence the outcome of the game. Though my sub is a very strong willed person, and my advice will likely be secondary to his own assessments.