Adjudication on a NAP -edited please comment again

[Karlem]

You treach someone once, your mistake. You treach someone twice, his mistake . (Probably a very bad translation from spanish)

At least I check forums for user IDs and verify his NAP background before really commiting myself.

[Chris_Byler]

I think Saxon has a point. Part of the player culture of Diplomacy is that lying and treachery are part of the game, just like part of the culture of poker is that bluffing is part of the game. Nobody would refuse to play poker against someone who lied about his cards, and only an idiot would refuse to play Diplomacy against someone who lied about his plans.

Dominions' current MP scene doesn't have that dimension and I think that diminishes it. The presence of multi-game reputations and grudges and players who would rather preserve their "honor" than get ahead in the game they are actually playing right now changes the nature of the game, and IMO, not for the better.

[Aezeal]

btw you can always play under another name

[vfb]

Karlem said:
You treach someone once, your mistake. You treach someone twice, his mistake . (Probably a very bad translation from spanish)

At least I check forums for user IDs and verify his NAP background before really commiting myself.

Doesn't it go like this?

"Treach me once, shame on — shame on you. Treach me — you can't get treached again."

[Hoplosternum]

I am not sure how much of the game Diplomacy you have played - but unless you were playing 'blind' or against people you have never met and would not meeet again reputations were very important. And they did not stop back stabbing or make the game 'nice'.

The whole craft of the game was to gather allies so you could take out enemies without having to worry about all your flanks. Then you turned on one of your allies. But you didn't really need surprise if things were working well. He would be engaged elsewhere and could not fight both you and his current opponent. You could afford to give notice that your agreement was over (although no formal NAPs were involved in games I played) and it was obvious to everyone what was happening a turn or two before that as you repositioned your forces.

In games were people simply lied to each other all the time people tended to simply fall out. Outside of the game to. And I associate such games with very young, immature players.

Most people are understandably upset when they get ganged up on or when their (ex) allies attack them. But if later you can see why it happened and it makes it easier to take. A good stab is rarely a surprise in either Dom3 or Diplomacy. In hindsight while you may not like it you can see why it happened.

Most of us are playing for fun. If you are really desperate to win play single player! Continual lying and duplicity in mp - unless everyone knows that beforehand - will just reduce the enjoyment and skill for most of us. This goes dor Dom 3 and Diplomacy.

I don't think Zenphos had a NAP in this example but I think the general honouring of NAPs here is a good thing. I doubt the mp community would last for long without it. Most of us would have better things to do. I've played a lot of boardgames with Diplomacy as well as Diplomacy and no group of players lasts for long as friends or players in a free for all, say anything, do anything atmosphere.

[sansanjuan]

On a related note...

Would casting "harm enemy" globals be NAP breaking (e.g. burden of time among others)?

Casting a global that bumps another off?

Do they constitute "aggression"? I think so but I bet others would differ.

-SSJ

[Wrana]

On globals I personally would say that:
1) Whether they will be counted as a pact breach should be agreed upon when terms of NAP are discussed;
2) Burden of Time is NAP breach against almost anyone (except death-heavy/demon-heavy nations), while Purgatory can be counted as such against, e.g., LA/MA Ermor. However, if it wasn't said so at the time of agreement, it's not direct breach, but is reason enough for other player to cancel agreement (or threaten such cancelement at least);
3) Casting global that dispels another isn't NAP breach at all. Though if all globals were by one player, he can assume this as "agression" & probably nobody would be in position to say him that he isn't right.

[Darkstone]

Globals that harm enemies, if you don't have dominion in your NAP neighbor, I can say they should hardly be concerned about it. If you do have dominion, you should either mention it in a message (as surprise is probably a pretty big harm multiplier, and most likely a bigger deal than the harm itself), or prepare for the consequences.

As for globals that bump off globals, that's part of the game. Only 5 global slots, nothing to be done about that. Everyone is free to recast their own if they really want to.

As for the atmosphere of honor, vs. the atmosphere of betrayal... I feel that the former gives an advantage to the honorable, the latter to the betrayers. As the minority wouldn't be taking optimal advantage of the situation as it exists.

So while it's certainly true that a moderate/strong level of deceit can be fun at least occasionally, or for certain types of games... I'd have to be pretty strongly opposed to anything which actively set the tables against honorable players as partaking in a fools errand. (Since betrayals are a stronger tactic than not, inherently.)

[Ironhawk]

Yeah, I think if the global you cast has no negative impact on your neighbor - like the gem generators, or something dominion based like Purgatory, then there is no problem. But if the spell directly and negatively impacts them, like Burden of Time or Wild Hunt, then you definitely need to warn them.

As for bumping existing globals with one of your own - there are two ways you can do this. First by recasting the same spell, and second by casting a different spell which bumps off thier spell due to the global limit. In the first case, if I was working closely with that nation I would probably take issue and end the NAP. In the second case there is really nothing to be done.

[Saulot]

Speaking of Global slots, how does everyone feel about it being raised to say, 10? Or possibly having it set up under game options?

It's been at 5 since at least Dom2, and that obviously made sense, but nowadays you can have some pretty large games with many many nations.