MP: Apotheosis [Running]

[Verjigorm]

The problem with "in good faith" (and this is why I always stay out of discussions involving pathetic attempts to make people make good on promises made, NAPs, etc...) with the obvious exception of binding trades is this...

Once it is set than no arrangement can be broken, it opens the door to the use of treaty as a weapon. Since you cannot attack me, if I can grab a crucial choke point or a certain land before you (or even take provinces from you that were conquered by barbarians, etc.), I can use the treaty as a weapon against you.

Once treaties of this nature come into play the "in good faith" clause goes into effect with all of its subjective glory....

Player 1: You broke our NAP!!! Ummm!!! I'm telling mommy!!

Player 2: Well, you took my High Temple of the Magii when it fell to Barbarians!

Player 1: So? Our NAP didn't say anything about "reserving provinces"....


Blah, Blah, Blah...
In such situations, both players will feel that they are in the right and both will be able to draw supporters. Yes, the NAP was technically broken, but Player 1 was definitely using it an a douchebag-esque manner, so one could see arguments for the "in good faith" side as well...

If you aren't prepared to deal with discussions of a truly political nature (e.g. in which people might change their mind), you aren't prepared to play Dominions in MP.

That aside, once someone starts frequently breaking treaties based solely on fancy, people will eventually get the idea that the best thing to do is to make the treaty and then kill them as soon as an advantage appears. Turnabout is, of course, fair play. NAPs can be very useful if you abide by the arrangement and don't push it by playing nasty with the letter of the law, but once you go douchebag on either side of the scale like using an NAP to strong arm, stifle expansion, or snag provinces or on the other hand breaking treaties without appropriate notice as defined by said treaty, you end up with a monkey sh__ fight...

[Finalgenesis]

hence the good-faith but non-binding claus. E.g. I wouldn't call someone pulling douche-bag move using the letter of the agreement as good faith and would happily backstab them. Being polite to the rude is not being polite, it's just being weak, same applies to excercising good faith to a Machevelli. (I'm not bashing on Machy style, as I do condone many of its value and tactics!)

I tend to otherwise treat good faith with good faith though (I find it hard to backstab someone who has been a good ally, but alas, all good things must end but I think I'd follow the declaration clause in a NAP rather then surprise attack someone who allied in good faith), a weakness I'm sure in some cases but also an advantage in many others.

Maybe there's an evil machy in me somewhere I just haven't discovered yet

[Kadelake]

There are some trouble with the llamaserver. It seems like we might have to wait a few days to start the game.

[Verjigorm]

Do I have to re-upload?

[Amadamus]

Thanks for the swap Kadelake.

Could someone please post when its cool to upload?

[Finalgenesis]

The cradle map seems to be uploaded to the server, I think the game can be (re)made now.

[SplendidTuesday]

There isn't still room in this, is there?

[Finalgenesis]

the game itself isn't up yet (Since the wipe on Friday), the map is though, so if I'm getting this right Kade can [re]create the game now when he gets on.

[Kadelake]

SplendidTuesday: I'm afraid the game is full
What do the rest think? Should we allow another player or will it be too crowded on Cradle of Dominions?

Game is up again!
It seems like most the problems with the servers have been fixed. I've re-created the game as Apotheosis3. You will have to re-upload your pretenders.

[Kadelake]

By the way, what happened to Greyjoys friend? I haven't seen him post here.