Do you really think that you're fooling anyone?

[thejeff]

So you think a 3-turn agreement should be considered a permanent truce?

A 3 turn NAP is an agreement against surprise attacks. Nothing more. If you want more cooperation, or longer deals, negotiate for it.

It's a war game. In the end only one pretender can become God. You will fight eventually. (Though us humans may give up on the game before the bitter end.)

[sum1lost]

thejeff said:
So you think a 3-turn agreement should be considered a permanent truce?

A 3 turn NAP is an agreement against surprise attacks. Nothing more. If you want more cooperation, or longer deals, negotiate for it.

It's a war game. In the end only one pretender can become God. You will fight eventually. (Though us humans may give up on the game before the bitter end.)

Of course not. I'm really not sure why people seem to think that I believe this (that a 3-turn NAP signifies more than 3 turns). It wasn't the time that I took issue with - it was simply that I realized what to expect from an NAP with that player- and that what I can expect does not serve my needs as well as most other things I could have chosen.
I created the opportunity because I relied on the NAP and the possiblity of retaliation to protect me. The NAP did not suffice, as the player did not appear to think I would be able to fight back within three turns. Therefore, I intend to show that I can, indeed, fight back. I also intend not to make the same opportunity with the same player again. I'm not sure why he considers this being a sore loser- that would seem to be more in the realm of smearing his name on the boards, etc. I didn't give out his name, or anything along those lines- simply how that NAP turned out to be useless for my purposes.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

I apologize if i gave the mistaken impression. I really don't have any idea what went on in the game you're describing. I haven't been watching that one.

So, could you clarify... Do you intend not to have any NAP with that same player in the future, or simply have a more restrictive NAP?

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

I've seen two kinds of NAPs offered.
10+3 (ten turns minimum, 3 turns warning)
3 (3 turns warning, min/max not specified)

And I've offered
'until late winter year 3'

I'd be quite pleased with dmentd's behavior, sum1won.

I prefer the 'until late winter' NAP best. I'll renegotiate, but it also gives some vagueness to my intentions, so nobody's certain exactly who I'll attack. And, in case of Veturi, gives Pangaea a chance to attack me first, and change my plans to compensate for that, rather than my intended target.

I will try to offer more responses, other than silence.
"Your messenger was treated to a feast, engaged in hours of diplomatic talk, but no consensus among the oligarchy(or oracles, or Angakuks) could be reached. Perhaps in the future."

I do agree, though, there's no problem in making sure your attackers have little to gain- a tendency to be an expensive or risky conquest with little reward is a good reputation to have. As long as you aren't being a sore loser, I suppose. Though I'm not certain precisely what a sore loser is... Well, no matter. I'm sure I'll form an opinion sooner or later. Don't read too much into this paragraph- its a thought in progress, not a final opinion.

I view NAPS as truces, at worst. At best, trade opportunities. Kind of how America's still at war with North Korea, and at peace (while selling fighter jet parts) to Iran, despite having warhawks beat their drums. Cultural, perhaps, but I'm used to not believing what my government's just done.

[thejeff]

I actually kind of dislike the 3-turn NAP being so much the default.

I prefer to at least include some border negotiations, if there are still independents within reach of both. Trade, possible alliances against other powers, exchange of information, etc, etc

A diplomatic message consisting only of "NAP 3turn?" is a almost a declaration I'm not going to get anything else out of you.

At least tell me why I should promise you peace. What do you think I have to gain by it?

[Xietor]

Rather than have the reputation of someone who pillages and burns their lands to create a disincentive to attack, I would prefer:

1. To have the reputation of always honoring my deals, even if it costs me a chance to win the game,

and

2. To be known as a player that is extremely good at fighting battles and killing off my enemies in battle.


The 1st is a matter of trust. If you have the rep of sticking with your allies through thick and thin, hopefully more people will choose you as an ally in the future. You are dependable and they do not have to fear the knife in the back.

The second, if a powerful neighbor has 2 or 3 expansion options, but knows you are going to extract a heavy toll on his armies, and that a quick victory is extremely unlikely,
then he may look elsewhere even though geographically your lands are the next most logical choice.

Players that pillage and destroy their own lands, or have d3 dominion, are precisely the players I want to kill off 1st. If they are left alone, then they will have an even bigger area of lands to destroy in the future. So I would rather bite the bullet early and remove them from the game.

[K]

I tend to ignore bad NAP offers and just figure its on the table until I either attack or they attack. But, I tend to be the first one to offer a NAP, so it generally doesn't happen that often.

That being said, I keep my NAPs (or end them by their terms).

Honor, once lost, can never be regained.