|  | 
| 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
    
 |  | 
 
 
	
		|  |  |  
	
	
		
	
	
	| 
			
			 
			
				August 7th, 2008, 07:05 AM
			
			
			
		 |  
	| 
		
			
			| 
 Private |  | 
					Join Date: Jan 2008 
						Posts: 30
					 Thanks: 2 
		
			
				Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
			
		
	      |  |  
    
	| 
				 \"Stasis\" - strange diplomacy 
 Something strange is happening in this game.First I was betrayed by Jotunheim now the situation is nearly the same with Oceania. We had peace with these water inhabitans and according to our treaty were sending them 400 gold per turn for the possibility to control some land provinces they took form us before. I am not sure if it was a fair deal because those provinces had about 100 unrest but that is not the issue...
 The issue is that we had a NAP with Oceania and we were sending him gold each turn and now we are heavily attacked without any warning. I am a new person to this forums but I'd like to ask if it is considered fair play here? I just don't get it.
 |  
	
		
	
	
	| 
			
			 
			
				August 7th, 2008, 10:05 AM
			
			
			
		 |  
	| 
		
			|  | 
 Sergeant |  | 
					Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Staring through your window 
						Posts: 333
					 Thanks: 26 
		
			
				Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
			
		
	      |  |  
    
	| 
				 Re: \"Stasis\" - strange diplomacy 
 
	Quote: 
	
		| karnoza said: Something strange is happening in this game.
 First I was betrayed by Jotunheim now the situation is nearly the same with Oceania. We had peace with these water inhabitans and according to our treaty were sending them 400 gold per turn for the possibility to control some land provinces they took form us before. I am not sure if it was a fair deal because those provinces had about 100 unrest but that is not the issue...
 The issue is that we had a NAP with Oceania and we were sending him gold each turn and now we are heavily attacked without any warning. I am a new person to this forums but I'd like to ask if it is considered fair play here? I just don't get it.
 
 |  I generally assume that it's under the honor system unless the host specifically says at the start of the game that NAPs and other agreements between players are not to be broken.  You are quite unlucky...over many games I have yet to have someone break a NAP against me.  The best you can do is to let everyone know of R'lyehs backstabbery and encourage those who currently have NAPs with R'lyeh that not only is he not to be trusted, but that since he has no respect for NAPs they should not respect the NAPs either and should go ahead and attack him and engage him in a 2 or 3 front war while he is fighting you.  
 
More often than not though when someone breaks a NAP it is just a misunderstanding and the person who broke the NAP thought that they were within their rights.  Most people do try to protect their reputation.
				__________________I can has Backrub?
 |  
	
		
	
	
	| 
			
			 
			
				August 7th, 2008, 11:07 AM
			
			
			
		 |  
	| 
		
			|  | 
 Lieutenant Colonel |  | 
					Join Date: May 2007 
						Posts: 1,462
					 Thanks: 34 
		
			
				Thanked 59 Times in 37 Posts
			
		
	      |  |  
    
	| 
				 Re: \"Stasis\" - strange diplomacy 
 It seems that karnoza was speaking about Oceania, not R'lyeh. |  
	
		
	
	
	| 
			
			 
			
				August 7th, 2008, 09:20 PM
			
			
			
		 |  
	| 
		
			|  | 
 Second Lieutenant |  | 
					Join Date: Jan 2007 
						Posts: 411
					 Thanks: 69 
		
			
				Thanked 20 Times in 13 Posts
			
		
	      |  |  
    
	| 
				 Re: \"Stasis\" - strange diplomacy 
 Karnoza was definitely speaking about Oceania, not Ryleh.  I have had dealings with Seej (Oceania) before, when he broke a NAP in a previous game.  I've never met a more untrustworthy player; he seems to take delight in breaking his treaties.  A duck should trust a scorpion before you place faith in one of Seej's pacts. |  
	
		
	
	
	| 
			
			 
			
				August 7th, 2008, 09:34 PM
			
			
			
		 |  
	| 
		
			|  | 
 Lieutenant Colonel |  | 
					Join Date: May 2007 
						Posts: 1,462
					 Thanks: 34 
		
			
				Thanked 59 Times in 37 Posts
			
		
	      |  |  
    
	| 
				 Re: \"Stasis\" - strange diplomacy 
 Wow! Maybe it's worth tracking the "untrustworthy" people by adding them to some black list...I doubt karnoza could have known about that...
 |  
	
		
	
	
	| 
			
			 
			
				August 7th, 2008, 11:33 PM
			
			
			
		 |  
	| 
		
			
			| 
 Second Lieutenant |  | 
					Join Date: Sep 2007 
						Posts: 525
					 Thanks: 17 
		
			
				Thanked 17 Times in 10 Posts
			
		
	      |  |  
    
	| 
				 Re: \"Stasis\" - strange diplomacy 
 I like the list thing. Maybe we should start a thread listing those dishonorable people and their offenses.   |  
	
		
	
	
	| 
			
			 
			
				August 8th, 2008, 05:58 AM
			
			
			
		 |  
	| 
		
			
			| 
 Second Lieutenant |  | 
					Join Date: Sep 2007 
						Posts: 525
					 Thanks: 17 
		
			
				Thanked 17 Times in 10 Posts
			
		
	      |  |  
    
	| 
				 Re: \"Stasis\" - strange diplomacy 
 Peaceful nation of Pythium is now open to trade. We can forge the following items, among others:
 Air boosters (helmet, bag)
 Staff of storm
 Water booster (bracelet, robe)
 Astral booster (cap)
 Ring of Soccery
 Ring of Wizardry
 Frost Brand
 
 Price will be reasonable. Please inquire by PM.
 
 Thanks for your attention.
 |  
	
		
	
	
	| 
			
			 
			
				August 8th, 2008, 03:03 PM
			
			
			
		 |  
	| 
		
			
			| 
 Corporal |  | 
					Join Date: Jan 2007 
						Posts: 111
					 Thanks: 0 
		
			Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
		
	      |  |  
    
	| 
				 Re: \"Stasis\" - strange diplomacy 
 Hi all, I wanted to answer the charges. First, yes I attacked Ulm this turn.
 
 Second, I am sending him back his 400 gold for last turn.
 For what its worth, I had not intended to keep that $$.  Third, there was no warning-ahead clause on our NAP, so I gave none.
 
 Rest easy, oh neighbors of mine with whom I *do* have notification clauses.
 
 CJ
 |  
	
		
	
	
	| 
			
			 
			
				August 8th, 2008, 04:19 PM
			
			
			
		 |  
	| 
		
			
			| 
 Second Lieutenant |  | 
					Join Date: Sep 2007 
						Posts: 525
					 Thanks: 17 
		
			
				Thanked 17 Times in 10 Posts
			
		
	      |  |  
    
	| 
				 Re: \"Stasis\" - strange diplomacy 
 Isn't the whole purpose of NAP to get some warnings ahead?
 What is the difference between "no warning-ahead clause NAP" and no NAP at all? It seems to me that both are attacking at will.
 
 Can someone explain this for me?
 |  
	
		
	
	
	| 
			
			 
			
				August 8th, 2008, 04:35 PM
			
			
			
		 |  
	| 
		
			|  | 
 Lieutenant General |  | 
					Join Date: May 2008 Location: Utopia, Oregon 
						Posts: 2,676
					 Thanks: 83 
		
			
				Thanked 143 Times in 108 Posts
			
		
	      |  |  
    
	| 
				 Re: \"Stasis\" - strange diplomacy 
 
	Quote: 
	
		| konming said: Ring of Soccery
 
 |  Know to some nations as the "Ring of Futbol".  >.>
 
And I've never heard of a NAP0, that is indeed like no nap at all.      In my experience, it is universally accepted that unless otherwise specified, the standard duration of the NAP is 3 turns between notice, and attack.
 
Not that I am entirely fond of Ulm in this game.    |  
	
		
	
	
	
	
	
	
	| 
	|  Posting Rules |  
	| 
		
		You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts 
 HTML code is On 
 |  |  |  |  |