Question about diplomacy

[Hoplosternum]

The whole Dom 3 community usually takes NAPs as binding. In other mp games I have played treaties have been treated with less respect.

But here a NAP really is binding. Both sides should be aware of that when they sign up. It's only a game and if you have been out played in your treaties then you've been out played. No need to become a treaty breaker to stay competitive, just as most of us wouldn't break a house rule just because another player was getting the better of us.

Personally I don't like long term NAPs and would be very suspicious of signing one under any circumstances. Once I signed up for a NAP for the first two game years with a neighbour to my West (I was against the Eastern MAP edge) only to find my NAP partner had already cut off my only expansion route to the south. I should have scouted more, or even just been more suspicious of what I was signing and done more negociating. I didn't break the pact and chalked it up to experience.

[Kuritza]

Situation is just what I described, dont believe him.

First off, hydra-happy Pythium was in no way an easy target for Caelum.
Second, when we offered that truce, you were crushing your neighbours without facing any opposition at all.
Third, you keep posting about how you wage a 'never-ending war' but forget to mention that your first opponent fell without even giving you casualties, and you even attacked his teammate (who also fell fast) - kinda proves that you felt very confident.
Fourth, I did not make a poll about "Do you think it is possible to break an agreement and not keep your word?". Stop twisting my words. It *was* about very special circumstances I have described.

>> He made it sound like you have just 1 VP needed to win or smth like that
Yes, it is something like that.

[ano]

WraithLord
Understand that it doesn't matter in fact what the agreement is. The main thing to be thought of is that it IS an agreement and both sides thought more than twice before entering it (not even taking into account the fact that it was not our idea at all). It was proposed by Kuritza's team because they thought they could grow very, very fat by the time turn 60 is reached. It was their decision, they thought of it a lot and should be responsible for it.
I don't really distinguish game and "not-game" and see no difference between keeping your word in game and in real life. If someone breaks his word he is not worth trusting anymore in my opinion.
And game situation has nothing to do with it. At all. Breaking an agreement is only possible if both sides agree to it.

[WraithLord]

Originally Posted by ano

WraithLord
Understand that it doesn't matter in fact what the agreement is. The main thing to be thought of is that it IS an agreement and both sides thought more than twice before entering it (not even taking into account the fact that it was not our idea at all). It was proposed by Kuritza's team because they thought they could grow very, very fat by the time turn 60 is reached. It was their decision, they thought of it a lot and should be responsible for it.
I don't really distinguish game and "not-game" and see no difference between keeping your word in game and in real life. If someone breaks his word he is not worth trusting anymore in my opinion.
And game situation has nothing to do with it. At all. Breaking an agreement is only possible if both sides agree to it.

Sure, I understand your point of view and I can tell you that to date I have broken zero NAPs. Then again, I haven't usually signed NAPs of the until turn X kind. Still when I think of it I can't help but get the feeling the the dom community is too much honorable. I mean if you have signed a NAP that puts you in a losing position you should be able to break it.
Imagine you have a NAP until turn 70 and on turn 50 the guy has put AN up, what now?- you have played 50 turns for naught.
Its ok to respect NAPs in game but in ridiculous situations it should be possible to break them.

Its an opinion, my opinion. And I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, just that there are other perspectives.

[ano]

Second, when we offered that truce, you were crushing your neighbours without facing any opposition at all.

Wow) You're a liar in addition to all the rest)).

Fourth, I did not make a poll about "Do you think it is possible to break an agreement and not keep your word?". Stop twisting my words. It *was* about very special circumstances I have described.

No circumstances (almost) can justify breaking an agreement be it game or real life. It is my point of view.

I won't comment your posts any more. It makes no sense.

[Kuritza]

>> It was proposed by Kuritza's team because they thought they could grow very, very fat by the time turn 60 is reached.
You try to put words in my mouth, dont you? We offered you that truce because we felt f@$cking hopeless. Ask my teammate if you wish. We saw that your opponents fall one by one, we didnt see ANY way we can change that, so we decided - to hell with this game, lets just sign a treaty with them and have some fun against somebody else before its over.

>> Wow) You're a liar in addition to all the rest)).
Personal insults now? I'm no liar, game history proves me right easily.
And you have just disgraced yourself, congratulations.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by Kuritza

>> It was proposed by Kuritza's team because they thought they could grow very, very fat by the time turn 60 is reached.
You try to put words in my mouth, dont you? We offered you that truce because we felt f@$cking hopeless. Ask my teammate if you wish. We saw that your opponents fall one by one, we didnt see ANY way we can change that, so we decided - to hell with this game, lets just sign a treaty with them and have some fun against somebody else before its over.

It still begs the question "why make a NAP with someone who sees it like this?".

So, if you had approached Ano, and instead of saying, "Hi, we would like a mutual NAP until turn 60 so we can focus on other people", you had instead said, "OMG please leave us alone until we find the opportune time to kick you in the balls". -- Do you think that he would have accepted.

Erego, if you arbitrarily break the agreement that had a set ending point (this is why people favor ordinary NAP3 BTW, 3 turns notice is given, and honor is preserved), then it becomes harder for others to trust you later. There is a bit of "suspension of disbelief" involved in diplomacy in games like this. It is foolish to claim that anyone thinks they are not benefiting from their diplomacy - even when violently forced, they enter that agreement because it is a more promising option than death. So again, why should anyone spare you from death, if they know you will just strike back from the shadows?


People like to fall back to "RP reasoning" for all of this. It's bullocks. The pretenders would not toss NAPs around like people do, so if you play 3/4 of the game out as a person, with human reasoning, then it's quite unfair to in the late game suddenly say, "But my pretender hates you vile scum, and will do anything to see you perish!". Well, THAT entity likely would never have signed a peace agreement, or vice versa. You just can't have it both ways. Thematically, diplomacy should be almost nonexistent in this game. So by objective reasoning, 90% of all agreements you make, have no basis but your human, gameplaying machinations. So if you break a treaty out of hand, it is you doing it.


So to sum up - if you make a treaty, you bought the results, it was your choice. If you break a treaty, you can also hardly complain about the repercussions, it was your choice.

[thejeff]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

It still begs the question "why make a NAP with someone who sees it like this?".

So, if you had approached Ano, and instead of saying, "Hi, we would like a mutual NAP until turn 60 so we can focus on other people", you had instead said, "OMG please leave us alone until we find the opportune time to kick you in the balls". -- Do you think that he would have accepted.

Do you really see no difference between "the opportune time to kick you in the balls" and "we might as well just go AI, because by the time the treaty is up, you'll be unstoppable"?
(I'm not in this game, so I can't comment on whether they'll be unstoppable by turn 60 or not, so I'm speaking generically.)
The first is obviously bad, the second is what we're disputing. Is it valid to break a deal when that's the only way to keep someone from winning? Or from achieving such dominance they can't be stopped?

And I'd feel fine making a deal with someone who saw things like that. I'd just be wary if I was getting too dominant. But I would still expect him to honor the deal if I was vulnerable because of another war, for example.

[Peter Ebbesen]

Since I don't play MP via these forums but with friends, I probably have a very different approach to diplomacy than that which appears, from the statements earlier in the thread, to be the general case here.

Namely the case that diplomacy appears to be about assurances divinely held sacred as if they were a part of the game itself and imposing strict in-game limitations on actions rather than being mutually beneficial agreements that you have to nurture to maintain and, as such, are likely to be broken when one party thinks it is no longer of advantage to itself to follow it and the disadvantages of being known to break an agreement in a particular game are less than the advantages.

I realize I won't change your minds on the NAP issue if what you prefer playing with is a NAP that must be obeyed just as if it was an actual in-game rule (which it is not) - it is a convention of your gameplay, and if that's how you like to play it, that's certainly fair enough, but from a practical perspective it is nothing more than a convention - there's certainly no rational argument for why it should be that way, and there's no reason to expect your opponents to play by such player created rules unless they've agreed to do so.

In fact, diplomacy where verbal or written agreements between players must be kept no matter the circumstances is in general in games considerably less interesting and presents fewer opportunities to excel at the art of diplomacy than games running a more commonly accepted convention in board and card games featuring intrigue and player elimination: Anything that is agreed between players to be done "now" in the current turn must be done, anything that is agreed for the future is enforced solely by the might and diplomatic capabilities of the players involved. (That is again only one convention and not necessarily the one you'll have most fun with, but it makes for considerably more challenging diplomacy and demonstrates one of the core values of real-life diplomacy: false security.)

If I'm playing with my friends and I agree an alliance, a turn limited NAP, a truce, or any other diplomatic relationship lasting more then the current turn, then I expect my great friend and wonderful player, who'm I'll liberally praise while searching for the right place to knife him in the back come the day I need him no longer, to follow it so long as the advantages of doing so outweigh the disadvantages of not doing so and not a moment longer. Of course, there are advantages to "doing the right thing" and being a "man of your word", so betraying somebody has a significant negative impact on your diplomatic abilities long-term in the same game in most cases, which requires an equally significant advantage to make betrayal worth it... but that's just one aspect of the evaluation of whether to break an agreement or not.

I'll regret it publicly when the nasty deed gets done and appeal to world peace, the international order, or the maintenance of the balance of power... should I be the one betrayed... and I'll explain why it was a necessity to break with the untrustworthy ruthless powermongering bastard, who was clearly setting up his game plan for an overwhelming attack on myself, which I only twarted by preempting him at the last possible moment, sacrificing myself for the good of all.... should I be the one doing the betraying. (Actually, to better sell this idea, I'll of course be buttering up the other players who are not directly affected preferably one or two turns in advance - it risks being counter-betrayed or preempted, but establishing the moral high ground and laying the foundations for general acceptance of your actions amongst those who might tip either way is usually very important in game where diplomacy really matters)

Now, THAT is part of what real diplomacy is about in the sort of games I like to play, including Dominions 3 MP, diplomacy that does not force compliance with your words when you no longer intend to honour them - diplomacy where your ability to nurture a strategic relationship is as important as your ability to get somebody to sign an agreement with you in the first place.

....So to answer the poll - in the situation as described, I'd break the agreement in a heartbeat unless I had explicitly agreed to a convention of enforcing agreements regardless of what's happening in the game.

Backstab, betray, deceive, and destroy as necessary, aid, selflessly sacrifice, work for the common good when it benefits yourself..... all these make for wonderful moments in diplomacy, even though they do tend to create short-lived bursts of temper.... so long as players don't bring grudges from one game to another or let the actions in one game affect their actions in another. Somebody pulled a clever betrayal of you in one game that you didn't see coming? Good for them, that's a good lesson for you to be more wary in the future and perhaps even more diplomatically aggressive - next time it might be your knife in somebody's back.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by Peter Ebbesen

(.....)

You make good points, that I personally don't feel hold value in a game that happens to involve many strangers, and takes months to unfold. If people want to be evil scheming bastards, in a community such as this, that is their prerogative. However, you will find the community torn into two camps. The first camp, being the "honorable and noble men of their word", who will only only do business with one another, not wanting to negotiate with someone who, as you basically put it, is currently looking for the place in your back where the knife goes. Then the other camp, the "evil scheming bastards", will have no choice but to only negotiate with eachother, because no one whose word is worth a damn is going to want to deal with a liar, a thief, or a backastabber.

I've played in other communities where games took ~2 months, and in one of them, the general convention was that if someone broke a NAP without observing the agreed upon terms, they were generally subject to a game-wide gangbang. Unless people were embroiled in a life-or-death fight at that very moment, they would tend to drop what they were doing, to grab a piece of the one whose word was worth nothing.

Do you really see no difference between "the opportune time to kick you in the balls" and "we might as well just go AI, because by the time the treaty is up, you'll be unstoppable"?
(I'm not in this game, so I can't comment on whether they'll be unstoppable by turn 60 or not, so I'm speaking generically.)
The first is obviously bad, the second is what we're disputing. Is it valid to break a deal when that's the only way to keep someone from winning? Or from achieving such dominance they can't be stopped?

There is a price for every deal made, no exceptions. If no money or goods are exchanged, then the price is the value of your word, and your "honor", so to speak. When the terms of the agreement are fulfilled, you may redeem them for the full purchase price of the "value of your word", plus a small dividend in the value of your word. If you break it early, you will not be compensated by honor, sympathy, or admiration.




Also, this whole situation cracks me up. Such a big stink, about deciding 5 turns before a timed NAP ends, that giving 3 turn notice (that's not part of the agreement), is the answer between failure, and possible victory. I completely fail to see why it's better to attack on turn 58 with 3 turns notice, than to attack on turn 60 with no notice at all. This wasn't a "let's meet back and war ON turn 60" agreement, but merely an agreement not to fight before then. If the other party is hip-deep in another war, then silence is the best option, by far, especially if it only costs an extra 2 turns that can be spent building and preparing.



Obviously the moral here - Don't NAP anyone significantly smaller than you, or they are apparently totally justified in dishonoring that NAP. The converse of course, do not NAP anyone significantly stronger than you, or you will be tempted to break the NAP, and cause a giant piss-storm that could threaten your cornflakes.