known backstabbers

[Hoplosternum]

I agree that such threads are not very helpful if people are actually named as they can often turn nasty very quickly.

I used to love NAPs and was glad the community had them. But the more I play I realise NAPs are quite restrictive and can lead to mid game paralysis as they lock down a lot of options. And unless nations are very unequal in power giving X turns notice before an attack not only gives the attacked player plenty of time to prepare but also to work on your other neighbours to equal the odds. A recipe for peaceful stagnation which often happens.

But they are so useful early on I (and lots of others) are not likely to give them up It is a shame more don't have sunset clauses. Most early on NAPs could expire after year three (turn 36 say) and still fulfill most of their purpose without causing this paralysis later. But I have never offered or been offered such a deal. And I suspect most people would be suspicious if they were offered such a deal. It hints at bad relations later However if such deals were not unusual, but the norm, they might solve a lot of problems with the current never ending NAPs. People could get the early security they desire without being stuck with the long term concequences.

I know some people think diplomacy should always be ruthless (as opposed to just in the games where that is stated). And say betrayal is part of life and should be part of Dom 3. And so it is. But quite frankly if I want to deal constantly with lies, half truths and betrayals I'll go to work and dabble in office politics Or simply turn on the news Lies and betrayal are part of life - and not the good part. Dom 3 is one of the things I do to get away from that. While the odd NAP betrayal isn't going to make me pack Dom 3 in, if I really felt I couldn't trust anything people said in the game I doubt I would bother playing much. And I suspect I would not be alone.

It takes a lot of time and skill (as well as luck) to beat another player unless there is a gulf in nation power. It takes a lot of time, energy and patience to construct an alliance and hold it together. While betrayals of agreements are cheap, quick and easy. It usually is not possible to be fully prepared for betrayal and still be able to do much else. IMO the game simply takes too long and requires too much effort for it to be decided by treachery more than once in a while.

So by chance or design we have a community that largely honours NAPs, but not completely. This is good as it keeps everyone on their toes. You trust NAPs but not absolutely. You still need a contingency plan and to leave something back to defend against betrayal. Which is quite a good outcome I think. And there are blenty of no diplomacy or 'ruthless' diplomacy games for those who tire of NAPs. Which again is good as at least everyone knows what they are getting.

As for Greenstone (which I am in) I have NAPs with both the named backstabbers But I am not sure that either have broken their other NAPs so I shall be honouring my agreements until someone shows some evidence that this is not the case.