AWIY's blacklist of dishonest peoples

[sum1lost]

jutetrea said:

I'm failing to understand a lot of the angst here with non-violate NAPs. Usually its just a delay as you dissolve the nap, wait 3 (or however many) and then attack.

That sneak thing with Tibbs I wouldn't consider a breach of NAP. Everyone has to expand, running into someone elses army and getting annihilated sucks but its not like he purposefully attacked you. IMO the better thing for him to do would have been to apologize and possibly reimburse you for some of your troop costs, or give up the province, or share the revenue of the province for x turns. If he didn't offer I would ask, if he says no and it really annoyed me I'd dissolve the NAP and then attack.

Now, if it was a blocking move and it would hem you in, that's a different story. I'd just assume he was being a jerk and dissolve the NAP. Leave it to him to convince you otherwise.

Now my question is, what really consitutes a NAP if every little thing isn't laid out.
- obviously direct military contact
- map spells? I would assume so, but I know others differ
- preaching?
- Aggressively (subjective) spreading dominion?
- Instigating others to map bomb you? Probably, but i'm guilty of this one once. (Didn't break the letter of the law, but bent the heart a bit) The other party didn't believe me ,were goaded into attacking me and losing.
- Targeting for someone else's map spells?
- Giving away priveleged info?
- Troop buildups?
- Border fortresses?
- Forum badmouthing?
- Anything else?

Aggresive action. Invading, instilling unrest, spellbombing, sending in assasians, the guys with the plague charms, that sort of thing.

[llamabeast]

Okay, so in MP games I run from now on I will specify the diplomacy rules. Either binding NAPs or what LazyPerfectionist called Vegas rules (and I might call Machiavellian). That should clear up any confusion.

Of course even in the case of binding NAPs they may sometimes be broken due to a misunderstanding or forgetfulness. I'll make sure players are clear that it doesn't go beyond that game (apart from in their own heads of course).

[Gandalf Parker]

I will settle one thing now. I dont plan to be the one to decide what is or isnt a breach of agreement. Not here. And not with a webpage.

The question of who referees is a valid one.
I dont remember seeing ANY "broken NAP" that wasnt argued.

Gandalf Parker

[HoneyBadger]

I have a partial solution-to follow what I think Gandalf has in mind.

Why not, with nation creation, and hard coded into the game, establish a diplomatic reaction table that- independent of what a player does-keeps track of how the AI playing one nation, reacts to another nation?

If you blood-harvest or summon undead or maenads or demons, indeps should attack you, because you'd be viewed as a threat, and AI nations should have a tendancy to ally against you.

If you have a large, disciplined standing army, that should make indeps wary of you, and build up their defenses, but if you give them gifts and don't step on their feet, they should look favorably on you, and be willing to help you, let down their guard, or even open trade relations and alliance options. It would also furth distinctify nations from one another.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

I'm not certain its necessary to specify the diplomacy- though in newbie games, it certainly wouldn't hurt to outlaw backstabbery. I was quite happy with the middleground that was standard before this discussion, though I would find special cases interesting. I think some plaeyrs already got involved in the nothing but war games.

[Aethyr]

Sigh...LB, I really don't like the direction this is taking. Frankly, I'm a lot more concerned about NAPs resulting in a single nation be ganged up on, but it seems I'm in the minority?

Anyway, if you really feel the need to proceed along this course, you might want to consider some type of "cap" on the number of turns a "unbreakable" NAP can cover. After that, it's month-to-month...

[Dedas]

To be honest I think that we all are taking this a bit too seriously for our own good. Maybe if we relaxed some we would actually enjoy the fine nature of this game; which actually happens to be (amongst other things) backstabbing and treachery.

If it happens in the game! Let it stay - in the game.

To elaborate:
A game is an alternative world with its own rules and morals. We shouldn't be playing ourselves, taking everything personally. Instead we should take this opportunity to pretend to be someone or something else. It is a kind of freedom.

And finally:
Have we all forgot to relax and just play along? Yes I'm asking you.

[Velusion]

I think everyone knows this sort of list is DOA.

I agree with Baalz - NAPs are a part of MP Dom3 whether you like it or not. Part of the strategy is the diplomacy of working within that artificial limit to get the best deal.

If a nation won't form a NAP with me I assume we are at war and act accordingly.

However - there can only be one winner. I do think that people that honor NAPs to the point of denying themselves the win are silly. If breaking a NAP gives me a reasonably good shot at completely clinching the win, I'll probably do it. Otherwise, with your reputation on the line, it's almost never worth it.

I will admit enjoying reading about the fallout in games were a "secure" pact is broken.

[llamabeast]

Okay then, following objections I will not specify diplomacy in future games and I'll leave it in it's current slightly ambiguous state, which mostly works pretty well.

I do think a no-holds-barred 'Vegas' game sometime would be good for a change though.

[Aethyr]

I do agree with Dedas and Velusion. This works for me.