Question about diplomacy

[licker]

Originally Posted by thejeff

A part of the problem is that I can't imagine even bothering to make a NAP in a game specifically labeled "Breaking NAPs is fine." -- the "hohum napper" strawman. If betrayal is that encouraged by the nature of the game, what's the point in diplomacy at all. Maybe really short-term deals.

But it doesn't seem like anyone's really for that. Even those here who are arguing that NAPs shouldn't be inviolable seem to be claiming they'd do so rarely, when doing so is likely win the game (or not doing so, lose it) not just on a casual whim or for a momentary advantage.

Indeed.

The issue to me is one of clarity in the NAP and of expectation for the game.

As most of us 'back stabbers' have been saying, we wouldn't sign up for these ultrarestrictive NAPs in the first place (perhaps short of pure role playing vassalage or some such...), so its difficult to really understand the point of them.

But they do get put in place apparently, so people will have hard feelings about them when they don't work as planned.

My personal perspective on the matter is really no matter what the NAP stipulates if the breaker can outright win the game by breaking the NAP (in the case of VPs usually) then more power to them, and less power to you for not recognizing the fact that everyone should be trying to actually win, other wise just play against AIs.

Or, if the player may not be able to win immediately, but if they can essentially (or completely) remove you from the game with one deft stroke, more power to them. I find it unreasonable to think that outside of team games you should ever think that you have a safe border with someone, of course you may take that gamble and commit all your forces elsewhere, but if you leave yourself so open to them they are kinda fools for not removing you. Of course they have to realize how open you are...

This is why you actually have to use diplomacy, not just these relatively artificial and often pointlessly restrictive NAP agreements.

In my dom2 MP I never had issues keeping NAPs though, its not as though I tried to use them to set people up to be back stabbed, but I also understood that no matter what the initial agreement was there was room for it to be negotiated, and short of breaking a NAP to poach a couple of border territories (which is pointless, but it happens) as long as the breaker gave the breakee some sort of warning and chance to counter offer the terms I really saw it as a positive to being able to conduct meaningful diplomacy.

[llamabeast]

A part of the problem is that I can't imagine even bothering to make a NAP in a game specifically labeled "Breaking NAPs is fine." -- the "hohum napper" strawman. If betrayal is that encouraged by the nature of the game, what's the point in diplomacy at all. Maybe really short-term deals.

"NAPs are breakable" simply describes real life. In real life, people still form alliances.

[thejeff]

Of course, but whats the point of the deal? Sure I can talk to someone and suggest it'd be better for both of us to expand against indies than fight each other, or join together to attack a 3rd party, but if it's fine to break a deal at any time, why actually put terms on it?
More specifically, what's the point in the usual NAP with 3 turns of warning? If there are not even any diplomatic consequences, since that's the point of this game variant, why would I ever give 3 turns of warning instead of a surprise attack?

[Meursy]

Originally Posted by thejeff

Of course, but whats the point of the deal? Sure I can talk to someone and suggest it'd be better for both of us to expand against indies than fight each other, or join together to attack a 3rd party, but if it's fine to break a deal at any time, why actually put terms on it?
More specifically, what's the point in the usual NAP with 3 turns of warning? If there are not even any diplomatic consequences, since that's the point of this game variant, why would I ever give 3 turns of warning instead of a surprise attack?

Easy. To legitimise the initial deal beyond a mere "ok don't attack me I won't attack you", which makes the deal more attractive and believable to both sides at the time of signing.

And "fine to break a deal at any time" is relative. There are diplomatic consequences. If a former ally of mine tells me he's breaking the NAP 3 and gives me the three turns, I say "jolly good old sport", or something similar, have a ring-ding fight, and if something changes and we decide later we may want peace, we can do so because prior diplomacy has left this door open.

If someone has unceremoniously blindsided me, ok too, but I am less likely to be open to any deals later on.

And apparently people keep lists here...

[licker]

I'm thinking that you run the risk of turning players away from certain games by how you define the NAP restrictions up front. Maybe that's the point? But I don't know if you want to create this kind of schism amongst the smallish community.

I think you're better served by reminding everyone that they need to take particular care in the individual NAPs they set up during the game. I see this as a federal vs. state issue, where the host is the fed and the players are the states, and personally, I'm not that interested in having my rights dictated unnecessarily to me

[thejeff]

All of which is why I actually like the current set up, where NAPs are respected but not guaranteed. You can't rely 100% on your deal, so it's best if you do some diplomacy and try to make sure no one's upset enough to break a deal (or even give notice on a NAP), but there's a high threshold for doing so. People remember and it's likely to be publicized.

To me, that's better than either a "all agreements must be kept to the letter or you'll be AI'd" game or a "Diplomacy, backstabbing encouraged" game.

We can debate about exactly where the balance lies now, or about just how many wild accusations are justified by any breach of a deal, but that's OK.

[Psycho]

I couldn't agree more

[Tifone]

I think the "people keeping lists" thing is quite sick... I mean, as Dedas cleverly said, this is a game and every match is a close universe itself. I think it would be a very bad point to reach, the one you start becoming paranoic and writing down on a piece of paper all the people you can't trust for the game, and looking around with possessed eyes ^_^ And if so, ppl could start keeping the list of the blind men who would not break a NAP no matter what, to make "alliances" with them and prepare a bad trick behind their back the whole match ^^

[Edi]

Hell, During the one MP game I took part in, I was practically backstabbed (indirectly, as there was some confusion) in a manner that ultimately led to me being knocked out of the game (I'd been reduced to my capital, a few mages, pretender and under siege). At that point I went AI, but at least I had managed to weaken my opponent enough that ultimately the person who had been the most helpful to me won the game. And he wasn't even my official ally.

There was some pretty intense plotting going on at times even while there were all kinds of supposed alliances going on. That part of the game was actually great fun.

I don't hold any grudges from that game and I'd play with them again any day, aside from the one person who went AI at the first setback when it was nowhere near crippling.

[thejeff]

On the other hand, while every game is a closed universe unto itself, I'd still not expect to betray some in several games and then have them treat me as a completely blank slate. People don't work that way.

I think lists go to far, especially since there is often debate about whether a certain action was actually a violation. It would just lead to flame wars about being put on the list.
I think posting about people breaking deals is good, that's part of the disincentive to do so. Probably best to keep the ranting down to a minimal level, though. The accused can also give their side of the story...