Question about diplomacy

[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.

[Dedas]

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.

Very simple. Two or more people sign a NAP when they all believe they have something to gain from it. When one or more of them feel that isn't the case anymore the NAP agreement should not be considered very solid anymore. That is why you have to keep a close eye on your surroundings by putting time and resources into intelligence. Just one of the things that makes real diplomacy so interesting.

[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

[capnq]

Originally Posted by 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.

Judging from the poll results, the "schism" is already there. As I see it, the problem is that some people are convinced that there is a "consensus", and react with outrage when their illusions are shattered.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by capnq

Judging from the poll results, the "schism" is already there. As I see it, the problem is that some people are convinced that there is a "consensus", and react with outrage when their illusions are shattered.

No one I know believes there is consensus on this issue. No one on the "no break" side has reacted with outrage that people have the ability to break naps.

Quite the contrary - the no break side has been subject to quite a bit of ridicule. "imbecilic, ridiculous, idiotic" - and quite a few more.

I'm not asking the thread be frozen - but I do think if you check back recent threads, that your post is not factually accurate, and I do think more civility is in order on all sides.

[Archonsod]

Originally Posted by 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.

Definitely, but I think you're exaggerating the effects. We're not making a life choice here; simply because you use inviolate NAPS in one game doesn't mean you're next game can't be a free for all political fray It's no different from choosing a map, era or mod for the game. Some players won't play simply because they're not in the mood for that particular choice at the time, others will join because it's exactly what they're looking for. Either way, it's basic courtesy to inform them beforehand so they can decide for themselves. I'm more than willing to believe that the average player is capable of distinguishing between a game where NAPS are expected to be inviolate and one in which they aren't, and modify their behaviour accordingly.
It's also why I think a NAP list is unnecessary. To me, if the players have already agreed NAPS should be inviolate in the game and someone breaks that then they are cheating, and should be treat accordingly (kicked from the game). Like I said though, without specifying at the start of the game that diplomacy was going to be fixed then it's unfair to suddenly decide they apply mid-way through the game.

And to go back to a bit:

Because there is no way to tell whether you are currently playing the sneaky weasel Moloch or the honorable dragon in the current game. For all I know, you could be playing the sneaky weasel dragon all the time.

That's the point. The idea is that you try and work out from current behaviour what his strategy is and plan accordingly. Referring to an external list of past behaviour is the same as using spoilers though :P
It's back to what I said above. If the host had already stated no backstabbing then I'm pretty sure Llamabeast is capable of following that rule even if he has just played a treacherous hag in his previous game. If the host has decided he wants the politicking to make Machiavelli look naive then judging whether a player can be trusted or not is part of the strategy, and thinking a player is going to stick to the same strategy in every such game is probably a fatal mistake ...