Question about diplomacy

[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.

[Hoplosternum]

If there are other teams still in the game and fighting Ano's team why not send money, gems and equipment to them to slow Ano up instead? Why is breaking the treaty that his team proposed now acceptable?

To stop Ano winning you may say, but ultimately one team will win. If everyone can break his treaties when one team gets powerful I am not sure you improve the game. The same thing simply happens later when one of victors gets to a similar position.

Are all Kuritza’s deals considered void once he hits a certain province/power threshold? Maybe that is not a bad house rule to adopt for games but I think those signing up for the game and the treaties should know in advance that is the score.

PS I suspect I was the ‘Hydra Happy Pythium’ in this game I was a fairly easy kill for Caelum who crushed me early fair and square. But then I started the war so can have no complaints.

[ano]

If there are other teams still in the game and fighting Ano's team why not send money, gems and equipment to them to slow Ano up instead? Why is breaking the treaty that his team proposed now acceptable?

Once again, we didn't propose it.

PS I suspect I was the ‘Hydra Happy Pythium’ in this game.

Yes, it were you

[Kuritza]

Hehe It wasnt easy for us, trust me. We had to test every damn combat many times, experimenting with items and formations.

[Gandalf Parker]

Be careful. Discuss the subject in general terms only please.
If this gets to be about specific people then it will go away.

[Hoplosternum]

Wow! I didn't imagine I had caused you so much trouble

Ano - yes that came out wrong. I meant that Kuritza's team had suggested it but it kind of doesn't read that way

What I meant was if Kuritza's team want's to help stop you but have a treaty they can't break in place why don't they help your opponents instead? They say they want to break the treaty to help save the game but they can do that without breaking the treaty. Sometimes a NAP stops you from casting direct spells at your treaty partner but rarely who or what you can give away.

Kuritza's proposal helps his team as much as help save the game from Ano's domination while bank rolling the opposition just helps save the game.

[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]

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.

Perhaps you were thinking about something when you were signing such agreement, weren't you? Maybe, you should have stated some conditions which could automatically break the agreement (In our situation condition could be not casting FotA or similar spell). And once again, it was a decision you made and so you and you only should be responsible for it. It was your mistake and if it costs you a game then all you may do is be a bit wiser next time.

[Agema]

There are no hard and fast "rules" regarding NAPs - it's all convention. You can and should be as honourable or treacherous as you like. The trade-off for the advantage of backstabbing is that your reputation, both within the game you're playing and in the general community will suffer. It's up to players to decide whether to take that risk - personally, I think the long term damage is far worse than the short-term gain, but that's me. If players want NAPs to be utterly binding in a game, they should make it a condition of play during the set-up.

The situation listed here is just about the only situation in serious play where I'd think it's not dishonourable to break a NAP. If an opponent is so close to victory that there isn't time to cancel the NAP, by all means launch a sneak attack. You're playing to win, after all. Anyone in the position of being about to win should really be prepared for everyone left to attack at any moment to stop them.