Question about diplomacy

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by Psycho

Great post, I loved it. That's how real diplomacy works. Where's the fun if not in plotting and scheming.

Could not disagree more.
Put me in the 'no' column.

[licker]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

If you look at my thread about RNap's - this is why I think certain globals should automatically terminate a NAP. Forge is a case in point - a longterm nap with the casting of of forge basically ensures a victory.

LIkewise, if the victory conditions are not complete annihilation, then naps should have an out, when it becomes clear that one party threatens to become dominant.

Uhh...

So why did you vote no then?

I mean you may not like how peter does things, but clearly you don't think these things are set in stone either.

I think the issue with the NAP under discussion (from the game, not the hypothetical) is that the two parties had different interpretations of what NAP means and what it takes for it to be acceptable to break an underdefined NAP.

Well more's the pity for them if they didn't set up all the caveats up front, but playing with rule lawyers sucks, and it would seem the spirit of the game should ultimately trump anyones hard feelings over this kind of an issue.

And again, the spirit of the game is try to win correct?

[Dedas]

Rule-lawyers suck. Crushing your enemies with a devilish plan and lots of deception rule. That simple.

[GrudgeBringer]

Let me pose a question as I am not in the game and know none of the players.

This actually happened in my first MP game and we all had something to say about it.

I hope it gives a different perspective to your discussion.

Player A was in a 15 turn, 3/turn notice NAP with player B.

Player A was also in a Immediate Mutual defense Treaty with player C.

Well of course player B attacked player C (sigh...who didn't see that coming).

Player A annonced that he had a treaty to help Player C Immediately and was terminating his Long term Nap with player B and was attacking the next turn UNLESS player B ceased his invasion of player C.

(hope you followed all that)

As expected an argument of the same sort that your facing broke out.

Some of us said that an agreement was an agreement and the deciding factor should be which was made first.

Others said that was an excuse and you could always have 2 or 3 of those Immediate Defense Agreements so ANY time you wanted you could break your NAP because someone was ALWAYS starting a war with someone.

As usual there is never a clear right and wrong.

However, One thing I have learned and has worked for me and a number of others is this (and there will be some that think its too open).

When you make a treaty you post it on your individual game forum (I know it screws up 'secret treaties' but I think you all will agree they are screwed up here anyway).

Then when something changes you can post your 3 turn warning and if he doesn't check the board, its his own fault when he's attacked (no PM required).

It also makes Player C think twice before attacking player B if he knows in advance that Player A will go to the defence of his announced Immediate Defense Pact.

Last thought... all of this STILL doesn't work if any of the players are not honorable (I think Honor is what it is all about, but I also know that circumstances DO change) and won't honor anything.

But players know in thier heart what happened and who they agreed with BUT will usually keep that in mind when playing with that person agian.

SORRY for butting into your conversation, just wanted to say how we handled it.

Thanaks

[ano]

As expected an argument of the same sort that your facing broke out.

No, it is a bit different situation. It is the agreement collision and in the situation we're talking about there's only one agreement and thus no collision.
Btw, I find mutual defense agreements a bit strange and worthless but that is only my opinion.

[GrudgeBringer]

LOL...actually I agree, I just said they had one.

I like the idea of posting on the individual game site the agreement when made and when over...there is never a argument unless you can't count to 3 before attacking....

Just my opinion

[sector24]

[quote=ano;636208]

I find mutual defense agreements a bit strange and worthless but that is only my opinion.

Where were you during WWI? We could've scrapped the whole thing!

[GrudgeBringer]

BTW, after reading it agian you are right. It is somewhat different.

You ARE talking about a Collision of thoughts in 1 agreement type.

We had more than 1 agreement type collide,

Different situation

Sorry for butting in gentlemen...

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by Peter Ebbesen

(.....)

You make good points, that I personally don't feel hold value in a game that happens to involve many strangers, and takes months to unfold. If people want to be evil scheming bastards, in a community such as this, that is their prerogative. However, you will find the community torn into two camps. The first camp, being the "honorable and noble men of their word", who will only only do business with one another, not wanting to negotiate with someone who, as you basically put it, is currently looking for the place in your back where the knife goes. Then the other camp, the "evil scheming bastards", will have no choice but to only negotiate with eachother, because no one whose word is worth a damn is going to want to deal with a liar, a thief, or a backastabber.

I've played in other communities where games took ~2 months, and in one of them, the general convention was that if someone broke a NAP without observing the agreed upon terms, they were generally subject to a game-wide gangbang. Unless people were embroiled in a life-or-death fight at that very moment, they would tend to drop what they were doing, to grab a piece of the one whose word was worth nothing.

Do you really see no difference between "the opportune time to kick you in the balls" and "we might as well just go AI, because by the time the treaty is up, you'll be unstoppable"?
(I'm not in this game, so I can't comment on whether they'll be unstoppable by turn 60 or not, so I'm speaking generically.)
The first is obviously bad, the second is what we're disputing. Is it valid to break a deal when that's the only way to keep someone from winning? Or from achieving such dominance they can't be stopped?

There is a price for every deal made, no exceptions. If no money or goods are exchanged, then the price is the value of your word, and your "honor", so to speak. When the terms of the agreement are fulfilled, you may redeem them for the full purchase price of the "value of your word", plus a small dividend in the value of your word. If you break it early, you will not be compensated by honor, sympathy, or admiration.




Also, this whole situation cracks me up. Such a big stink, about deciding 5 turns before a timed NAP ends, that giving 3 turn notice (that's not part of the agreement), is the answer between failure, and possible victory. I completely fail to see why it's better to attack on turn 58 with 3 turns notice, than to attack on turn 60 with no notice at all. This wasn't a "let's meet back and war ON turn 60" agreement, but merely an agreement not to fight before then. If the other party is hip-deep in another war, then silence is the best option, by far, especially if it only costs an extra 2 turns that can be spent building and preparing.



Obviously the moral here - Don't NAP anyone significantly smaller than you, or they are apparently totally justified in dishonoring that NAP. The converse of course, do not NAP anyone significantly stronger than you, or you will be tempted to break the NAP, and cause a giant piss-storm that could threaten your cornflakes.

[licker]

Or just realize that playing with these iron clad NAPs makes for rather boring games all around.

YMMV