Question about diplomacy

[Archonsod]

Originally Posted by Crust

I don't really see how you can get around the reputation thing no matter what. Even if there are no "house rules" against breaking your word someone known for following agreements will be in a different position when it comes to diplomacy than someone known to backstab at the first opportunity.

Yes, they'll be seen as gullible fools who'll happily let you build up enough force to crush their empire utterly without raising a finger to stop you

Depends on the game and the players and whether they can read the relative strength charts. A lot of it is bluffing, politic and social skills though. Whether you stick to agreements or break them with glee isn't as important as how you make it appear. A good player who regularly backstabs and manages to last well into the game will be careful to spin it in such a way that they appear strong enough to do what they like. A bad player needs to be careful to avoid diplomatic isolation or having their opponents believe they are desperate for more territory (and thus probably weaker than themselves)
The same applies to the opposite approach. A good player will convince their opponents that the reason they have long standing alliances is because nobody else dare attack them. Again, if they're not careful it may look like they are seeking stronger allies because they are incapable of fending for themselves.
Reputation across games should never be relied on. A good player will use any pre-conceived notions of how they play against you - switching from one style of play to the other can be useful to gull regular opponents into believing you are stronger than you actually are, or conversely trick them into attacking early because you appear weak.

[Crust]

Originally Posted by Archonsod

Yes, they'll be seen as gullible fools who'll happily let you build up enough force to crush their empire utterly without raising a finger to stop you

The position will be different, not necessarily better. I'm not saying I think NAPs should be binding in the sense that they would be enforced in any way, the point is that one should not complain if breaking your word affects how others value it in the future.

[Tifone]

Keeping in mind that this is a GAME, I'd break my word without fearing ripercussion on my REAL honour lol - expecially if I find funny to roleplay my race of crazy everburning daemons and I see a small-mid-long term advantage in playing the bastard. And I would find it funny to be betrayed too, shame on me for trusting those slimy lizard ppl ^_^

If *obviously* the house rules permit this, as I would hope ^^

[Meursy]

This is a very interesting discussion! I'd like to add my two cents

After reading the whole thread, I've noticed a number of people on the 'no breaking NAP' side seem to be angry. Read their posts again. I see a lot of serious and emotive language being used, and an overarching implication that anybody who breaks NAP's in game is an inherently bad person in real life.

I don't see this anger from the 'break NAP ok' side.

I'd rather not get angry over a game, it seems to defeat the purpose, and is definitely negative for me as a person. Such a waste of energy!

An early contributor to this thread stated that 'no breaking NAP's' was this community's standard. The following discussion proves this to clearly not be the case! The community seems to hold a range of views on the topic, so in the absence of a clear view "backstab possible" must logically be the default stance on this topic.

The suggestion to specify whether NAP's are 100% binding before the start of the game seems very sensible and should end the debate. "Backstab possible" can be the default, "backstab not possible" can be specified before the game is started.

I believe it is incumbent upon people wanting NAPs to be binding to start their own games with this rule (which btw would be a much more effective solution than trying to get unbreakable NAPs coded into the game!)

Any further debate represents a desire by the 'no break' side to impose their will on the entire gaming community. You may be in the moral right, who knows, but don't waste your time guys, it's never going to happen!

The 'break ok' side have raised no concerns with people starting 'no break' games, so the solution is clear. (I reckon)


P.S. I wouldn't break an NAP unless the game was about to be lost (reputation is important!), but I feel the default should be 'break NAP ok', so I have sympathies for both sides!

[WraithLord]

Originally Posted by Meursy

()

Couldn't agree more.

[Crust]

The issue is pretty simple really. People are free to break agreements and people are free to let others know when that happens. There's no need for any special "NAPs are 100% binding" rules. How would that be enforced anyway? By whom?

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by Meursy

This is a very interesting discussion! I'd like to add my two cents

After reading the whole thread, I've noticed a number of people on the 'no breaking NAP' side seem to be angry. Read their posts again. I see a lot of serious and emotive language being used, and an overarching implication that anybody who breaks NAP's in game is an inherently bad person in real life.

I don't see this anger from the 'break NAP ok' side.

I'd rather not get angry over a game, it seems to defeat the purpose, and is definitely negative for me as a person. Such a waste of energy!

An early contributor to this thread stated that 'no breaking NAP's' was this community's standard. The following discussion proves this to clearly not be the case! The community seems to hold a range of views on the topic, so in the absence of a clear view "backstab possible" must logically be the default stance on this topic.

The suggestion to specify whether NAP's are 100% binding before the start of the game seems very sensible and should end the debate. "Backstab possible" can be the default, "backstab not possible" can be specified before the game is started.

I believe it is incumbent upon people wanting NAPs to be binding to start their own games with this rule (which btw would be a much more effective solution than trying to get unbreakable NAPs coded into the game!)

Any further debate represents a desire by the 'no break' side to impose their will on the entire gaming community. You may be in the moral right, who knows, but don't waste your time guys, it's never going to happen!

The 'break ok' side have raised no concerns with people starting 'no break' games, so the solution is clear. (I reckon)


P.S. I wouldn't break an NAP unless the game was about to be lost (reputation is important!), but I feel the default should be 'break NAP ok', so I have sympathies for both sides!

I'm in the 'no break' side. I haven't advocated for getting naps enforced in the game; probably cause I haven't thought of it.

There are a whole bunch of things I WOULD like to see.
It would be cool, if you could walk across an 'allies' lands.
It would be cool if you could detach units and send them to an ally.
It would be cool if you could trade spell research (but only on individual spells, levels are too huge).

As for anger, well thats a whole can of worms right there.

I would say that its probably because a "no break" napper has been stabbed in the back once, twice, or possibly *every* game they have played by a *ho hum I'm bored* napper.

The "no break" napper puts a lot of time and energy into one of these games, hoping to get a good ally, or at least a reliable neutral. And then is usually snuck attacked. Even if the attack does not succeed, it leaves such a taste in ones mouth, he really doesn't want to play the game.

People that are "hohum" nappers have written about how much fun it is looking for the right opportunity to backstab. Great. Fun for you. Not at *ALL* fun for a lot of us.

Look, "hohum" nappers have a tactical advantage in the game - but I think they should at least be willing to meet the "no break" nappers half way. Just say up front in the game I'm a hohum napper.

I would say the anger is compounded because efforts to compile a list of either "ho hum" nappers or "no break" nappers have been disallowed (aka threads frozen).

As for "Any further debate represents a desire by the 'no break' side to impose their will on the entire gaming community." I find that really offensive. Enough so I wrote this lengthy post. Last I heard, God only gave the commandments once; - the purpose of these boards is discussion of ideas. Me offering *my opinion* for whatever reason - is just as valid as you posting yours.

I don't want Nap or No Nap games - I just want to know what standards OTHER people are playing under.

Your lofty "hohum" nappers don't have any anger is .. condescending - what do "ho-hum" nappers have to be angry about?
And why do they flame threads where their breaking a nap is documented?

As for setting up games "hohum" or "nobreak" nap - its too difficult to set up games as it is - dealing with naps or no naps is just way too much headache.

Sorry that there *were* some emotive words in there. I've actually never been backstabbed by someone with whom I have a Nap

But seriously, what is wrong with a sticky thread where handles are registered something like

1: will break a nap in a heartbeat.
3: Will break a nap in duress
4: Will break a nap to prevent game loss
5: Won't break a Nap


So then all that would be necessary would be to rate -

SnowWhite 4
Gurmpy - 5
GlointheDark 1

Or declare it at the beginning of the game. I'm gloin in the dark, I'm a hohum napper and I'd like lanka please.

[WingedDog]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

The "no break" napper puts a lot of time and energy into one of these games

If by "time and energy" you mean buying a lot of province defence, sending scouts everywhere, putting effort in magic intelligence, studying the scoregraphs to know what's going on in the world, and having a plan B (C,D,E,F, etc) if something goes wrong - YES, seems like a PERFECT target to me. Try to backstab someone with this description, I'm sure you succeed.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

hoping to get a good ally, or at least a reliable neutral.

Oh, the victory condition was to find a good ally? Why didn't anyone told me about that? So much time down the drain...

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Even if the attack does not succeed, it leaves such a taste in ones mouth, he really doesn't want to play the game.

Thats the spirit wars are usually won with!

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

People that are "hohum" nappers have written about how much fun it is looking for the right opportunity to backstab. Great. Fun for you. Not at *ALL* fun for a lot of us.

Don't say a word, it's really upsetting when someone strikes on you in the wargame with "destroy them all" objective.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

I don't want Nap or No Nap games - I just want to know what standards OTHER people are playing under.

But seriously, what is wrong with a sticky thread where handles are registered something like

1: will break a nap in a heartbeat.
3: Will break a nap in duress
4: Will break a nap to prevent game loss
5: Won't break a Nap


So then all that would be necessary would be to rate -

SnowWhite 4
Gurmpy - 5
GlointheDark 1

A good suggestion indeed. I would also suggest to add a special victory condition for nations played by people with tag 5: "Build a spaceship and fly to Alpha Centauri".

Just play and consider everyone is tag 1, it would save you some nerve.

[Archonsod]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Look, "hohum" nappers have a tactical advantage in the game - but I think they should at least be willing to meet the "no break" nappers half way. Just say up front in the game I'm a hohum napper.

You could apply the same to the no break nappers. Again though, it's all about setting out the expectations for the game before you start playing. If I'm in a game where NAP's are unbreakable then I'm going to have a different criteria for signing a NAP than I am in a game where I'm free to break a NAP at any point, for obvious reasons. It's no fun for any player to suddenly find out the rules are different to what they thought mid-way through the game.

I would say the anger is compounded because efforts to compile a list of either "ho hum" nappers or "no break" nappers have been disallowed (aka threads frozen).

If nobody has stated beforehand that NAPS are unbreakable then you can't blame a player for thinking otherwise; after all there's no recognition in the game for diplomacy. The same applies in reverse naturally. In both cases the fault isn't necessarily with the player, it's the fault of all players involved in the game for not agreeing beforehand how diplomacy would be handled. Of course, in a case where the rules have been agreed and a player still breaks them then the host should take action, but I'm not sure that would be a matter for the forum.

But seriously, what is wrong with a sticky thread

Too much bait for flaming. We can't verify whether someone should be pilloried for breaking a nap or whether it's a case of sour grapes or a simple misunderstanding. You'd have nothing but arguments and accusations as a result of it.

A better solution would simply be to ask the person hosting or looking to get the game together to state in the description what level of political intrigue is expected. As long as everyone is aware when joining the game whether to expect NAPS to be broken, permanent or not then they have no cause to complain.

[Meursy]

Re: getting unbreakable NAPs getting coded into the game

Or into the DOM playing population's heads!