I was hoping to get some opinions on a recent event in a game. Honest answers will be appreciated as I plan on sticking with whatever opinions come out of this post.
The problem is I have been called an Oathbreaker for attacking someone who thought we had a 2 turn NAP when I thought we didn't.
I will sum the situation up as best as I can.
The Defendant: the worthy and honourable Arcoscephale,
The complainant: the bloodthirsty virgin slaughterer Mictlan.
I receive a message early in the game, before we sight each other, asking whether I could rustle up some owl quills.
I reply that not yet but I should be switching to construction shortly and then I will trade.
More discussion a couple of turns later about how the quills are going
Then a request for a 3 turn NAP.
I respond with yes no problem, I promise not to attack for the next 3 turns and ask for clarification as to whether this is correct.
I receive a response saying no a 3 turn NAP means "3 turns of notice before an attack, otherwise lasting throughout the game". Of course, we can negotiate something else if that is disagreeable."
This is unsuitable for me so I respond with "At this point I find myself able to commit to a 2 turn NAP."
Then I think 4 turns go by, but it might be 3 or even 5, with no response about whether my 2 turn NAP is accepted.
So I make alternate arrangements under the impression my opponent was unhappy with a 2 turn NAP and is getting ready to invade.
I then receive a message asking how the owl quill research is going and I respond with "No quills for you, you are about to invade my lands"
A response back "No I am not, I assumed the NAP was in place. So can we assume it is in place now?"
My response "I am afraid not, in fact prepare your borders for you are about to be invaded"
This response was given the turn I invaded, but he had not sent in his turn so therefore he had an opportunity to prepare himself for he knew I was coming. Basically one turns warning.
So the question is,
1. do I withdraw and allow him one more turn to prepare himself for war? Or even 2?
2. do I press on since due to his lack of reply to my renegotiated terms the NAP was never in place?
That is the situation and I hope my erstwhile foe, he who enjoys the butchery of young innocent girls, will either agree with my rendition or give his own account of the events.
My opponent has responded in our game thread and I now present his side of things here in full. I am hoping the people who responded may have a bit of time to read over his side of things and then present their views, or anyone else. This is directly cut and pasted from the game thread, but just in case there are doubters you can check it here
http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...fpart=all&vc=1
"I am still feeling ill. I would appreciate it if we can stay on the 48 hour timer for the next few turns. I would like to see how things go and perhaps find a sub or set the game to AI after that. I am undecided on whether I should continue spending energy playing a game I feel has mostly gone sour due to the level of difficulty I have had dealing with zenphos who either does not understand what a NAP is, or feels that it is acceptable to slip out of one with vague wording whenever he feels it is convenient.
Anyway, since zenphos has presented his side of the story in the above link, featuring "the worthy and honourable Arcoscephale", and the "the bloodthirsty virgin slaughterer Mictlan", I feel compelled to present my side of the story here since the thread he started has been presented in a one sided manner and has gone off topic.
It began with a trade negotiation for owl quills that I opened with zenphos early on. Afterwards, I him on the border, and offer him I what I understand is a standard 3 turn NAP that most players seem to use. Note that at this point, he does not understand what a NAP is, so I go to the trouble of posting a question on the forums and sending him the link and explaining it.
zenphos replies with this message:
"At this point I find myself able to commit to a 2 turn NAP.
This is the same NAP I have organised with other nations.
Which means 2 turn warning before any sort of aggresive behaviour or subversion.
Basically scouts are fine but no one else.
Looks like things are quieting down so can install my wizards back into their labs and start thinking about owl quills and other goodies."
We have already exchanged quite a few messages at this point and I think we have an understanding, so I take this as done deal. Particularly the sentence "At this point I find myself able to commit to a 2 turn NAP." Little do I know that he will later turn around and say that we have no agreement and that he believes I am massing on his border to take his owl quills "by force", as if it would be a simple matter to march into his capital, lay siege to it and demand that he forge them for me then. Later on, he will claim that I am "unhappy with a 2 turn NAP and [...] getting ready to invade."
Both of these claims are illogical. The idea of marching on his capital to take the owl quills by force, would have resulted in my empire spanning the entire map horizontally which would make me a target for every other player on the map. An obviously impractical idea, not to mention the amount of time that this would required. Any why would I attack him because I was unhappy with the offer of a 2 turn NAP when I was the one who originally proposed the NAP? I cannot think of a more pointless reason for starting an attack. The whole point of arranging a early game NAP is allow both players to conquer indies without being attacked by another player. As illogical as these reasons are, zenphos used both as excuses to cut a deal with other players against me, all the while conveniently forgetting about our negotiations.
At this point, I consider the NAP and the trade agreement a done deal, and turn my attention to finishing off the early war I had with Lanka and to conquering indies, assuming there will be at least a 2 turn notice before hostilities with zenphos. However all this time, he is busy cutting more convenient deals with other players. When I send him another message to see how the owl quills are coming along before I go off for the weekend, I discover that he believes that we have no such NAP, and that I had been planning all along to invade him instead of trade with him. Why then would I have bothered to set up a trade agreement with him? A simple look at the research graphs would confirm that I was trying to acquire some more research boosters.
I don't know how much back and forth it normally takes to secure a basic NAP and ask for some trades, even by the standards of having to explain it to someone with slightly less experience, but I think I went out of my way to explain it and in return, I get backstabbed. In contrast, my negotiations with other players in this game have all been direct and to the point.
Anyway, it certainly looks to me that like I should have not bothered negotiating with someone who either does not understand how to negotiate, or feigns misunderstanding when it is convenient to backstab someone. zenphos, if you're going to try to slip out of agreements when you find it is convenient and fabricate some illogical reasons for doing so, that is one way to play, but do not pretend that you hold the high ground at the same time.
And give me a break about role-playing that you are "avenging the ghosts of Lanka". Aside from the thematic problems associated with Arcocephale avenging a nation of demons, I saw you attack Lanka several turns ago as I was laying siege to his capital. And now you claim you are avenging them when it is convenient to attack me. If there is a more ridiculous contradiction, I don't know what it is, but I believe other players would be well advised to steer clear of dealings with you."
Adjudication on a NAP -edited please comment again
Hexxagon Champion!
.
Linear Mode
