LeafNosedBat- EA game (upload pretenders)

[Darkstone]

Abysia has been sent.

[llamabeast]

Great, the game is started! Hopefully you should all have received your first turns just now. The first turn has 48 hours on the clock in case of problems - you shouldn't need even nearly that much time. Subsequent turns will have 24 hours, at least until people start to ask for it to change to 48 hours, which will probably be sometime in mid-game.

I'd also like to ask for a volunteer to admin this game. The admin has to do two things:

1) If a player asks for an extension or anything then do it (provided it's reasonable; a day or two is reasonable, if they are going away for a week they should get a sub). It's super easy via the interface on the website.

2) If the admin gets knocked out of the game, pass the password on to one of the remaining players.

It's a really easy, almost zero-work job, but it keeps me from having to carefully watch 30-odd game threads (which I tried for a bit, and it hurt).

Finally, advice on a fun game: I highly recommend doing lots of diplomacy, and posting here lots with bits of reports from your empire and so on. Games with lots of interaction like that tend to be really fun and memorable.

Have fun guys!

[Darkstone]

Thanks for the advice llamabeast, and thanks for hosting.

If you wouldn't mind arbitrating, I'd like a decision about NAP style. Should we have honorable or Machiavellian style. This came up in Acouchi, when there were some surprises and a bit of unhappy discussion. It would probably be a good idea to get that out of the way beforehand, so everyone knows what to expect, instead of leaving this with the vague default.

I'm perfectly fine with you deciding one way or the other, but if you want to instead take the pulse of the players, based on the friendly newbie game atmosphere, I'd vote for honorable NAP (since IMHO we're here to learn how to play MP, and not build reputations). Perhaps it might also be a good idea to include a note concerning the topic for all your future newbie games.

[llamabeast]

Aha, a sensible suggestion Darkstone.

Okay, I hereby declare that yes, this is an honorable game, and people should stick to non-aggression pacts (NAPs) even if they become inconvenient. So be very careful what treaties you agree to!

Just to be clear on the conventions, if you agree to a 3-turn NAP, that means that you have to give three turns warning before attacking the other party, NOT that it only lasts 3 turns from when the agreement is made.

Incidentally it's a tricky question on whether honorable treaties should generally be enforced in games, and I personally haven't really been able to form an opinion, hence not making any statements elsewhere. But I think this time it's a good idea. Being as almost all players stick to treaties anyway and breaking them sometimes leads to bad feeling, I think it probably is sensible to have the situation clearly defined in a newbie game.

[Peacekeeper]

just a question guys ... but hows llama's ruling anymore enforcable than a normal trust system with NAPs?

ultimatly the community judges you for breaking them, not any rule decided when the game is made.

[Edi]

We'll see where this goes. I'm of a mind that if I agree to something, I'll hold to it. Once it expires, watch out. If I'm betrayed, well, guess I will not be trusting that person in that particular game (other games are a different matter, since playing in character may cause different behavior).

I prefer an honorable system. But I've trouble playing the stabbity-stab model either if it should come to that.

[llamabeast]

Well I can't enforce it as such. I'm just stating that's the idea for this game - NAPs are meant to be inviolable. In most other games that is never stated. Most players assume it, but occasionally someone doesn't, and violates an NAP since they believe they are entirely within their rights to do so. This often causes bad feeling.

The alternative would be to play with a Machiavellian style, in which NAPs can be broken and diplomacy is a subtler affair. This could be very fun too, and I plan to run a game explicitly like that at some point. But for this one (assuming no objections) we will go with the NAPs-should-not-be-violated model.

[Darkstone]

Well, llamabeast is no enforcer. In fact, outside of the hardcoded game settings, nothing is truly enforcable. The same scenario holds true for real life laws. You can't actually prevent crime, simply punish the offender afterwards. I expect something similar here, where every player, who always has more than one neighbor, the neighbor could feel free to fight an honorable war against the offender in defense of one betrayed, and for the mutual benefit of both. Like many historic wars and battles, most rulers typically needed a claim (land, title, etc.) or righteous cause (even highly debatables ones) to start wars (and in this case, join ones in progress).

[ComTrav]

Well, no one can enforce treaties in the real world, either, if someone decides they REALLY REALLY want to break them. Obviously, though, if you violate a NAP, no one will trust you, and no one will trade with you, and honestly if you can't engage in diplomacy in MP you're missing half the experience.

[ComTrav]

Another tricky issue (also impossible to enforce): Ritual Magic. Now, some ritual magic appears as a random event, but some are pretty obvious ("Wow, what are the odds of arrows from the sky killing all of my capital researchers in one turn?") Is this GENERALLY considered a NAP violation?