Question about diplomacy

[licker]

Originally Posted by thejeff

A part of the problem is that I can't imagine even bothering to make a NAP in a game specifically labeled "Breaking NAPs is fine." -- the "hohum napper" strawman. If betrayal is that encouraged by the nature of the game, what's the point in diplomacy at all. Maybe really short-term deals.

But it doesn't seem like anyone's really for that. Even those here who are arguing that NAPs shouldn't be inviolable seem to be claiming they'd do so rarely, when doing so is likely win the game (or not doing so, lose it) not just on a casual whim or for a momentary advantage.

Indeed.

The issue to me is one of clarity in the NAP and of expectation for the game.

As most of us 'back stabbers' have been saying, we wouldn't sign up for these ultrarestrictive NAPs in the first place (perhaps short of pure role playing vassalage or some such...), so its difficult to really understand the point of them.

But they do get put in place apparently, so people will have hard feelings about them when they don't work as planned.

My personal perspective on the matter is really no matter what the NAP stipulates if the breaker can outright win the game by breaking the NAP (in the case of VPs usually) then more power to them, and less power to you for not recognizing the fact that everyone should be trying to actually win, other wise just play against AIs.

Or, if the player may not be able to win immediately, but if they can essentially (or completely) remove you from the game with one deft stroke, more power to them. I find it unreasonable to think that outside of team games you should ever think that you have a safe border with someone, of course you may take that gamble and commit all your forces elsewhere, but if you leave yourself so open to them they are kinda fools for not removing you. Of course they have to realize how open you are...

This is why you actually have to use diplomacy, not just these relatively artificial and often pointlessly restrictive NAP agreements.

In my dom2 MP I never had issues keeping NAPs though, its not as though I tried to use them to set people up to be back stabbed, but I also understood that no matter what the initial agreement was there was room for it to be negotiated, and short of breaking a NAP to poach a couple of border territories (which is pointless, but it happens) as long as the breaker gave the breakee some sort of warning and chance to counter offer the terms I really saw it as a positive to being able to conduct meaningful diplomacy.