Question about diplomacy

[Kuritza]

Hello.

I'd like to know your disposition towards ingame diplomacy in Dominions, namely truces.
In one such game we've struck a long-time NAP with another side (its a team game), but now they are dominating the game in such maneer that there wont be much left to do once our truce is over.
When I told them that since our party is close to its Apocalypse, we dont want to sit idly and watch, and informed them we're going to attack in 3 turns (as if we had a standard NAP 3) - exactly 5 turns before our original treaty expires.

Player in question made a whole show, treatening to name'n'shame me all over the forum if I do such thing. Others claim they'd break the NAP if they were me rather than losing game by not doing anything.

So, I'd like to know players opinions regarding such matters. Your are welcome.

[ano]

I think it's worth clarifying things a bit...
First, the game situation is very far from what Kuritza describes, believe me.
Second, this agreement was proposed by person who now tries to violate it. We've been engaged into constant never-ending war while their team was killing easy targets and fighting nobody in fact. And as they thought they could grow even fatter until turn 60, they suggested a NAP until then. We really had no choice other than to accept it, because we were fighting several other teams at the moment. As usual...
But all this has nothing to do with the poll. The issue of the poll is not "Will you break an agreement under some circumstances?", it is "Do you think it is possible to break an agreement and not keep your word?". In my opinion, no conditions may justify breaking the word you gave. Otherwise your word costs nothing and everyone should now that you can't be trusted. You always have a choice (in game as well as in real life) - you may either keep your word and lose or not keep it and win but don't expect people to trust you ever again.
And I'm rather surprised with the poll results. I wish it was made public so that everyone could see who thinks that violating agreements is normal and acceptable.

[ano]

And, by the way, I didn't and don't threaten you. I just told you that if you break the agreement I will tell the world about it. And will do the same with anybody who acts in this way.

[Zeldor]

ano:

Poll is not surprising when it comes to question. He made it sound like you have just 1 VP needed to win or smth like that

[licker]

I think breaking it is justified if you give the nominal warning. I mean NAPs are all fine and well, but if you wind up NAPed into a corner what are you going to do? Personally (even though I don't do much MP) if you want these kinds of NAPs you should play with team mates and treat everything else as temporary.

The question seems to be do you want to try to win. If you don't, then pick who you want to win and just help them win, playing spoiler is all fine and well, but realize at the same time that you're usually only helping someone else along the way, so as long as you're ok with that its all good.

[WraithLord]

Since behind this poll there's also a live real world issue I'd try my best to tread carefully here. So I want to note that I'm just stating my opinions as objectively as possible. And for the record, I'm also playing in the mentioned game and am one of the guys being trounced by ano's team .

All that said I'd like to say that:
A. I think Kuritza has it right. Esp. about the state of the game. ano's team has the forge and earth well up. Are largest nations, very high on research, have SCs, mind hunt squads and beating the two nations facing them currently. Game is on turn 52 and to me it seems that ano's team are very close to victory.

B. While I sympathize with ano (nobody likes almost sure victory taken from them and much less when broken NAP is involved), I can not see how in a scenario when someone is close to victory and don't even have a normal NAP (NAP+3, NAP+5 etc, instead having a NAP until turn 60) I can not see how he can reasonably expect the NAP to be kept.
In a real world scenario agreements are binding both morally and legally. However, this is a game. Games are for fun. What is the fun of signing a NAP until turn 60 and from turn 40 on watch as the game goes away while you can do 0 about it.

C. Players keep NAP b/c its worthwhile to both parties. When NAP is no more in the interest of one party it can be broken. If it can't be broken then what kind of NAP is it?- Its a peace agreement, or a surrender agreement.

So while I personally usually respect NAPs I would break a NAP in such a scenario. If it were a normal NAP, like a NAP+3 then I'd give notice and that's it. If by some rare reason I have signed a NAP until turn XXX and the game is almost lost 20 or 30 turns before XXX then I'd break that NAP w/o a second thought.

[WraithLord]

Originally Posted by Zeldor

ano:

Poll is not surprising when it comes to question. He made it sound like you have just 1 VP needed to win or smth like that

No VPs. But IMO (as an involved players) its very close to that. You know at the end game there's this point one can reach with his nation of research, income, lands, deployed SCs that from this point on he can not be stopped anymore. Well I think ano's team is very close to this point.

Maybe Kuritza can show some score graphs along with post, though score graphs alone don't reflect SC power so well, still they could prove a good indication of what's going on.

[Hoplosternum]

The whole Dom 3 community usually takes NAPs as binding. In other mp games I have played treaties have been treated with less respect.

But here a NAP really is binding. Both sides should be aware of that when they sign up. It's only a game and if you have been out played in your treaties then you've been out played. No need to become a treaty breaker to stay competitive, just as most of us wouldn't break a house rule just because another player was getting the better of us.

Personally I don't like long term NAPs and would be very suspicious of signing one under any circumstances. Once I signed up for a NAP for the first two game years with a neighbour to my West (I was against the Eastern MAP edge) only to find my NAP partner had already cut off my only expansion route to the south. I should have scouted more, or even just been more suspicious of what I was signing and done more negociating. I didn't break the pact and chalked it up to experience.

[Kuritza]

Situation is just what I described, dont believe him.

First off, hydra-happy Pythium was in no way an easy target for Caelum.
Second, when we offered that truce, you were crushing your neighbours without facing any opposition at all.
Third, you keep posting about how you wage a 'never-ending war' but forget to mention that your first opponent fell without even giving you casualties, and you even attacked his teammate (who also fell fast) - kinda proves that you felt very confident.
Fourth, I did not make a poll about "Do you think it is possible to break an agreement and not keep your word?". Stop twisting my words. It *was* about very special circumstances I have described.

>> He made it sound like you have just 1 VP needed to win or smth like that
Yes, it is something like that.

[ano]

WraithLord
Understand that it doesn't matter in fact what the agreement is. The main thing to be thought of is that it IS an agreement and both sides thought more than twice before entering it (not even taking into account the fact that it was not our idea at all). It was proposed by Kuritza's team because they thought they could grow very, very fat by the time turn 60 is reached. It was their decision, they thought of it a lot and should be responsible for it.
I don't really distinguish game and "not-game" and see no difference between keeping your word in game and in real life. If someone breaks his word he is not worth trusting anymore in my opinion.
And game situation has nothing to do with it. At all. Breaking an agreement is only possible if both sides agree to it.