Question about diplomacy

[licker]

Originally Posted by ano

I still don't see any difference between these agreements. Once again, it was their suggestion and decision to enter such agreement and if they did enter it they should be responsible for the consequences.

Uhh...

And how are they not being responsible for the consequences?

You can whine about it all you want, but in the end everyone should do what they think they need to do to win right? Or would you just sit there and watch some one else win when you had the ability to stop them?

Look I get what you're saying about this NAP, but I think all NAPs are meaningless if one side is ready to win the game, of course you can argue all you want about whether or not you have that kind of lead, I don't know, and I don't care.

What matters is what your neighbor thinks, and what gives them a chance. I don't see this as being an outright stab either, he's giving you 3 turns, changing the nature of the NAP on the fly. Big deal? To you it is, since you obviously think it will ruin your chance to win, but that's the whole point of playing the game isn't it?!?!???

You are of course free to carry over hard feelings to the next game, and to try and poison his reputation if you want, but realize that's a double edged sword. The more you slag on him, the less likely others may be to enter agreements with you in other games since they won't want to deal with the possibility that you get bent out of shape and slag them publicaly.

Personally I find all these instances of people taking out their frustrations on other people in OTHER games to be much much worse than someone breaking a NAP in the first place.

[WraithLord]

Since the topic is (or was supposed) to be general I'll try to answer in general terms, that what I state is my opinion. I do think there's a difference between breaking a NAP+3 (bad!) and breaking a NAP+30 or some such b/c you think the other side is on the brink of victory. This is my opinion, I could never exercise it in real game since I'd never accept the latter agreement.

Sure there is an element of he agreed or wanted this NAP let him suck it up but there's also an element that in dynamic game like dominions such long term NAP can put one of the parties in an unreasonable (from a fun game standpoint) point where he must do nothing while losing the game.

A word about our game. I honestly think you're very close to winning. This is my opinion based on all the intel I have. I may be wrong of course, but I'm stating my opinion as I see things, not trying to create a false show. Nothing wrong with you winning, your team plays very well and if other players made mistakes along the way (some of them diplomatic, other passive) well its their problem, and you're free and right to rip the rewards

[thejeff]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

It still begs the question "why make a NAP with someone who sees it like this?".

So, if you had approached Ano, and instead of saying, "Hi, we would like a mutual NAP until turn 60 so we can focus on other people", you had instead said, "OMG please leave us alone until we find the opportune time to kick you in the balls". -- Do you think that he would have accepted.

Do you really see no difference between "the opportune time to kick you in the balls" and "we might as well just go AI, because by the time the treaty is up, you'll be unstoppable"?
(I'm not in this game, so I can't comment on whether they'll be unstoppable by turn 60 or not, so I'm speaking generically.)
The first is obviously bad, the second is what we're disputing. Is it valid to break a deal when that's the only way to keep someone from winning? Or from achieving such dominance they can't be stopped?

And I'd feel fine making a deal with someone who saw things like that. I'd just be wary if I was getting too dominant. But I would still expect him to honor the deal if I was vulnerable because of another war, for example.

[Edi]

Yes, I'd break it. There's being honorable and then there's just being goddamn stupid. I would think less of anyone who actually held to the NAP down into death and defeat if they could have made a fight of it by breaking it.

I would warn the person I was breaking the NAP with to the effect that "Sorry, would have liked to hold it but deal's done because otherwise I have no fighting chance." Doesn't mean I'd automatically break NAPs in future games. I prefer to hold to my word, but anyone who takes NAPs as ironclad restrictions that cannot ever be deviated from even when it's the only viable choice for survival is living in la-la land.

[Crust]

Your word is your word, some will break it if doing that benefits you, some wont.

[Peter Ebbesen]

Since I don't play MP via these forums but with friends, I probably have a very different approach to diplomacy than that which appears, from the statements earlier in the thread, to be the general case here.

Namely the case that diplomacy appears to be about assurances divinely held sacred as if they were a part of the game itself and imposing strict in-game limitations on actions rather than being mutually beneficial agreements that you have to nurture to maintain and, as such, are likely to be broken when one party thinks it is no longer of advantage to itself to follow it and the disadvantages of being known to break an agreement in a particular game are less than the advantages.

I realize I won't change your minds on the NAP issue if what you prefer playing with is a NAP that must be obeyed just as if it was an actual in-game rule (which it is not) - it is a convention of your gameplay, and if that's how you like to play it, that's certainly fair enough, but from a practical perspective it is nothing more than a convention - there's certainly no rational argument for why it should be that way, and there's no reason to expect your opponents to play by such player created rules unless they've agreed to do so.

In fact, diplomacy where verbal or written agreements between players must be kept no matter the circumstances is in general in games considerably less interesting and presents fewer opportunities to excel at the art of diplomacy than games running a more commonly accepted convention in board and card games featuring intrigue and player elimination: Anything that is agreed between players to be done "now" in the current turn must be done, anything that is agreed for the future is enforced solely by the might and diplomatic capabilities of the players involved. (That is again only one convention and not necessarily the one you'll have most fun with, but it makes for considerably more challenging diplomacy and demonstrates one of the core values of real-life diplomacy: false security.)

If I'm playing with my friends and I agree an alliance, a turn limited NAP, a truce, or any other diplomatic relationship lasting more then the current turn, then I expect my great friend and wonderful player, who'm I'll liberally praise while searching for the right place to knife him in the back come the day I need him no longer, to follow it so long as the advantages of doing so outweigh the disadvantages of not doing so and not a moment longer. Of course, there are advantages to "doing the right thing" and being a "man of your word", so betraying somebody has a significant negative impact on your diplomatic abilities long-term in the same game in most cases, which requires an equally significant advantage to make betrayal worth it... but that's just one aspect of the evaluation of whether to break an agreement or not.

I'll regret it publicly when the nasty deed gets done and appeal to world peace, the international order, or the maintenance of the balance of power... should I be the one betrayed... and I'll explain why it was a necessity to break with the untrustworthy ruthless powermongering bastard, who was clearly setting up his game plan for an overwhelming attack on myself, which I only twarted by preempting him at the last possible moment, sacrificing myself for the good of all.... should I be the one doing the betraying. (Actually, to better sell this idea, I'll of course be buttering up the other players who are not directly affected preferably one or two turns in advance - it risks being counter-betrayed or preempted, but establishing the moral high ground and laying the foundations for general acceptance of your actions amongst those who might tip either way is usually very important in game where diplomacy really matters)

Now, THAT is part of what real diplomacy is about in the sort of games I like to play, including Dominions 3 MP, diplomacy that does not force compliance with your words when you no longer intend to honour them - diplomacy where your ability to nurture a strategic relationship is as important as your ability to get somebody to sign an agreement with you in the first place.

....So to answer the poll - in the situation as described, I'd break the agreement in a heartbeat unless I had explicitly agreed to a convention of enforcing agreements regardless of what's happening in the game.

Backstab, betray, deceive, and destroy as necessary, aid, selflessly sacrifice, work for the common good when it benefits yourself..... all these make for wonderful moments in diplomacy, even though they do tend to create short-lived bursts of temper.... so long as players don't bring grudges from one game to another or let the actions in one game affect their actions in another. Somebody pulled a clever betrayal of you in one game that you didn't see coming? Good for them, that's a good lesson for you to be more wary in the future and perhaps even more diplomatically aggressive - next time it might be your knife in somebody's back.

[Dedas]

Well said!

[Psycho]

Great post, I loved it. That's how real diplomacy works. Where's the fun if not in plotting and scheming.

[Crust]

Is anyone forced to agree to something they won't stick to? What exactly is the problem with telling people someone did not follow an agreement?

After that everyone is free to make up their own mind, and assuming people will act in accordance to their own interest is always a safe bet, assuming you can figure out what they think their interest is.

Consistently sticking to your word is a hindrance unless people know you to do so, in which case it may still be a hindrance since it makes you more predictable.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by 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.

If you look at my thread about RNap's - this is why I think certain globals should automatically terminate a NAP. Forge is a case in point - a longterm nap with the casting of of forge basically ensures a victory.

LIkewise, if the victory conditions are not complete annihilation, then naps should have an out, when it becomes clear that one party threatens to become dominant.