Game Thread

[Krill]

Fuck. No. Never offer NAP without border treaty, and on map where we start close together things are going to get rather painful, very quickly.

[Catwalk]

Signing a long NAP without a border agreement is only beneficial if:
1) We expect to be able to grab more than our fair share in an economical manner
2) We don't expect the other team to become a runaway for the duration of the NAP
3) We fully expect the other team to abide by the NAP, regardless of changed circumstances

I don't think either of those points is a given at this time. Also, there seems to be a general disdain for NAPs lately. Offering a long NAP could be seen as a sign of weakness and actually harm relations.

[WilliamLP]

I'm both not completely serious, and not someone who should be taken seriously. I'm thinking of PB4 though, where everyone else thought like the above and Parkin got really long NAPs with _everyone_ and just used that as his killer advantage for the whole game with the craziest farmer's gambit ever, while everyone else was forced to play a slower and more careful game.

Edit: Anyway, Devil's Advocate for fun:

1. Having a neighbour who has no military threat whatsoever does mean the ability to expand more quickly than the other players who don't have NAPs, and equal to the other party. If you knew nothing whatsoever about a game or teams, and A and B have a long NAP, and C, D, E didn't, and you had to bet money on two teams, who would you choose?

2. True, but this is symmetric, and if a team believes they are better at expanding, isn't the other team the one more likely to regret it?

3. I disagree, speaking of this site. People here take betrayal of explicit word very seriously, to the point where NAPs with a player known on this site can be treated as hard in-game rules. Take note that Parkin didn't piss off anyone enough to break one

Krill wanted spam, so I'm just trying to spark discussion!

[Catwalk]

I'm pro-NAP myself, if the above 3 conditions are met. The first 2 conditions are somewhat conflicting, as you will likely not accept "fair" borders with a weaker neighbour, potentially being able to grab more than your fair share without an agreement. Similarly, we would only want to NAP a strong opponent if we can make sure to get a "fair" border agreement, and they're less likely to accept that. On a related note, we should try to get info about NAPs between other teams and if possible secure secrecy agreements for our own NAPs.

I'm going to stick with the BW vs Pottery discussion, though

[spacetyrantxenu]

I detest NAPs but in the PBEM game I played here I refused to sign NAPs outside of common military engagement and it was to my detriment. Everyone was fairly peaceful in the early going and I ended up spending unneeded hammers on military while everyone else started their snowball sooner. That said, I would vote against us signing a NAP this early because the agreement is so inflexible. It always happens that as soon as you NAP someone you'll want to kill them, and then won't be able to.

Maybe we should wait until we meet our neighbors and have a better idea of the map layout before deciding for certain who we'd want to ally with. Dave's team is probably the right fit for us but you never know. If they're the only team nearby that we can try to kill we'd obviously not want to be barred from doing that whenever it's convenient for us to plunge the dagger. No NAPs is more freedom, :. if you hate freedom then sign a NAP.

[Catwalk]

Continuing my conversation with you in that game xenu, short NAPs give you both freedom and security. If we state outright that we will be doing short NAPs if any, declining an extension need not be interpreted as hostility. For my part, we were strongly considering seeing you as an enemy because of your stance on NAPs. If the other players in the game had been more cooperative, we likely would have been scheming against you rather than with you. In the end, your natural wit and charm won out over your NAP hostility. I suggest that we offer them a 15t NAP and full map exchange, it builds trust and helps both of us.

[spacetyrantxenu]

If we do a NAP it would have to be short. It can end one of two ways.

1. They screw us, leading to:

2. They don't screw us, leading us to:

Obviously we want to be the cat, not the bawling child in this analogy.

[Gaspar]

Fuck. No. Never offer NAP without border treaty, and on map where we start close together things are going to get rather painful, very quickly.

Pretty much 100% agree with this. I also didn't entirely like the tone of their email back - that's Nakor though, he loves to hedge. If Nakor is going to be the diplo arm of Team Pirate I'm willing to take a more active role in the discussion since I know him pretty well from playing with him twice.

[Ilios]

Agreed. No NAP's. Let's keep everyone on their toes.

[Catwalk]

So, how about BW vs Pottery? Earlier access to chopping and slavery vs earlier access to cottages and granaries. Is early whipping cost efficient without granaries?