RBPB4 [SPOILERS] - De Gaulle of the Egyptians

[Kylearan]

Yeah, we had two PBEM4 games on the same map with different players [...] Krill's #1 in the AW Vets game, while I'm holding on at #2 and Whosit and Kylearan are still alive. I haven't posted in 3+ months there, because there isn't much to post.

There isn't? You could explain your palpable ship names for example . I have no idea what happens at your corner of the world, but really like to find out after the game. Why? Because there better has to be some interesting tale to tell, or otherwise I'll get really mad at Krill for forcing us to play on for so long!

Krill could have waltzed over my empire and ended the game a long time ago but deliberately holds back, so the situation at the front against you has to be interesting enough for him (and you?) to play out. But if noone posts about it, I'd feel really abused...

(Sorry for the OT post)

[nabaxo]

What turn is it now?

[novice]

What turn is it now?

Civstats say 1380AD which I think is T198.

http://www.civstats.com/viewgame.php?gameid=2035

[Lord Parkin]

Yep... two turns until the big one.

[Lord Parkin]

So a couple of interesting developments this turn. We already knew Plako and Nakor were going to be involved in the upcoming war, that much was obvious. However, it looks like Locke's in on it too.



Also, I've been watching Luddite's land for the last half dozen turns, and just recently he turned about half of his troops around from Mackoti's front and starting heading them in a long line towards me. Not sure if he's preparing for T210, or is intending on yet another treaty break at T200... it wouldn't surprise me if it's the latter.

I've come to the conclusion from significant evidence that Luddite's word in these games is all but completely worthless... he just does whatever the hell he wants. Oh, if it's convenient for him or if he wants something, it's fine - e.g. early Open Borders before you have Sailing (done), free Gems for 20-30 turns when he badly needs it (done) - but if he decides a relationship is no longer convenient for him, he apparently decides disrespecting and violating agreements are all cool.

"Yes, I agree to that border agreement and won't settle there." (Couple of turns later...) "Screw the border agreement and screw you, I actually want that useless city just to spite you."

"Yes, let's not spend any espionage against one another." (Couple of turns later...) "Screw it, let's just throw everything I have against him."

"Damn, he's asking questions and wanting answers... let's just log out/ignore/avoid him whenever that happens." (Seriously, I haven't heard a peep from Luddite in months, despite several emails and chat attempts.)

If Luddite does indeed break the NAP before T210 at this point, then he will have completed the circle and broken every major agreement he ever made with us. Not to mention employing the distasteful strategy of avoiding/ignoring someone for months when he can't justify his actions.

Honestly, I really believe he's only on Plako/Nakor/Locke's side at this point out of convenience. It happens to be useful for him right now, so he goes with it. If he thought he could one-up them by selling them out at some point, I wouldn't be surprised to see him do a complete 180 and take that route.

Fortunately, if Luddite does decide to break his word, we're already prepared for him. All he'll succeed in doing is getting obliterated - which is arguably what he deserves, especially if he breaks the NAP in addition to everything else. I think I may have been right on the money earlier on when I described him as a slimy bastard.

[Ellimist]

Weren't you also planning to help mackoti attack him, ten or so turns back?

[Lord Parkin]

You know, I just don't get the dynamics of this alliance against us. It's not an alliance of equals, or even equal contributions. This obviously isn't about each member trying to make sure they win the overall game. It's just about some of them focussing on one objective - attempting to take us down right now - regardless of the consequences for themselves in the long or even short term.

Let's analyse the known alliance members to reveal the shear lopsidedness of their relationship.

Plako - The massive loser out of all of this. He's invested multiple times more into this war than everyone else put together. He's been building little (if anything) but military over the past 20+ turns, and yet he's still a long way behind us in soldiers. And that gap keeps widening. If everyone else had built up as much as him, we would have been struggling; but they didn't. Result: he can't "win" the upcoming war if he invades, and he loses more than anyone else if he delays because of the sheer number of troops draining his economy for no purpose.

Nakor - Also not doing well from this. He's apparently geared himself largely towards ships, lacking Rifling and not drafting at all. When the war with us is over - assuming that happens - he'll have a military-lite nation ready to be conquered by either Locke or Plako (or both) at their whim.

Luddite - We'll see what happens here. If he sits back and lets Nakor/Plako do the heavy lifting initially, he might do alright but not great. If he decides to break his word and fight on two distant fronts simultaneously, that's just a bad idea and a losing proposition from the get-go.

Locke - The massive winner out of all this. As far as I can tell, his only contribution to this war is a few units (probably Redcoats) gifted to Nakor. It's unlikely to be more given that he's busy with Adlain. He doesn't have to declare war on us himself, and doesn't even have to pay the maintenance for his troops (Nakor's doing that for him, whether he realises it or not). His contribution of soldiers looks to be by far the smallest of anyone's, and he gets to sit back and build infrastructure while the others fight the war for him. Epic win.

Also telling is the gold investment (or lack thereof) from the allies. Plako, Nakor, and to a lesser extent Luddite have been at 0% research for the last few turns, gathering gold to upgrade troops for the war. Locke? Never deviated from near-full research, of course. All the rest of them suffer economically while he powers ahead of them doing his own thing.

How the others don't see that they're fighting this war pretty much entirely for Locke's benefit is a bit beyond me. Oh well, good for him I guess.

[Lord Parkin]

Weren't you also planning to help mackoti attack him, ten or so turns back?

I was considering it. I feel it would have been somewhat justified given the sheer magnitude of the abuse and disrespect Luddite had shown to me in the past. I'm sure people here will have different views on whether that would have been right or wrong. The truth is it's a grey area - but I believe a grey with more of a whiter shade than a darker one.

It's a tricky question that doesn't have a clear answer - how many broken deals and violated treaties does it take before you feel that war is justified? If a former friend breaks one major deal with you, does that entitle you to declare war? What about two? Or three? Clearly there's some point at which most of us would say "that's it, I'm not taking any more shit from you". If you think that no amount of treaty violating justifies a war, then I respect your opinion, but in reality I think you will find if you are actually playing yourself that you cannot respect someone who continually disrespects you. If you can, that's a rather toxic relationship... you're just letting that person take complete advantage of you with no consequences.

What's definitely clear is that having broken multiple deals in the past does not entitle you to break more deals. If Luddite breaks the NAP, he has no justification and is just being an asshat and a liar. If I had broken the NAP, at least I would have had some justification - whether or not folks agreed with it.

[Ellimist]

Weren't you also planning to help mackoti attack him, ten or so turns back?

I was considering it. I feel it would have been somewhat justified given the sheer magnitude of the abuse and disrespect Luddite had shown to me in the past. I'm sure people here will have different views on whether that would have been right or wrong. The truth is it's a grey area - but I believe a grey with more of a whiter shade than a darker one.

Thanks for a reasonable answer. I hope you didn't think I was being judgemental, but I did want your opinion on the apparent contradiction.

It's a tricky question that doesn't have a clear answer - how many broken deals and violated treaties does it take before you feel that war is justified? If a former friend breaks one major deal with you, does that entitle you to declare war? What about two? Or three? Clearly there's some point at which most of us would say "that's it, I'm not taking any more shit from you". If you think that no amount of treaty violating justifies a war, then I respect your opinion, but in reality I think you will find if you are actually playing yourself that you cannot respect someone who continually disrespects you. If you can, that's a rather toxic relationship... you're just letting that person take complete advantage of you with no consequences.

What's definitely clear is that having broken multiple deals in the past does not entitle you to break more deals. If Luddite breaks the NAP, he has no justification and is just being an asshat and a liar. If I had broken the NAP, at least I would have had some justification - whether or not folks agreed with it.

I actually feel that players agree to NAP agreements too easily, and adhere to them too strongly.

[Lord Parkin]

Thanks for a reasonable answer. I hope you didn't think I was being judgemental, but I did want your opinion on the apparent contradiction.

No worries, no offence taken. Incidentally, the main reason Luddite ended up getting a pass was because of Plako's buildup. So I suppose Plako accomplished one thing by building all those units - helping out Luddite.

I do feel a bit bad though, because Mackoti got the short end of the stick out of all of this. I really did want to help him out earlier... we had an attack plan and everything. But there would have been no point in doing that once it was clear that Plako would be able to swoop in and annihilate my south while I was away up north. If he hadn't built quite so many units, things might have turned out differently.

I actually feel that players agree to NAP agreements too easily, and adhere to them too strongly.

Not sure about the former statement, but I definitely don't agree with the latter. If you tell someone "I promise I will not attack you until at least turn X", then you break that promise without significant justification, then your words are worthless. What reason does anyone have to trust anything you say in the future?

I don't believe there's any inherent problem with NAP's specifically; it's more the process of diplomacy in general that results in the (usually) strong adherence to NAP's and other deals. It's all about people being able to trust that when you say you'll do something, you'll follow through on it. If you can't be trusted to keep to your word, then what reason does anyone have to maintain a friendship with you - or to befriend you in future?