BobRoberts Wrote:Got to love those social conventions!
In a hypothetical world, wonder what the reaction would have been to NaMOC 'clipping' a final few turns off their NAP with India?
pindicator
I don't know about someone who would backstab you as a neighbour in RBCiv... people don't seem terribly forgiving about those sort of things and do seem to carry it from one game to another?
I agree. Personally I don't know that the short-term value of breaking your word is even close to the long-term damage ... and I'm talking about openly breaking your word. Things like "I'm not going to attack you for 30 turns" and then you declare in 5.
Where things get more interesting is when things are not specifically stated and you have room to manuever. I notice Sullla is always careful to leave himself some wiggle room in his wording, and especially careful not to "back himself into a corner" with his words. NAPs are a great example. Some people have said that they only consider a NAP to cover open aggression, like declaring war (even to only cover declaring war). Other people consider helping their enemies as acts of aggression. And wasn't it the Templars in the Apolotyn game that considered trading with other teams a sinister act even though they made no mention of this to the RB team?
The point of all that is everybody has pre-conceived ideas. You can choose to run Sullla's realpolitik route and just not spell out anything unless you need to, or you can lay everything out crystal clear but lose any element of surprise over your adversaries. Which route do you choose? I guess that depends on your preference, your in-game situation, and what you know of your opponent(s).
Suffer Game Sicko
Dodo Tier Player
Dodo Tier Player