RBP2 Lurker Discussion Thread - No Players!

[Kyan]

All I'll say in terms of what I can offer - I am a gap-year student with next to no commitments until late summer - october time, and so unless something huge happens, I wouldn't need to drop out and can get through turns pretty quickly.

But like has been stated, its not up to me and I am only offering for lack of a better alternative.

If there are some major ground rules, i think this could be made to work.

Something like:

Inca would make a 10turn NAP to all other parties. This is if no agreement is already in place. If a shorter agreement is already in place, it is extended to at least 10 turns time. If a longer agreement is in place then it would continue as per the originally discussed terms.

No diplomatic relations for 10 turns.

This should allow the game to continue as before but allowing TT to take full control after his 'spoilering' had worn off so to speak.

Currently Jowy, Kalin & co are bound to be against a spoiler lurker joining for fear of Spullla learning the full details of their attack plan. This way should avoid that?

The alternative to no diplomatic relations would be something along the lines of:

Inca can not talk to any other nations regarding anything they learned outside of logging into the game and reading their own thread.

[sunrise089]

I think any spoiled permanent lurker is really problematic. I can't foresee any lurker being able to ignore all of the diplo maneuverings between the CoW and India, and within the CoW itself.

[Krill]

*shrug* I don't like it either. I'd rather ask an unspoiled sub, but if you can't get one, the choice is between using a spoiled sub or dropping the game. This game is worth playing out the next 20+ turns of just to see what Spullla do.

[Yazilliclick]

Roomate sorry.

[novice]

Maybe use a spoilered player with a "no diplomacy" charter lasting for at least 50 turns. Would emulate IKZ's game so far pretty well and wouldn't risk spreading spoiler information.

[Rowain]

Just to change the subject slightly, I would just like to ask how many lurkers would do this.

If you were Korea would you, when Rome declares war on India, speak to Spulla and get them to offer some 'guarantee of later support' and NAPstab Whosit with every military unit you have?

Besides the fact that NAP-stabbing is not a good lan if you want to play (and be trusted in) future games here. Korea does not know how weak/strong Romes defense is. Besides their own military is not that powerfull either.
So they would tarnish their reputation and risk to lose again while gaining very little. Not to mention that their islands are close to Ottomans so I doubt that is wise to anger this neighbour.

[Cyneheard]

Maybe use a spoilered player with a "no diplomacy" charter lasting for at least 50 turns. Would emulate IKZ's game so far pretty well and wouldn't risk spreading spoiler information.

50t is a little long. Maybe as long as 20t, since by then the current conflict will have played itself out, or at least be beyond Inca's ability to intervene.
Also, I see no reason to prevent a replacement player from signing OBs or making (non-strategic) resource trades with anyone, at any time. Intervening in a war is very different (sending horses/copper to Spullla would definitely count as spoilered actions).

[Twinkletoes89]

The problem with this issue is that there will be no agreement unless someone turns up completely random and independent. Examples:

Spoiled Lurker - CoW unhappy as will have knowledge of this conflict and any 'isolation charter' will be rejected out of hand by Jowy and Athlete possibly threatening withdrawal. Worried about balance of war. Would work if agreed to diplomatic 'isolation' and agreement to sit out current war. But it seems Jowy in particular is completely unwilling to compromise on this front.

Atlantis event - Athlete and Whosit likely refuse as they plan to divvy up that territory once current war is over. Everyone else fine as nothing for them to gain and rivals lose out on land.

Kalin's 'friend' - No way in hell will Spulla accept that. They will definitely withdraw if that happens. Already annoyed about PB3 team including nearly all CoW and another 'friend' would tip them over the edge. Non-starter and as bad as spoiled lurker.

Only hope they have is to find a random 'unspoiled' lurker but I think that will be next to impossible, especially considering the massive following that Spulla have.

Other than that, the best thing for a balanced game and to get the game running again is to put a spoiled lurker in control with diplomatic and military isolation for an agreed upon number of turns.

Otherwise this game will dwindle because of the long wait for a miracle 'unspoilt lurker'.

Besides the fact that NAP-stabbing is not a good lan if you want to play (and be trusted in) future games here. Korea does not know how weak/strong Romes defense is. Besides their own military is not that powerfull either.
So they would tarnish their reputation and risk to lose again while gaining very little. Not to mention that their islands are close to Ottomans so I doubt that is wise to anger this neighbour.

If I may be so bold, I think that people holding things against someone for what happens in a previous game is pretty juvenile. The two key words are PREVIOUS and GAME. Its a game and if someone does something that they believe is their only or best chance to win then fair enough. If everyone played 'honourably' it would be a build-a-thon always peace game everytime. Every game needs its 'goodies and baddies' to make it interesting.

And to justify my Korea suggestion, I think that they can just go along and play with their NAPs and say bye to any chance of being a major force in the game and just live with mediocrity and have a long drawn out death. In my opinion, I would rather stake everything in such a situation as either great success to bring back balance (and revenge) or a quick death is preferable to a 'noble' but slow death.

I do understand that this is not everyone's cup of tea, but that's my opinion anyway.

[Shoot the Moon]

If I may be so bold, I think that people holding things against someone for what happens in a previous game is pretty juvenile. The two key words are PREVIOUS and GAME. Its a game and if someone does something that they believe is their only or best chance to win then fair enough. If everyone played 'honourably' it would be a build-a-thon always peace game everytime. Every game needs its 'goodies and baddies' to make it interesting.

That's all good and dandy, but why would anyone trust NAPs with them in the next game? The previous game is what people will look to to figure out how they play the game. It's your choice to break an NAP; having people not trust you in subsequent games is just part of that choice.

(I for one am strongly against breaking NAPs. This whole community, especially with open spoiler threads, is based on trust. I understand though that some don't share this view on NAPs.)

[antisocialmunky]

I would be wary depending on motive.