RBP2 Lurker Discussion Thread - No Players!

[novice]

My objection is to Sullla's lack of respect for other players....

It is getting to me too. I think he should cut down on the use of "nuts", "weed", , , , , etc.

[Krill]

I can understand Sullla's gripe with what looks like a couple of teams not caring much about the NAPs they have signed.... in that aspect, if you sign NAPs and discard them at your leisure, that isn't all that honorable

Depends on technicalities, if you will. You are civ A, have an NAP with civ B, which is at war with civ C. You gift units to civ C. Is that breaking the NAP? Is gifting gold to civ C to upgrade units? Is giving them OB so they make more commerce breaking the NAP? And in another game, is trading them tech OK? Gifting? Trading resources?

It isn't a black and white issue. FWIW, I don't like blanket NAPs, because everyone views them differently. Perhaps the best way of considering them is a mutual agreement that neither side is going to attack the other within their own territory ie, attack them in a colonial fashion.

I also think Sullla is being naive in his thoughts on the matter, Whosit just gave him one very big and important piece of info, that screwing with Namoc is not in his interests.

I'm pretty sure he should have found some reason to be indignant no matter what happened.

[scooter]

Eh, I think trying to convince Spullla that this is no big deal is pointless. I mean why does it matter? If they want to give them a "-4: you are willing to break NAP's" then that's their choice. NAP's aren't binding, but if you break one or announce that you are willing to break one, then you deal with the fallout. I don't think we need a lurker intervention here...

[Axiis]

Yeah, I was always under the impression that breaking an NAP was a strategic move, where you have to weigh the political fallout against potential gains (like breaking a treaty in real life). It's up to the players to make NAPs meaningful.

[darrelljs]

Wanted to post this in the India thread, but in the end decided it was just not the right time and place. Hopefully Sulla and Speaker read it after the game is over .

Definitely not pleased to see so many lurkers taking such a cavalier attitude to honoring NAPs.

Expecting a community as diverse as RB to have a uniform moral code is pretty naive :neenernee. There were plenty of people who though the NAP stab of Imperio was reprehensible. They have as much right to judge you as you have to judge lurkers who think an MDP is greater than a NAP: zero.

No, certain deals do not "take precedence" over other deals. That's like saying certain laws trump other laws. They all count the same.

Better to break your word to an enemy than an ally. I'd say they learned a lesson from athlete in PBEM1.

Darrell

[pindicator]

Yeah, I was always under the impression that breaking an NAP was a strategic move, where you have to weigh the political fallout against potential gains (like breaking a treaty in real life). It's up to the players to make NAPs meaningful.

I agree with this sentiment: it's not part of the hard-coded game; it's part of working with people (and not AIs). I wrote as much in an attempt to calm the flames in the Sullla thread. Sullla seems to be of the opinion that the trade-off of becoming disreputable is never one worth making.

Now, concerning NAPs and MDPs, I can still see an out for Nakor & Whosit -- all they need to do is clarify that existing NAPs will be honored but all renewals and new NAPs will be made with the caveat that the MDP comes first. The only underhanded move I could see would be Team A & B getting a MDP, Team B gets a NAP with Team C, Team A declares on Team C later, and Team B says "we'll, now you're at war and attacking our ally so the NAP is out the window". Even if Team C knew about the MDP before negotiating the NAP with Team B, that would be quite dastardly.

[antisocialmunky]

Lots of things factor into NAP related decision making. For example, acting in bad faith such as the lack of effort by Imperio to hold up their part of the bargain. Then there are technicalities that you can use to justify which IIRC was also part of the Apolyton decision.

At any rate, the main point as some of you have stated that its not so clear cut and that is closer to the truth than this naive black and white sacred honor thing that Sullla is advocating. But then again, Sullla is good at justifying his point of view even if it is full of crap :-D Just look at all the reasoning he has typed up about why everyone else's game and decision making is LOL. Isn't it ironic that that is why we love reading his detailed game reports because everything seems to clear, thought out, and well reasoned?

[novice]

I don't think we should be too confrontational in Spulllas thread, that is their reporting thread and they should be allowed to discuss their game and opinions without being harassed by annoyed lurkers. (We can harass them in here, that way the fallout is postponed - just kidding).

Here's Korea's reaction to the MDP:

This HRE+Rome defensive pact annoys me big time, although once and for all they're not probably trying to lie us anymore. Nakor has numerous times said totally opposite things about their relationship with Whosit

[...]

The big nations with lot of land will soon surpass our GLH fueled economy. It might be a time to try something out or die while doing it. I'm seriously considering to attack Whosit turn 150-160 especially if I can get Dantski to keep HRE busy and/or slaze to attack Whosit.

I was thinking that maybe the MDP would cause Korea to look to the south and amphibiously attack a softer target; Greece. As far as I know they don't have a NAP. So negotiate a NAP extension with HRE and Rome, cooperate with India, take out Greece.

[Jabah]

My opinion is that SINCE the MDP was made PUBLIC, if Spulla would be declaring on HRE, they would be de facto declaring on Whosit (kind of SP play) so THEY would be the one breaking the NAP (if they have one).

I am not going to argue with them about it since it will be useless and even if they (hopefully) secretly agree with this view, they are definitly not going to publicly agree .

[Rowain]

Not surprisingly given his background, he's approaching diplomacy the way nation's have historically approached diplomacy. Pure realpolitik. No attempt to build friendships, just use real or perceived mutual interests to achieve objectives.

But even in realpolitik diplomacy works far better (and gains better results) if the involved leaders like each other.
The best example is maybe the history of the 7-years-war where Prussia was on the brink of distruction but had the luck that the russion empress Elizabeth died and her successor who admired Frederick turned russia from a foe to an prussian ally.