RBP2 Lurker Discussion Thread - No Players!

[zakalwe]

In my opinion announcing that a new pact you've signed takes precedence over a NAP that you previously signed is tantamount to canceling the NAP. I wouldn't be happy about this.

However, it should be noted that prematurely canceling a NAP is less evil than breaking it with an actual sneak attack.

[zakalwe]

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 .

This is just twisted logic.

Scenario:

A signs a NAP with B, and then, without consulting with A, B signs an MDP with C.

A attacks C.

B attacks A, referring to the MDP as justification.

In this scenario, A never promised not to attack C, so he did not break his word. B did promise not to attack A, so he did break his word. Saying that A was the one to break the NAP is ludicrous.

[MJW (ya that one)]

Whosit might get so many cities that he might think about giving some to Plako for a longer NAP or something else.

I know that it would be spoilerish to post it in Whosit and VERY spoilersh to post it in Plako's threads.

[novice]

Scenario:

A signs a NAP with B, and then, without consulting with A, B signs an MDP with C.

A attacks C.

B attacks A, referring to the MDP as justification.

In this scenario, A never promised not to attack C, so he did not break his word. B did promise not to attack A, so he did break his word. Saying that A was the one to break the NAP is ludicrous.

+1.

The correct way to announce the MDP would have been:
1. Existing NAPs take precedence over the MDP.
2. Any new NAPs or NAP extensions we sign will have the clause that the MDP takes precedence.

[Rowain]

This is just twisted logic.

Scenario:

A signs a NAP with B, and then, without consulting with A, B signs an MDP with C.

A attacks C.

B attacks A, referring to the MDP as justification.

In this scenario, A never promised not to attack C, so he did not break his word. B did promise not to attack A, so he did break his word. Saying that A was the one to break the NAP is ludicrous.

It would be if B keeps the MDP secret. But if A signs NAP with B and B signs MDP with C and announces it so that everyone knows attacking C would be considered a wardecl on B too then it is plain simple A's fault if he attacks C.
With the announcement of the MDP it becomes clear to everybody that any attack on C is also an attack on B.

[novice]

It would be if B keeps the MDP secret. But if A signs NAP with B and B signs MDP with C and announces it so that everyone knows attacking C would be considered a wardecl on B too then it is plain simple A's fault if he attacks C.
With the announcement of the MDP it becomes clear to everybody that any attack on C is also an attack on B.

I disagree. B is unilaterally introducing new conditions to the NAP (do not attack C). They can't do that, that is equivalent to prematurely cancelling the NAP.

[zakalwe]

Returning to the subject of diplomacy, if you judge it by results rather than making people like you, I think Spullla did pretty well recently securing those peace concessions from Jowy without actually spending many troops, and also in wrangling some free gold from NaMOC.

If you view it as a popularity contest, NaMOC isn't doing very well either. By constantly contradicting themselves they come across as liars, and their attempts to stay on the good side of their potential enemies are failing pretty miserably.

[Rowain]

I disagree. B is unilaterally introducing new conditions to the NAP (do not attack C). They can't do that, that is equivalent to prematurely cancelling the NAP.

A NAP says simple : We don't attack you and You don't attack us.
The MDP only broadens the definition of us.

Again had they kept it secret then yes any blame would be on them but so everyone knows what an attack on one of those 2 triggers.
To attack now one of the 2 MDP-partners and whining about that the other declared war and so broke the NAP is idiotic.
Everyone is now warned and should act accordingly.

[Rowain]

If you view it as a popularity contest, NaMOC isn't doing very well either. By constantly contradicting themselves they come across as liars, and their attempts to stay on the good side of their potential enemies are failing pretty miserably.

It would have been far better for HRE if only DMOC had done diplo and not Nakor

[Beamup]

A NAP says simple : We don't attack you and You don't attack us.
The MDP only broadens the definition of us.

Arbitrarily broadens, by one side of the agreement, without approval from the other side. This change is essentially equivalent to me signing a contract with a lawn care company to care for my front yard at an agreed price, and then I declare that all of my yard is now considered "front" and therefore they must care for all of it at that same price. Just how far do you think I'd get with that?

The terms of an existing agreement can be modified ONLY by the mutual agreement of the parties. In my mind, there can be absolutely no possible question about it - this IS breaking all existing NAPs. Which they can do, but they should be prepared for the fallout.

Again had they kept it secret then yes any blame would be on them but so everyone knows what an attack on one of those 2 triggers.
To attack now one of the 2 MDP-partners and whining about that the other declared war and so broke the NAP is idiotic.
Everyone is now warned and should act accordingly.

Let me restructure this argument a bit. Suppose that you and I have an agreed NAP until turn 250. On turn 200, I inform you that I will attack unless you give me three of your cities. You refuse and I attack. I expect that you would rightly consider me to have broken the NAP. But the argument you're making here would apply to that case equally well - I warned you, you knew what not giving me those cities would trigger, so whining that I declared war and so broke the NAP is idiotic. You were warned and should act accordingly.