This discussion right here is why I think NAP's are silly. The solution is pretty simple - just don't sign them ever. Make specific deals/agreements instead of just a NAP, because chance are the person you are signing with has a different idea of what it entails than you do.
|
RBP2 Lurker Discussion Thread - No Players!
|
Beamup Wrote:Fine, then I'll restate my hypothetical to:Depends if you are north of me the settlement could be deemed agressive and so your war justified. If you are south then I would say your demand is a break of the NAP. Beamup Wrote:Edit: I could also mention such things as "I will declare war if you trade with X" or "I will declare war if you start to research Civil Service". ANYTHING can be considered an aggressive act looked at the right way, so allowing either party to arbitrarily redefine what constitutes an aggressive act makes the NAP completely meaningless.Bingo  And now you know why every bigger company has a huge legal department and why lawyers make a good fortune arguing over simple words 
scooter Wrote:This discussion right here is why I think NAP's are silly. The solution is pretty simple - just don't sign them ever. Make specific deals/agreements instead of just a NAP, because chance are the person you are signing with has a different idea of what it entails than you do. This
"You want to take my city of Troll%ng? Go ahead and try."
Beamup Wrote:So your position has actually been that NAPs are completely meaningless? Why didn't you say so? Because they aren't really. They have so much meaning as those participating are willing to give it. Look at the game Diplomacy. In this game negotiations and agreements are essential but also breaking said agreements. So those agreements are meaningless (noone can force the other to honor said agreement) but still are absolutly necessary and essential. Rowain Wrote:Because they aren't really. They have so much meaning as those participating are willing to give it.I misunderstood your position then. You appeared to be arguing that Speaker and Sullla were objectively wrong to consider Nakor/DMOC/Whosit to be breaking their word, and should not consider them less trustworthy because of it. If instead you meant to argue that any "objective" view is irrelevant because it'll have the same impact on how individuals view each other's trustworthiness, then that I would agree with. Rowain Wrote:Because they aren't really. They have so much meaning as those participating are willing to give it. Diplomacy is rather different IME. The game as I've seen it played has a general expectation of backstabbing, weaseling and outright lying. Almost everyone I've gamed with does it in that game. What seems to matter there is predictability - nobody likes a loose cannon... a neighbour you know will or won't backstab you is probaby safer than one who might? Wheras Pitboss Civ as played here seems to have a different set of expectations. It often seems about as forgiving as the old Civ 3 AI about broken deals.  However, it feels to me like there's a whole other game played about whether someone was in the right or wrong in a given situation - that's a lovely arbitary subjective thing and seems to count in a whole load of complicated factors - the reasons for it, popularity of each party, friendliness, who the stab benefited/hurt, relative power levels, etc? Makes for fun viewing though! Beamup Wrote:If instead you meant to argue that any "objective" view is irrelevant because it'll have the same impact on how individuals view each other's trustworthiness, then that I would agree with. This you got right. So here we have an agreement Beamup Wrote:I misunderstood your position then. You appeared to be arguing that Speaker and Sullla were objectively wrong to consider Nakor/DMOC/Whosit to be breaking their word, and should not consider them less trustworthy because of it. Oh it is my position that the MDP is not wordbreaking. A NAP is just an agreement of non agression but none of those NAPs (with the exception of the first Greece/India NAP) define what is considered as agressive. Thats completly up to those involved. So everyone is free to state: 'If you settle within 5 tiles of my capital I consider this as agressive move and the NAP for null and void'. And this would be correct as is. The same counts for proclaiming that attacking Civ C would be considered an act of agression and so forth. The one thing I didn't mention before is: In my POV the other Civs that have NAPs with Rome and HRE are free to declare that Rome/HRE had changed the NAP and so they consider the previous NAPs null and void. similar as you have to agree to EULA again after they altered something . So if those that have NAP with HRE/Rome don't protest but continue on they can't protest later if Rome/HRE honor their MDP.Additonal Note: In SP an MDP ends as soon one of the involved declares war against someone. So from a gamemechanic point HRE would be free to declare the MDP ended once Rome attacks Inca (I doubt they will do that but the look at Whosit' face would be priceless )
BobRoberts Wrote:Diplomacy is rather different IME. The game as I've seen it played has a general expectation of backstabbing, weaseling and outright lying. Almost everyone I've gamed with does it in that game. What seems to matter there is predictability - nobody likes a loose cannon... a neighbour you know will or won't backstab you is probaby safer than one who might? I'd say this is a good quality to have a neighbor in CIV, too!
Suffer Game Sicko
Dodo Tier Player |
