RBP2 Lurker Discussion Thread - No Players!

[zakalwe]

To me, it seems like some people really just want a certain narrative to play out.

Spot on, I think.

Personally I find the whole 5 vs. 1 plan to be pretty distasteful and underhanded, so if anything, I hope it fails horribly and Spulla subsequently gobble up some more land from their incompetent neighbors to consolidate their lead. Unfortunately, I fear those 8 praetorians might prove a bit much for them to handle, on top of everything else.

It's always tempting to give little "nudges" here and there, hoping to see your own "favorite" narrative play out, but it would be unfair. I don't think lurkers should give advice unless explicitly asked to, even if such advice isn't necessarily spoilerish.

[regoarrarr]

Spot on, I think.

Personally I find the whole 5 vs. 1 plan to be pretty distasteful and underhanded, so if anything, I hope it fails horribly and Spulla subsequently gobble up some more land from their incompetent neighbors to consolidate their lead. Unfortunately, I fear those 8 praetorians might prove a bit much for them to handle, on top of everything else.

To me, it's not the whole 5v1 plan. If the 5 of them want to declare war on Sullla then fine, do that.

What I am not sure I care for is the fact that, at least according to my reading, there are civs that have an active NAP with spullla that are saying, well I can't attack till T110 or whenever my NAP runs out, but I can give you troops so you can attack on T100.

I actually had a nice conversation with krill about this, in regards to settings for rpb3, that I kind of wish we could just "ban" NAPs. I am coming more and more to the "shadyforce" school, where you don't sign NAPs, but instead show through your actions that you want to be peaceful.

But it just seems that, at least in this community how it is playing out, that refusal to sign a NAP gets interpreted as "I don't really want to be your friend"

[antisocialmunky]

Yeah, its rather odd. If compared to 'Diplomacy' where you can promise the Sun on paper with no consequences if you can't deliver then it looks a little cheesy. I'm guess that's the direction you're coming from.

But I think this is the general consensus on RB because people want to display CIV skill have have fun doing diplomacy rather than have CIV be a medium to display diplomatic skill. Just look at Sullla's comments in the RBPB3 where he talks about diplo.

I'm not going to blow up self up over it. Its just a different environment with other pros and cons. With 'honorable' NAPs then you can better plan for things and watch crazy microplans get pulled off without having to worry too much about being backstabbed.

I too was pretty mystified by how 'sacred' these NAPs were.

And as for preferred narrative, well can you blame people for that? Its fun but I think everyone can pull out their serious hats when it comes to seriously talking about rules. And yes, I would like to see Spullla taken down a peg.

[sunrise089]

Spot on, I think.

Personally I find the whole 5 vs. 1 plan to be pretty distasteful and underhanded, so if anything, I hope it fails horribly and Spulla subsequently gobble up some more land from their incompetent neighbors to consolidate their lead.

Thanks. The thing is though, right now I'm not too worried for Sullla + Speaker. Sullla is certainly being fooled by some of the diplo posturing, but the same thing that happened in the apolyton demogame and RBP1 is happening here - namely an elegant plan is unraveling because people aren't able to follow an exact plan. We've already seen how many delays the attack plan has, and we have Rome not necessarily being able to commit all of their units as early as they had hoped either. That plus at least one member of the coalition having second thought...it doesn't make me willing yet to bet against the CoW, but if they're successful it won't be because of all of the past precedent.

[MWIN]

I am surprised sometimes by the lurker community on issues like this. To me, it seems like some people really just want a certain narrative to play out. So Byzantium was a villain because we settled too aggressively (and I admit, we did) so decisions that punish Byzantium are ok. Likewise Sullla and Speaker are teching too fast so they also deserve to die. I think since the Ottomans are being clever in their grand alliance plans and they're the "good guys" then their plans do get something of a pass.

That certainly sounds like me...I try to pick a team early and root for them...

[Shoot the Moon]

Whosit is planning to attack on the inner coast, correct? (Sulla just said he is planning to build a galley on the inner sea city.)

[novice]

I find the "unit gifting to bypass NAP" thing pretty horrendous, but it's not up to the lurkers to interpret the rules and deals made by the players.

I would like to see Spullla stop the Cow and run away with the game, but I try to avoid nudging the narrative in any particular direction.

I agree that NAPs don't build friendship - Spullla are using them more as an early warning system.

[Ilios]

I am coming more and more to the "shadyforce" school, where you don't sign NAPs, but instead show through your actions that you want to be peaceful.

<agree>

Also, Jowy is calling for an attack on t100, without waiting for Rome's praetorians. The attack is doomed! Doomed I tell you!

[BobRoberts]

The narrative angle is an interesting one and I'm kinda inclined to agree there... Think the only time it's a real problem is if lurkers offer little clues to help things along.

I'm wondering about the NAP business too. Think one way that makes sense it what Liping was talking about at the top of her thread - enforcing the peace with either 1G demands or DoW/Peace combos - you know they can't be broken? But it does seem to show a lack of trust


Do find it intriguing what a consensus view finds acceptable or unacceptable play - for example, the only thing I've seen in this game that I really disliked was Kathlete inventing technical problems 'misclicks/bad remoting' to justify moving in on Byzantium, but that seems to have been forgotten? It did kinda remind me of 'the boy who cried wolf' story, so it might have potential to come back and haunt them some day?

[Jabah]

I find the "unit gifting to bypass NAP" thing pretty horrendous, but it's not up to the lurkers to interpret the rules and deals made by the players.

While we could argue if gifting units to war against someone you have a NAP is breaking it or not [imho, in RB1, some people were specifically 'writting' it in their NAP with also things like no giving OB to a 3rd party at war, etc ], I see no breaking of a NAP if you exchange your military units for workers (which is what is more or less the 'official' deal afair), settlers, settling rights, or anything else.

Of course, they can't really pretend they had no idea what Jowy will do with it, but should Spulla realise and question the gifting, imho ottoman could/should defend their gifting by saying it was a FAIR exchange for workers (of course we probably should NOT give this idea to Ottoman if they don't think about it themselves)