RBP2 Lurker Discussion Thread - No Players!

[novice]

@jabah: I think the Ottoman-India NAP expires at t100. It is Holy Rome that has a NAP with India until t105.

@sunrise: The lurkers already tried to nudge Holy Rome in the "honorable" direction, so really, I don't feel that there are any double standards. There was also heavy nudging in the Ottoman thread prior to the Paris attack to avoid Paris being double moved.

Well, from the CoW discussion, it looks like signing the NAP, and then gifting Dantski our troops on turn 99 would be best. We will declare on turn 105.

Is that really less dishonorable than breaking the NAP early on T100?

[scooter]

I do tend to agree with sunrise, and I think if Sullla/Speaker were in the process of trying to circumvent a NAP like that, that people would be screaming bloody murder about playing 'honorably', but it seems like you're allowed to do that as long as you are either 'the good guys' or 'the underdogs'...

Jowy just flat-out told one team just now (Nakor?) to break a NAP, but when Whosit's team (the 'bad guy' aggressor with Rome) did that earlier the backlash was so heavy that Whosit actually changed his mind.

[novice]

I think opinions are varied on who the good guys and the underdogs are. It's not like all the lurkers are rooting for the same team. At any rate I think that nudging should be kept to a minimum.

By the way, I believe the main reason Whosit changed his mind was because another team (the Ottomans) intervened (a pretty remarkable diplomatic situation). The heaviest lurker activity was even earlier, when Whosit was negotiating a settling agreement with Korea in bad faith. The NAPstabbing came as a surprise to everyone, lurkers included.

[antisocialmunky]

- Jowy got a huge 10k boost in Power this turn, which confirms that he just researched Horseback Riding. That's... interesting. I have him down for researching Iron Working and Horseback Riding, but not Writing! Anyway, I continue to expect trouble from Jowy down the road. You just don't pick those kind of techs as your first two Classical ones unless you have nefarious intentions in mind.

- athlete's power dropped again; looks like they are having some trouble with barbarians. There's also a slight chance that their team has gifted some units to Jowy; I'll know for certain if I ever see a power increase from Jowy without a unit being built or tech being researched. So far that hasn't happened, so I'm going to assume that it's the barbs.

Sullla's going to be kicking himself when he finds out.

[regoarrarr]

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.

Right - it's up to the lurkers to complain about it in this thread Check!

[Spronz]

Sullla's going to be kicking himself when he finds out.

Yeah I was expecting he'd catch that properly and start gearing up for the attack as well as throwing out some threats to make some people switch sides. Will be interesting to see how it goes.

[regoarrarr]

So am I understanding things correctly that as it stands it's going to go:
T100 Us, Dantski, AK(? maybe just partial)
T105 Nakor (4 axes, 2 spears and 2-4 chariots)
T112 Whosit (8 praets)

Dooooooooooooooooooooooooooomed.

[Spronz]

I do tend to agree with sunrise, and I think if Sullla/Speaker were in the process of trying to circumvent a NAP like that, that people would be screaming bloody murder about playing 'honorably', but it seems like you're allowed to do that as long as you are either 'the good guys' or 'the underdogs'...

Jowy just flat-out told one team just now (Nakor?) to break a NAP, but when Whosit's team (the 'bad guy' aggressor with Rome) did that earlier the backlash was so heavy that Whosit actually changed his mind.

Diplomacy is never about honour, it's just all about who you upset and who you make happy. Break a NAP helping the majority of players take down the big guy = GOOD. Break a NAP to take down your neighbour to grow bigger = BAD. Breaking a NAP may default to bad but it's all opinion and the only opinion that really matters is the other players.

[scooter]

Diplomacy is never about honour, it's just all about who you upset and who you make happy. Break a NAP helping the majority of players take down the big guy = GOOD. Break a NAP to take down your neighbour to grow bigger = BAD. Breaking a NAP may default to bad but it's all opinion and the only opinion that really matters is the other players.

That's a good point really. I think my thing is more that Jowy suggested it, after he was the one who was accusing other players as acting dishonorably. Irony makes me laugh

[SleepingMoogle]

You're still breaking a promise though. It doesn't reflect on you as a person, but within the confines of that specific game, it labels your Civ as untrustworthy at least.