Posts: 9,706
Threads: 69
Joined: Dec 2010
Should we add a clause about either team getting attacked (i.e. entering a war without actually declaring war)? Just to make sure no "creative interpretation" of the rules can be made allowing them to attack us in case of a dogpile.
Not entirely necessary, but I don't think it'd hurt either.
Posts: 17,496
Threads: 78
Joined: Nov 2005
Also, that opt out portion needs to start immediately, not at turn 175. Yes, it's unlikely they declare on WPC before t175 but let's just cover our bases
Suffer Game Sicko
Dodo Tier Player
Posts: 6,471
Threads: 63
Joined: Sep 2006
The opt-out has no cooldown provision, right? So they could opt-out and attack our units the same turn?
Posts: 15,342
Threads: 112
Joined: Apr 2007
(July 10th, 2013, 12:08)sunrise089 Wrote: The opt-out has no cooldown provision, right? So they could opt-out and attack our units the same turn?
Yep, that's the idea. The reverse is also true. If they declare on UCiv or WPC, we could immediately opt out and burn their border city with us.
(July 10th, 2013, 11:11)pindicator Wrote: Also, that opt out portion needs to start immediately, not at turn 175. Yes, it's unlikely they declare on WPC before t175 but let's just cover our bases
That's the idea yeah. We can clarify it with them, they are definitely not going to send us back a simple yes or no, so there will be further discussion.
(July 10th, 2013, 11:03)Ichabod Wrote: Should we add a clause about either team getting attacked (i.e. entering a war without actually declaring war)? Just to make sure no "creative interpretation" of the rules can be made allowing them to attack us in case of a dogpile.
Not entirely necessary, but I don't think it'd hurt either.
I'm not totally sure how this would happen. We don't want it to be if one of our neighbors declares on us, they get free reign to cancel.
Posts: 9,706
Threads: 69
Joined: Dec 2010
I think I was unclear with my message. I just thought it would be good to explicitly state that, if we are attacked by another team, CFC can't opt out of the NAP. Likewise, if they are attacked, we can't opt out of it either. I know it sounds obvious, but better to clearly state it on the deal than to allow the possibility of a different interpretation.
Posts: 15,342
Threads: 112
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,510
Threads: 61
Joined: Oct 2010
(July 10th, 2013, 16:09)Sullla Wrote: It's not our fault that ...
What does fault, or fairness, have to do with Realpolitik? WPC took an action that benefited us. Not from altruism, but because they thought it would benefit them too. We should make sure it does, because we want everyone to believe:
Help Realms Beyond = Help Yourself
Even if it costs us something now.
We don't have to be best friends forever or anything, just make it clear that you can work with us.
EitB 25 - Perpentach
Occasional mapmaker
Posts: 1,834
Threads: 34
Joined: Feb 2006
scooter Wrote:Yep, that's the idea. The reverse is also true. If they declare on UCiv or WPC, we could immediately opt out and burn their border city with us.
Paranoid thought, can't one side declare a phoney war with someone else and then have a surprise attack with no real warning? Unlikely and a total scumbag move I know, just wanted to air the small possibility, even though if you're going to be paranoid about something like that you might as well never trust a NAP.
"We are open to all opinions as long as they are the same as ours."
Posts: 3,916
Threads: 14
Joined: Feb 2011
I don't think so, I'd assume the language would be that the person who didn't declare war on a third party gets to opt out of the NAP.
Posts: 17,496
Threads: 78
Joined: Nov 2005
(July 10th, 2013, 18:20)Mardoc Wrote: (July 10th, 2013, 16:09)Sullla Wrote: It's not our fault that ...
What does fault, or fairness, have to do with Realpolitik? WPC took an action that benefited us. Not from altruism, but because they thought it would benefit them too. We should make sure it does, because we want everyone to believe:
Help Realms Beyond = Help Yourself
Even if it costs us something now.
We don't have to be best friends forever or anything, just make it clear that you can work with us.
Yeah, this would be the only reason to cut WPC in. But from the tone of other teams, it may be too late. See Apolyton's "role-play" as an example.
(July 10th, 2013, 19:09)Nicolae Carpathia Wrote: I don't think so, I'd assume the language would be that the person who didn't declare war on a third party gets to opt out of the NAP.
Exactly.
Suffer Game Sicko
Dodo Tier Player
|
