RBP2 Lurker Discussion Thread - No Players!

[MWIN]

Did jowy break NAP with Spullla?

[regoarrarr]

Did jowy break NAP with Spullla?

I believe he canceled his NAP a few turns ago

[Swiss Pauli]

What he said. Shady diplomacy is the ONLY thing I would carry over from one game to another. I got the impression from the Apolyton demogame that the MP community sees NAPs as binding (and in the case of Spain rules are explicit on this). I would expect the RB community to be at least as honorable .

Darrell

[regoarrarr]

I will have 10 phalanx, 1 spear, 1 warrior, 4 chariots and 1 archer for the attack. Ottomans should have some 4 horsearchers and 2 chariots to add to that.

vs.

(Expect 8 phalanxes, 3 chariots, and the spear to attack.)

(Expect 4 horse archers + 2 chariots to be the attackers; these guys have to have left at least a couple of units behind for defense.)

[Erick the Red]

I really don't understand this fixation on breaking NAPs. Of course people will remember who is more likely to break one and factor that in, but the problem is that you quickly run out of people to trust. In this game, haven't 3 people broken NAPs already? Whosit directly did, and gifting units to a 3rd party to attack with is really not that different from attacking.

Of the teams playing honorably, two of them had the goal of quickly expanding and teching to a medieval tech advantage to let them crush their neighbors. How valuable are early NAPs with them?

In particular I'd be much more leery of working with Sulla than anyone else based on this game. Often it seems that his diplomatic requests appear fair on face value but are very one sided. From Jowy's point of view I can see the decision whether to provide metal to Byzantium as a close judgment call at the time. From Sulla's point of view, it's huge - almost handing them the game right there. If I found myself in Jowy's situation in a future game with a close call, I would do the opposite of what Sulla wanted just to be safe.

[Ruff_Hi]

He shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt anyway because he's being kind of a douche for attacking us.

Wrong. Just because you are a douche (or in Australian slang ... a dipstick) doesn't have any impact on benefit of the doubt, who goes first or anything like that.

So for the moment, I'm not doing anything until Speaker has a chance to respond. I am sending this off to athlete though:

Dear Rebel Alliance,

Remember that we have a NAP that lasts through Turn 100. You guys can't attack us until the start of Turn 101! Just because Jowy got anxious and jumped the gun doesn't mean you can break our prior agreements.

Sullla
The Killer Angels

Wrong again. A NAP can certainly be broken at any time. Guess Sullla is in spin mode again. Note he said end of T100 while athlete's thread quotes the agreement as 'until T100'.

[Krill]

Yup, I wondered where Alastair Campbells disapeared to.

[regoarrarr]

Wrong. Just because you are a douche (or in Australian slang ... a dipstick) doesn't have any impact on benefit of the doubt, who goes first or anything like that.

Wrong again. A NAP can certainly be broken at any time. Guess Sullla is in spin mode again. Note he said end of T100 while athlete's thread quotes the agreement as 'until T100'.

Yes from the agreement quoted in Athlete's thread I definitely agree with their interpretation that they can attack with no qualms on T100.

It will be interesting to see if kathlete try to say that to Sullla now (I doubt it) or just quote the agreement in an email when they attack on T100 (my vote)

[BobRoberts]

This turn split rule really doesn't seem good - the second half is clearly better than the first...

Can see future DoW's will involve attacking in the final 10s of the turn to ensure that the attacker gets the second half advantage?


And on a sidetrack thinking back a little, am wondering if a fair turn split means "*I* should get more than half the turn?"

[sunrise089]

This turn split rule really doesn't seem good - the second half is clearly better than the first...

Can see future DoW's will involve attacking in the final 10s of the turn to ensure that the attacker gets the second half advantage?


And on a sidetrack thinking back a little, am wondering if a fair turn split means "*I* should get more than half the turn?"

You're right - the no slaving rule is very unfair. However this was all discussed back during our war and for whatever reason everyone voted for it

I agree with you that all DoWs should be with 1 second left...I have no idea why Jowy was so silly and DoW'd as early as he did.