RBP2 Lurker Discussion Thread - No Players!

[Mr. Nice Guy]

If I may be so bold, I think that people holding things against someone for what happens in a previous game is pretty juvenile. The two key words are PREVIOUS and GAME.

Insofar as it would be fun to watch, I would love to watch an NAP-stab play out. I would rather watch a grander NAP-stab such as HRE vs. Romali. Can you imagine the Lurker thread watching that play out?

But to comment on the quote, I cannot agree that holding past actions against opponents is juvenile. Compare MP Civ to any other strategy game and you will see what I mean. In poker, for instance, the best players know the tendencies of their opponents and act accordingly. My knowledge of your tendencies (gathered from past hands) can only serve to make my game stronger. In Civ, the RNG affects the game, but any knowledge I get about my opponents (from past games too!) makes my game stronger.

[Cyneheard]

I think a Dune event would be much better than Atlantis. Krill would have to decide where to draw the line, but it would leave the basic map shape the same, just merely make all Incan territory useless for anything but tactical maneuverings. IMO, leaving current hills and peaks in place would make sense, but could go either way. Kathlete and Whosit would lose the ability to exploit that territory after a future war, but they don't have to fight that future war, and that's decently close to balanced. At least as close as humanly possible. The Inca would not have been a pushover, although 2v1, with their development, would have probably been successful.

[antisocialmunky]

It really borks the diplo to India or Bust though...

[Rowain]

If I may be so bold, I think that people holding things against someone for what happens in a previous game is pretty juvenile. The two key words are PREVIOUS and GAME. Its a game and if someone does something that they believe is their only or best chance to win then fair enough.

I agree if you hold a grudge against a player outside of the game because of the game BUT if I know a player will break treaties as soon as it is to his advantage I would deeply distrust him.
As a matter of fact It is likly I would attack them asap not because of a disliking but you are saver if you have trustworthy neighbours and get rid of the one who will betray when it is to his advantage.

[Krill]

I agree if you hold a grudge against a player outside of the game because of the game BUT if I know a player will break treaties as soon as it is to his advantage I would deeply distrust him.

This. If people don't have a reason to fear for their reputation, then their is no downside to breaking treaties once it is to their advantage. Obviously shades of grey are involved, but the gist of it is simple enough.

[Twinkletoes89]

I see where people are coming from, but I believe that each PB game is different, and I don't agree with breaking agreements for the sake of it.

The situation I am talking about exclusively is Korea. Now Korea were forced into a long NAP by Whosit to avoid being completely crippled before island cities get off the ground.

NOW, with the soon to be revealed knowledge of Rome's forces being on the other side of the map, I believe that a Korea NAP-stab would both be the best and most profitable move to get back involved in the game. If they do not take this opportunity, can you think of another opportunity for them to get back in the game, given their weakened research?

Is this REALLY dishonourable? I would say that a key part of a PB game - is the politics of it, shifting alliances and diplomacy. Now surely nap-stabs are a part of the game, if they can be justified in the threads? Regardless of whether Korea's nap-stab succeeded or failed, are you telling me that people in this community would put a question mark against those players even if they could fully justify their actions as being more than a land-grab? I don't think that is fair.

To avoid being mis-interpreted, I am not and have never stated that I support nap-stabs based upon pure ambition and landgrabs with no proper justification. BUT, I do support justified nap-stabs which are a proper political tool in playing the game in my opinion. Korea's fits in in this respect.

My reading of gameplay is that if everyone just played 'honourably' and no agreements were ever broken, it would be pretty boring. Just look at this game, now there is a 3 way alliance of Jowy, Athlete and Whosit it seems very unlikely that they will be final three unless Spulla pull something HUGE out of the bag. Now to me, that seems pretty bad that we aren't out of the ancient age yet and it seems like the final 3 is well defined.

[Sir Bruce]

NAP-stabbing is a potential tool for all players, and there are right and wrong times to do it.

The best example I can think of when a NAP-stab is basically required is when two Civs (call them A and B) have a NAP near the end of the game. After the NAP was signed, it becomes clear to all civs that B is about to win the game. However, A can break their NAP and prevent B from winning.

If we believe that all players should be playing to win the game, that means using everything within their power and the game rules to do so. It is clearly within A's power and rules of the game for him to NAP-stab and thereby avoid defeat. In that case, I think A MUST NAP-stab. Doing otherwise lowers the integrity of the game. It would then be unfair to penalize A in future games for attempting to win this game, even though it involved NAP-stabbing.

Another option would be to create new rules for CIV or Pitboss games, where NAPs are binding agreements between parties, enforceable through threads and lurkers. This would be much like the turn-order agreements that are in place in the different PB games. But until these rules are created, there are situations where NAP-stabbing should occur.

[Jabah]

One of the point about the NAP between Korea and Rome, is that (iirc) Korea was the one asking for a long NAP (specifically to prevent Rome from finishing them with its praetorian army after a 'short' NAP).

Regarding the possible gain from breaking this time:
Even with 8 praet away (and they would have to trust Spulla about the number), Rome has enough at home to prevent any major invasion and looking at production numbers, breaking the NAP will result for Korea at losing in a very short term all their mainland cities (capital+captured while breaking the NAP).

In short I would not break the NAP if I was Korea

(HRE, Ottoman or Rome on another hand, once spullla is crippled enough, having an opportunity strike on your closest neighbours could be more 'acceptable')

[Twinkletoes89]

One of the point about the NAP between Korea and Rome, is that (iirc) Korea was the one asking for a long NAP (specifically to prevent Rome from finishing them with its praetorian army after a 'short' NAP).

Regarding the possible gain from breaking this time:
Even with 8 praet away (and they would have to trust Spulla about the number), Rome has enough at home to prevent any major invasion and looking at production numbers, breaking the NAP will result for Korea at losing in a very short term all their mainland cities (capital+captured while breaking the NAP).

In short I would not break the NAP if I was Korea

(HRE, Ottoman or Rome on another hand, once spullla is crippled enough, having an opportunity strike on your closest neighbours could be more 'acceptable')

I completely disagree with this last point - all of HRE, Ottoman and Rome would be 'nap-stabbing' out of pure opportunism and would be tantamount to a landgrab - especially this early in the game. That is dishonourable in my eyes.

If Korea were in the position of HRE, with a solid mainland foundation of cities and budding economy, then I would not be advocating a NAP-stab as they would not be in the massively weak position they are now. I believe they will surely lose unless something drastic and brave happens. Hence I believe a NAP-stab is the best thing they can do, and not at all dishonourable.

[T-hawk]

Changing the topic, but Twinkletoes, if you're interested in taking over as a spoiled lurker, perhaps you should pull out of the spoiler lurker thread for now?