RBP2 Lurker Discussion Thread - No Players!

[T-hawk]

The question in and of itself is okay, it is not giving away information, just asking for motivation. And I agree that the motivation isn't clear upfront, since Rome has little to gain from this attack, especially considering the opportunity cost of what else the Praets could be doing. What's potentially not okay is if Whosit reconsiders and changes his actions in response.

It really reads like Morgan is conducting diplomacy on Sullla's behalf and trying to talk Whosit out of the attack. I can certainly understand the motivation: Sullla is going to explode when the Praetorians arrive, and then we won't have his reports to read anymore after he dies or quits.

No harm was done since Whosit is sticking to his plan, but this was very close to going too far.

[zakalwe]

Morgan's post certainly reads like he is trying to influence the game, but it is not spoilerish. There is plenty of stuff like that in RBP1 too, and nobody is complaining about it there. Perhaps people are being a bit oversensitive?

[novice]

That game is in another era where all the players know the map (I presume) and are well aware of the geopolitical situation, so I'm not sure how comparable it is.

[Selrahc]

Does everyone else think that replacement civ leaders should be under the influence of treaties negotiated by previous players?

It seems a little odd to me that the Inca are still bound by the NAP's negotiated two leaders ago. Makes it hard to get a fresh diplomatic start.

[T-hawk]

Out-of-game diplomacy deals can't be enforced as binding anyway, so it's a moot question. The new Inca leader can decide for himself and nobody can tell him that he can't.

From the perspective of other players that the deals are with, if a deal is broken, it doesn't matter whether Inca's original leader or a new leader did it.

[scooter]

I think so only because then the work by other players (athlete + kalin) goes down the drain because they got that set up specifically so that attacking all the way around the world was less risky. In other words, they get ripped off just because the current player left the game.

That said, I think if I was taking over the first thing I'd do is cancel the NAP's (adhering to the cool-down period) and then re-negotiate them if/when I felt it was a good idea. I think you can do that and still get a fresh start diplomatically, or at least pretty closely. But yes your hands are still tied for a little bit but that's life.

Edit: I agree with what T-Hawk said though. I just think the "right" (or honorable or however you want to put it) thing to do is to honor the deals.

[sunrise089]

(Yes, I'm biased because of how much it worked out for me in RBP1) I very much think players should respect NAPs when they take over. Taking over a game is a very jarring experience, and really doesn't make sense from a gameplay perspective. It's just a sad concession to the realities of real-life. But NAPs aren't signed in a vacuum - civs may have made in or out of game concessions to get them, and then behaved in a certain way due to the presence on a NAP. Of course in-game you have to be prepared for a backstab, but one can factor in the risk of that based on the tactical and strategic situation, the personality of the players, etc. It could pretty much wreck the game if a new player took the "start fresh" attitude to the extreme.

[Reagan]

Does everyone else think that replacement civ leaders should be under the influence of treaties negotiated by previous players?

It seems a little odd to me that the Inca are still bound by the NAP's negotiated two leaders ago. Makes it hard to get a fresh diplomatic start.

The counterpoint to that is to look at it from the standpoint of real world examples. If the US enters into an agreement (whether formalized as a treaty or left as a firm, informal understanding), it does so with a country and not merely whomever happens to be leading that country at the time. With certain exceptions (e.g., Obama's recent repudiation of our missle shield commitments to Poland), most presidents tend to honor the diplomatic commitments of their predecessors. The same should hold true in an MP Civ game, too, IMO.

[Selrahc]

I'm probably just looking at it from a biased perspective since I know that it is all part of an eventual plan to rip apart the Inca. The fact that I can use lurker knowledge to see how a diplomacy decision taken an age ago by a completely different person has the potential to screw over the team in unsettling. Feels a bit like I'm watching a guy being served up on a platter.


I know the situation isn't quite that bad for the Inca, but they seem like they're in for a tough time.

[Sir Bruce]

I don't think Inca's situation is that bad. Kathlete's armies appear to be on the verge of obliteration at the hand of Spullla and Whosit has never seemed that interested in attacking them, at least in the short run.

Inca has a lot of land, especially with Mortius's ruins to the south. It sounds like IKZ didn't develop the land very well, but DSP started fixing that up pretty well. With most of the world at war, now is a great time for Inca to use their NAPs, improve their land, and storm back. Let's see what Slaze can do with it.