MP Etiquette

[alexti]

Nagot Gick Fel said:
Although most often, devious players will try to use some sort of 'magical time compression' to argue they didn't violate the NAP warning. Consider this: A and B agreed on a NAP with a 3-turn escape clause. Turn 39, A (who used only email so far) sends an ingame message to B to notify him he wants to cancel the NAP. Turn 40 A issues his armies orders to invade B's provinces. Turn 41, A's orders are effectively carried on. A will argue that the 3 turns-delay was respected (39-40-41, implying he sent his notice at the beginning of turn 39, and his armies invaded at the end of turn 41), while from B's viewpoint, only 1 turn passed since he received the message in turn 40 and was invaded in turn 41. Or even zero if he considers that the attack was actually initiated in turn 40. Sounds silly? Yet I've seen that happen, exactly as described.

Interesting story... I was always assuming that 3-turn notice means that if the messenger is sent on turn 39, the armies can be sent on turn 42. Thus the messenger arrives on turn 40 and invading armies on turn 43, which seem to respect the pact conditions. For this reason I usually duplicate the termination notice in-game and in email.

[Nagot Gick Fel]

alexti said:
I was always assuming that 3-turn notice means that if the messenger is sent on turn 39, the armies can be sent on turn 42.

I guess that's what most players would assume too, anyway you'll eventually find someone someday to 'interpret' that in the most favourable way (for him) if you just 'assume' things without being more explicit.

Someone should define (with surgical precision) the terms NAP, escape clause, etc. in a 'Diplomacy in Dominions' article, so we could refer to it without having to repeat the tedious stuff everytime we try to achieve a deal with another nation.

[Alneyan]

Nagot Gick Fel said:
Someone should define (with surgical precision) the terms NAP, escape clause, etc. in a 'Diplomacy in Dominions' article, so we could refer to it without having to repeat the tedious stuff everytime we try to achieve a deal with another nation.

Hmm, let's see.

* Standard time measure (known as Nagot time based on the tale of the general who had expected reinforcements to arrive one turn earlier because of a different conception of time; his Last word when he realised his mistake was "Nagot". Modern historians believe he timed his Last words a bit too late, and failed to finish the famous phrase). The standard time measure is based on the viewpoint of the receiver, and all times are based upon this view. For example, a message sent on turn 39 and scheduled to reach the target by turn 40 will belong to turn 40 in the STM system. Likewise, an offensive launched on turn 51 will effectively happen on turn 52 STM. For all other purposes, the standard time is equivalent to the variable time.

* Variable time system. In this system, time is perceived through the viewpoint of the sender. A message sent on turn 39 will take place on turn 39 VMT. A rough conVersion between standard and variable time can be done with the following formula: VTS+1=STM. Note that all times must be given in the same reference medium to avoid creating further confusion; as such, if a message sent on turn 39 standard time warns of an offensive by turn 42, turn 42 will have to be standard time as well.

* Non-Aggression Pact. This treaty means two nations have agreed not to attack each other during its duration (see above for an explanation of the various time systems). None of the involved parties may attack the other, either through mundane or magical means. Likewise, it is forbidden to launch offensives against both the provinces and the armies of the other nation. If a player fears the other nation might attack her army by mistake, it is advised to explicitely tell the other party about moves in provinces belonging to a third party.

* Non-Interference Pact. This treaty encompasses all the provisions of the above, and also prevents the two involved parties from disclosing information with other nations. For all purposes, the two nations are prohibited from meddling in each other's business, and information leak would be regarded as a breach of this treaty.

* Trade Alliance. Under this treaty, the two involved parties agree to gather their economical strength against other nations. As such, the trade allies are to share all information regarding trades with other nations, and any trade can only take place if both nations will it. For example, if Marignon and Man have a trade alliance, they both need to agree to selling weapons of magical destruction to Ermor. This treaty is mostly useful to enforce a trade blockade on another nation.

This was a standard guide for apprentice diplomats within the Celestial Empire. For graduate students, please consult the twenty-seven tomes about "Diplomacy, Furthering the Cause of the Celestial City, and Splitting Hairs".

Did you have something like this in mind Nagot, or was I digressing once more?

[Nagot Gick Fel]

Alneyan said:
Did you have something like this in mind Nagot, or was I digressing once more?

[KroolDeath]

I've got two interesting MP scenarios (at least interesting to me), that perhaps I will share when I get home from work, as long as I don't reveal too much because they are games in progress, but I think it may reveal another side of the coin.

Krool

[KroolDeath]

Great post, I too thought about making a similar post when I started, but as Thufir said, I don't think I could have done it as well.

Diplomacy in this game is interesting to me because the fact that an enemy in one game may be an ally in another, or maybe an enemy forever. The fact of the matter is, you will see each other again, either in-game, forums, etc.

I think it is probably healthy not to carry grudges out of game.

Krool

[Schmoe]

I'd like to express my views on the subject, which bleach may care about, as he/she is in a game with me right now.

I think that trustworthiness and honor are commodities, just as magical gems, troops, and gold are commodities. Both of these have some worth in that, the more a nation has at some point in the game, the more likely someone is to believe what that nation promises later on, and the more likely someone is to make an agreement with that nation. This can often be an advantage for the side in question. Consider the following contrived example:

You are at war with two nations, and you probably can't continue to fight a two front war. Because of other world-wide events, these two nations both propose a peace treaty to you. One has been shown to be untrustworthy, one has been fair and trustworthy in the past. Which are you more likely to make peace with? Chances are, you will make peace with the trustworthy opponent, as that peace means more to you. Thus, the trustworthy nation has gained.

Like all other commodities, there will be times when you absolutely cannot afford to remain faithful to an agreement, but it's good to do so while you can. That is why I gave Jotunheim a 1 turn warning prior to attacking. That is also why I gave Abyssia a 1 turn warning prior to attacking. Both of these decisions were at some cost to me, but I was hoping to show that, while my country certainly has ambitious designs, they wish to carry out those designs while remaining honorable. While I don't expect honor in return, I hope that my actions increase the likelihood of receiving it.

Just my 2 cents.