Quote:
Originally Posted by JimMorrison
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuritza
>> It was proposed by Kuritza's team because they thought they could grow very, very fat by the time turn 60 is reached.
You try to put words in my mouth, dont you? We offered you that truce because we felt f@$cking hopeless. Ask my teammate if you wish. We saw that your opponents fall one by one, we didnt see ANY way we can change that, so we decided - to hell with this game, lets just sign a treaty with them and have some fun against somebody else before its over.
|
It still begs the question "why make a NAP with someone who sees it like this?".
So, if you had approached Ano, and instead of saying, "Hi, we would like a mutual NAP until turn 60 so we can focus on other people", you had instead said, "OMG please leave us alone until we find the opportune time to kick you in the balls". -- Do you think that he would have accepted. |
Do you really see no difference between "the opportune time to kick you in the balls" and "we might as well just go AI, because by the time the treaty is up, you'll be unstoppable"?
(I'm not in this game, so I can't comment on whether they'll be unstoppable by turn 60 or not, so I'm speaking generically.)
The first is obviously bad, the second is what we're disputing. Is it valid to break a deal when that's the only way to keep someone from winning? Or from achieving such dominance they can't be stopped?
And I'd feel fine making a deal with someone who saw things like that. I'd just be wary if I was getting too dominant. But I would still expect him to honor the deal if I was vulnerable because of another war, for example.
Re: Question about diplomacy
Threaded Mode