Diplomacy ethics

[Belac]

Even with binding diplomacy active diplomacy is best, and proving prove that you're worth more as an ally than as a potential conquest is important.

All binding diplomacy does is ensure that you get some warning before you become a potential conquest. Your most honest neighbor who has the most unabrogratable NAP-3 with you will retire it and attack you in 3 turns if he likes his other neighbors better. All unbreakable diplomacy does is give you 3 turns' warning (but he probably decided to fight you several turns before breaking the NAP, so he would be hard to dissuade).

[Jarkko]

Originally Posted by Belac

All binding diplomacy does is ensure that you get some warning before you become a potential conquest.

That is the whole point, isn't it? The whole concept of strategical suprise is gone. Will you ever attack an opponent who is stronger than you if you have to tell him many turns before that you are going to attack? No you won't, it would be suicide. In a game with binding diplomacy, when you notice somebody is heading for victory the game is already over, there is nothing you can do.

Based on my limited experience with binding diplo games, the games are *very* boring. To me they feel like playing single-player game, except some nations are scripted to be unable to attack or harm you in any way. I will rather watch paint dry than join a game with binding diplo ever again

[Belac]

Originally Posted by Jarkko

That is the whole point, isn't it? The whole concept of strategical suprise is gone. Will you ever attack an opponent who is stronger than you if you have to tell him many turns before that you are going to attack? No you won't, it would be suicide. In a game with binding diplomacy, when you notice somebody is heading for victory the game is already over, there is nothing you can do.

Based on my limited experience with binding diplo games, the games are *very* boring. To me they feel like playing single-player game, except some nations are scripted to be unable to attack or harm you in any way. I will rather watch paint dry than join a game with binding diplo ever again

3 turns is not sufficient to prepare against an opponent who has spent several turns preparing before retiring the NAP. It's sufficient warning to get -something- up, but a good player won't retire a NAP without having spent several turns getting ready. So the attacker is doing his final tuneup while the defender is still recruiting/repositioning a main force, unless the defender was prepared through scouting and other means. Signing a NAP and then treating the other player as unable to attack you is never wise.

[thejeff]

Originally Posted by Jarkko

That is the whole point, isn't it? The whole concept of strategical suprise is gone. Will you ever attack an opponent who is stronger than you if you have to tell him many turns before that you are going to attack? No you won't, it would be suicide. In a game with binding diplomacy, when you notice somebody is heading for victory the game is already over, there is nothing you can do.

That also neglects the other aspect of diplomacy: other people. Most of the time, if you notice someone heading for victory, you can round up other people to help attack him. Since you'll likely want to do this even in a non-binding diplomacy game and "I'm going to break my word to him, but you can trust me" isn't a very good argument, it may still be worth giving warning, so your allies will trust you.

[GrudgeBringer]

I think Jarko misunderstood me. You aren't one one list or the other, cut and dried. I keep a list of those that only I feel acted dishonorably. And that could well be towards another player and not me.

Just because your not on that list doesn't make you my pal by any means. Lets just say I will give you some trust and we will build trust in each other over that and other games.

One time Executor and I where allies and where on our way to winning the game when I ran hard into a nation and the fighting got pretty hard and heavy. I inadvertently cut Executor off form expansion and after a while he actually came to me and apologized but said that he had to expand and that I was the weakest link because of my war and that he had to attack me.

All my troops where south and he started across the north and started taking province after province...I couldn't stop him so I just continued my war in the south until he finally came down and took me out and took over my war. He won the game.

I do NOT consider that dishonorable and it was my fault I didn't protect myself.

What I am saying is, while I have a list of those I don't trust, doesn't mean they can't be trusted. Just as those I have good relations with sometimes we just have to fight it out.

But sometimes I can breathe a sigh of relief when I find a certain player is next to me.

I guess for me its a community game first and a war game second...not a win at all cost game. You will never see me in the hall of fame (except on a team game). And I DO respect others to have the right to be Chaotic Evil.

[Psycho]

Originally Posted by Jarkko

That is the whole point, isn't it? The whole concept of strategical suprise is gone. Will you ever attack an opponent who is stronger than you if you have to tell him many turns before that you are going to attack? No you won't, it would be suicide. In a game with binding diplomacy, when you notice somebody is heading for victory the game is already over, there is nothing you can do.

This is completely untrue. I never broke a NAP, but was still able to exercise many successful surprise attacks. You don't have to surround yourself with NAPs, make only those that are necessary/benefactory; end them when they are no longer needed, not necessarily attacking immediately. When attacking a stronger opponent, find an ally or end your NAP in a bad moment for the stronger player, for example as soon as he starts a war with someone. If you notice that someone is heading for victory three turns before he wins, there is little you can do anyways. Keep an eye on the game and you will be able to end your NAP in a timely manner.

I find it pretty stupid that all new games starting these days advertise diplomacy rules - either as machiavellian or binding. I would never join any of those games. Leave it to each player to play the way that suits him.