Question about diplomacy

[konming]

Breaking NAP when the other party grows too powerful reflects either his poor judgement (when signing the NAP) or his poor character. Either way, I personally would not sign anything in good faith with him ever again.

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.

I think this is a good example. One party seems desperate not to be an target and proposed a NAP so the powerful party will attack someone else. When the weaker party became not so desperate (maybe under the protection of said NAP) and maybe even has a chance to win, he finds his previous dealing inconvinient. Well, you be the judge.

[Kuritza]

Originally Posted by konming

I think this is a good example. One party seems desperate not to be an target and proposed a NAP so the powerful party will attack someone else. When the weaker party became not so desperate (maybe under the protection of said NAP) and maybe even has a chance to win, he finds his previous dealing inconvinient. Well, you be the judge.

Fail. We were not going to be their next target, absolutely. We just knew they are going to win game, I was worried about Agartha/Tien Chi combination since turn 1, and we wanted to have our share of fun as well. And we had.
But other parties asked me to reconsider the truce, urgently and repeatedly. So I did what I though will be right - proposed to break the NAP that allows them to win this game unchallenged, and even give them 3 turns to prepare as if we had a standard agreement.

Anyway - screw this, I'm waiting for turn 60. Not worth the nerves, I have already been called a liar by a liar in this thread.
Oh, and of course as someone's said, I'm not entering long-term agreements anymore. Something to be learned out of this game.