Question about diplomacy

[ano]

WraithLord

Just kidding though it would seem dom community is much too honorable, given that we're talking about a game, and that we're not talking break a NAP+3 or something. We're talking about breaking a long term NAP that gives one side a victory and the other a sure loss.

I still don't see any difference between these agreements. Once again, it was their suggestion and decision to enter such agreement and if they did enter it they should be responsible for the consequences.
Btw, I understand everything but saying "sure loss" is a bit early and you overestimate our powers. It is only turn 52 now and 13 nations alive. Some are stronger, some are weaker but there's no absolute and unquestionable leader who is higher as all the others. Yes, we have power, yes, we have some sc's but we are not THAT powerful now as you try to describe.

[licker]

Originally Posted by ano

I still don't see any difference between these agreements. Once again, it was their suggestion and decision to enter such agreement and if they did enter it they should be responsible for the consequences.

Uhh...

And how are they not being responsible for the consequences?

You can whine about it all you want, but in the end everyone should do what they think they need to do to win right? Or would you just sit there and watch some one else win when you had the ability to stop them?

Look I get what you're saying about this NAP, but I think all NAPs are meaningless if one side is ready to win the game, of course you can argue all you want about whether or not you have that kind of lead, I don't know, and I don't care.

What matters is what your neighbor thinks, and what gives them a chance. I don't see this as being an outright stab either, he's giving you 3 turns, changing the nature of the NAP on the fly. Big deal? To you it is, since you obviously think it will ruin your chance to win, but that's the whole point of playing the game isn't it?!?!???

You are of course free to carry over hard feelings to the next game, and to try and poison his reputation if you want, but realize that's a double edged sword. The more you slag on him, the less likely others may be to enter agreements with you in other games since they won't want to deal with the possibility that you get bent out of shape and slag them publicaly.

Personally I find all these instances of people taking out their frustrations on other people in OTHER games to be much much worse than someone breaking a NAP in the first place.

[WraithLord]

Since the topic is (or was supposed) to be general I'll try to answer in general terms, that what I state is my opinion. I do think there's a difference between breaking a NAP+3 (bad!) and breaking a NAP+30 or some such b/c you think the other side is on the brink of victory. This is my opinion, I could never exercise it in real game since I'd never accept the latter agreement.

Sure there is an element of he agreed or wanted this NAP let him suck it up but there's also an element that in dynamic game like dominions such long term NAP can put one of the parties in an unreasonable (from a fun game standpoint) point where he must do nothing while losing the game.

A word about our game. I honestly think you're very close to winning. This is my opinion based on all the intel I have. I may be wrong of course, but I'm stating my opinion as I see things, not trying to create a false show. Nothing wrong with you winning, your team plays very well and if other players made mistakes along the way (some of them diplomatic, other passive) well its their problem, and you're free and right to rip the rewards