5521 Another 48 hours

[Airetar]

EL -> ALL

Point of clarification on forum diplomacy games.  No allies, no agreements that last more than the upcoming season, no NAPS, right?  Or am I wrong?

What is a NAP or Alliance or an agreement that lasts more than three turns?

If kingdom A trades unknown amounts of gold for a large supply of food to kingdom B for 6 straight turns, is that OK?  What about 12 straight turns, or more?  Is that a NAP?  Is that an alliance?  Is that an agreement lasting more than the next season?  Does just renewing the trade each late season mean that these trades are OK?  Is a kingdom trading for most of the game with the same other kingdom going to attack that kingdom?

I've heard NAPS caused a lot of players to leave the game when they were OK, feeling they either had to form their own NAP or be attacked by multiple kingdoms.

Do you want these renewing trades between the same two kingdoms to be OK?  Should we form NAPS?  Back to the future.

[Senior Tactician]

EL -> ALL

Point of clarification on forum diplomacy games.  No allies, no agreements that last more than the upcoming season, no NAPS, right?  Or am I wrong?

What is a NAP or Alliance or an agreement that lasts more than three turns?  

If kingdom A trades unknown amounts of gold for a large supply of food to kingdom B for 6 straight turns, is that OK?  What about 12 straight turns, or more?  Is that a NAP?  Is that an alliance?  Is that an agreement lasting more than the next season?  Does just renewing the trade each late season mean that these trades are OK?  Is a kingdom trading for most of the game with the same other kingdom going to attack that kingdom?

I've heard NAPS caused a lot of players to leave the game when they were OK, feeling they either had to form their own NAP or be attacked by multiple kingdoms.

Do you want these renewing trades between the same two kingdoms to be OK?  Should we form NAPS?  Back to the future.

Not sure this issue has been hammered out.  Some people think "three turn trade agreements" that are renewed every three turns essentially constitute some sort of alliance.  I think that argument can be made.  I also think that its perfectly fine for two kingdoms to sit directly net to eachother and not ever have any conflict... 

The big problem, though, is that since this is such a small community, people get to know eachother, and gravitate towards people of similar philosophies then get in games together and never attack each other.   I don't really know if there is any remedy for this.  During the last half dozen or so games I've played, I almost never want to attack anyone, and wait for them to attack me.  When I do initiate, I generally build up for many turns, make myself mobile, and go for whoever is winning the game.  Certainly THEY should expect to be attacked.

And if I see someone winning a game, and I can't attack them, I taunt them until they attack me... Right Mr. Stinky Dragon?

I think the reason to possibly consider limiting trades is to inhibit the behavior of never attacking certain players, to ensure you always have a "secure boarder" or a trading partner.  The reason not to limit trades is that it probably wont do any good anyway.  Plus, some people, the shorter hairy-footed variety, would love to trade with everyone, all game long and if you can't, probably wont see much play time.

[Lord Thanatos]

EL -> ALL

Point of clarification on forum diplomacy games.  No allies, no agreements that last more than the upcoming season, no NAPS, right?  Or am I wrong?

What is a NAP or Alliance or an agreement that lasts more than three turns?  

If kingdom A trades unknown amounts of gold for a large supply of food to kingdom B for 6 straight turns, is that OK?  What about 12 straight turns, or more?  Is that a NAP?  Is that an alliance?  Is that an agreement lasting more than the next season?  Does just renewing the trade each late season mean that these trades are OK?  Is a kingdom trading for most of the game with the same other kingdom going to attack that kingdom?

I've heard NAPS caused a lot of players to leave the game when they were OK, feeling they either had to form their own NAP or be attacked by multiple kingdoms.

Do you want these renewing trades between the same two kingdoms to be OK?  Should we form NAPS?  Back to the future.

Not sure this issue has been hammered out.  Some people think "three turn trade agreements" that are renewed every three turns essentially constitute some sort of alliance.  I think that argument can be made.  I also think that its perfectly fine for two kingdoms to sit directly net to eachother and not ever have any conflict... 

The big problem, though, is that since this is such a small community, people get to know eachother, and gravitate towards people of similar philosophies then get in games together and never attack each other.   I don't really know if there is any remedy for this.  During the last half dozen or so games I've played, I almost never want to attack anyone, and wait for them to attack me.  When I do initiate, I generally build up for many turns, make myself mobile, and go for whoever is winning the game.  Certainly THEY should expect to be attacked.

And if I see someone winning a game, and I can't attack them, I taunt them until they attack me... Right Mr. Stinky Dragon?

I think the reason to possibly consider limiting trades is to inhibit the behavior of never attacking certain players, to ensure you always have a "secure boarder" or a trading partner.  The reason not to limit trades is that it probably wont do any good anyway.  Plus, some people, the shorter hairy-footed variety, would love to trade with everyone, all game long and if you can't, probably wont see much play time.

I do NOT have any problem with kingdom A and Kingdom B renewing 3 turn trade orders EVERY three turns -- so long as it is done publicly.

I have great problems with kingdoms coordinating with each other to attack a single other kingdom.  Only communicating every 3 turns seems to minimize this type of coordination.  Never attacking each other is not a problem.  Gravitating toward people of similar philosophies is not a problem.  "Ganging up on kingdoms/players" is the problem.  Then, those who like to form "gangs" complain about non-aggression pacts.  As if these are similar agreements.  They are NOT.

I am enjoying this game even though I continue to make errors.  Damn, I make errors every turn since I am waaaaaay out of practice.

There are some very good changes in Maelstrom I am learning to enjoy.  There are some very big changes I do NOT like at all.

We shall see what I think at the end. . .

I shall abide by whatever the consensus is here regarding 3 turn trade agreements.  I just won't ever agree NAPs are equivalent to coordinating attacks upon a single player.  Not even close to the same thing!

So, until a consensus to the contrary is established . . .



RD - DU

I wish to continue our trade agreement.  I am also willing to double the amounts.  I can send you 18k gold for 40k food, if this works for you.  It has the benefit of being an entirely new agreement as well.  What say you Good Druid?

[Lord Thanatos]

RD - DU

I am clicking Ready with the previous 9k gold for 20k food trade. I am willing to change my orders to 18k gold for 40k food on turns 21 and 22 if you indicated you want this before next turn processes.

Also, I would like to ransom back my agent that wandered into your dungeon. Please inform me of the appropriate cost for that transaction.

[Dwellomir]

UN - All

I am looking for 30K Food this turn.  Is anyone interested in the trade and at what exchange?

HabeusCorpus

AN - UN
We can offer you food this turn up to a miximum of 50k at a 2:1 rate. So 30k food would cost you 15k gold. Deal?

[Drogo]

NE - AN and all

I can take 50k food for 30k gold

[Dwellomir]

NE - AN and all

I can take 50k food for 30k gold

AN - NE
Ok, based on first come, first served principle 50k food is yours for 30k gold, effective this turn (only). I will see to that the elders make this happens now directly!

AN - UN
If you are still interested, we can agree on a future trade 30k food for 15k gold, but effective next turn?

[HabeusCorpus]

NE - AN and all

I can take 50k food for 30k gold

AN - NE
Ok, based on first come, first served principle 50k food is yours for 30k gold, effective this turn (only). I will see to that the elders make this happens now directly!

AN - UN
If you are still interested, we can agree on a future trade 30k food for 15k gold, but effective next turn?

UN - AN - I agree with first come first serve (I made the first offer).  I offer you $35K for 50K Food.  Needs to be this turn.  Agreed?

HabeusCorpus

[Dwellomir]

NE - AN and all

I can take 50k food for 30k gold

AN - NE
Ok, based on first come, first served principle 50k food is yours for 30k gold, effective this turn (only). I will see to that the elders make this happens now directly!

AN - UN
If you are still interested, we can agree on a future trade 30k food for 15k gold, but effective next turn?

UN - AN - I agree with first come first serve (I made the first offer).  I offer you $35K for 50K Food.  Needs to be this turn.  Agreed?

HabeusCorpus

AN - NE & UN

The Ancient Ones recognizes both you dire need for food in these perilous times. 

As we have no part in your conflict and we want to be fair, the elders have met and decided you will both be granted your wishes. We will trade you both on equal terms, 50k food for 30k gold each THIS turn. You will have to agree to this before this season ends (so in about 12h IRL that is), a simple "yes" in reply to this message is enough. 

This decision/offer is final. The Ancient Ones have spoken.

[HabeusCorpus]

UN - AN

Agreed and confirmed Wise One.

HabeusCorpus