Breaking of NAPs

[Harry O]

Agreements after a theft of property or under treats or coercion mean nothing. The time to enter an NAP is before one takes anothers property in terms of this game a starting pop center. Otherwise its like a thief breaking into your home and stealing your jewelry or TV and expecting you pay him to get the property back even if you sign something. Such contracts are forfeit under any law.

This is such a basic concept of law and morality I can't believe I'm living in the same country I grew up in.

Harry O

[Acererak]

FWIW I tend to agree with Rick a bit here. NAP making as opposed to breaking is what's out of control. I think he makes a great point in regards to people agreeing to them a bit too hastily and having their hands tied by this fanatical forum based reporting system. That being said, I understand how most (as you can see on this thread) consider them UNBREAKABLE. I tend to think that the game would be more enjoyable if there was more backstabbing and alliance breaking. After all, that's part of any game. I have not done it and stick to what I agree to mostly because I know I will become a pariah if I don't. I find that a little silly as after all, it's just a game.

Some of the most engaging and interesting conflicts in history are predicated on the sham alliance or NAP. The classic and most well known would of course be the German - Soviet NAP of 1939. Both dictators needed it at the time to secure their borders and free them up elsewhere but they both also knew that conflict was inevitable.

Instead of it being a question of honor every time, I think there are some nuances where you consider it good strategy and game playing. Who here hasn't played Diplomacy? The whole freaking game is based on the art of the backstab! And it's is eminently enjoyable.

Sadly that is missing in Alamaze.

Reading this thread I know that I will continue to live to the letter of my NAPs but also am trying to be more selective about them.

Now, back to killing DuPont in game 124. (yes DuPont, I know- you're like moss growing on a rock and never give up etc etc.)

[Lord Thanatos]

Agreements after a theft of property or under treats or coercion mean nothing. The time to enter an NAP is before one takes anothers property in terms of this game a starting pop center. Otherwise its like a thief breaking into your home and stealing your jewelry or TV and expecting you pay him to get the property back even if you sign something. Such contracts are forfeit under any law.

This is such a basic concept of law and morality I can't believe I'm living in the same country I grew up in.

Harry O

Let us assume (for the sake of argument) that you are correct.

Your position still makes it clear that once someone has taken something from you in the game there is no possibility of reaching an agreement that you will consider binding. Good to know...

Measured by your own words, your actions are no better than a thief's - and you don't even care to strive to be.

The problem with your position is that conquering a pc is NOT the same as theft. When you begin the game you know your pcs are vulnerable to 14 other players UNLESS you have an agreement in place. Then... you should expect your pcs to be safe from that player. [You apparently violated this premise!]

Whether other players can expect you to keep your word is unrelated to anything anyone else has done. The answer to this question is either "yes" or "no." Each player will decide for themselves that answer...

[Lord Thanatos]

FWIW I tend to agree with Rick a bit here. NAP making as opposed to breaking is what's out of control. I think he makes a great point in regards to people agreeing to them a bit too hastily and having their hands tied by this fanatical forum based reporting system. That being said, I understand how most (as you can see on this thread) consider them UNBREAKABLE. I tend to think that the game would be more enjoyable if there was more backstabbing and alliance breaking. After all, that's part of any game. I have not done it and stick to what I agree to mostly because I know I will become a pariah if I don't. I find that a little silly as after all, it's just a game.

Some of the most engaging and interesting conflicts in history are predicated on the sham alliance or NAP. The classic and most well known would of course be the German - Soviet NAP of 1939. Both dictators needed it at the time to secure their borders and free them up elsewhere but they both also knew that conflict was inevitable.

Instead of it being a question of honor every time, I think there are some nuances where you consider it good strategy and game playing. Who here hasn't played Diplomacy? The whole freaking game is based on the art of the backstab! And it's is eminently enjoyable.

Sadly that is missing in Alamaze.

Reading this thread I know that I will continue to live to the letter of my NAPs but also am trying to be more selective about them.

Now, back to killing DuPont in game 124. (yes DuPont, I know- you're like moss growing on a rock and never give up etc etc.)

Backstabbing and alliance breaking would exacerbate the mega-alliance and 3 v 1 problems inherent in this game.

To me (and nobody else has to agree) if I can't rely on what my fellow gamers say then that is not the group of people I wish to spend my free time with.

[Lord Diamond]

I have found myself entering more "Gentleman's Peace" agreements than NAPs or alliances. In a GAP, both players agree not to take any hostile actions against one another without giving notice 24 hours before a turn is due. We don't need to spell out what 'hostile' means, as we already know that. If it would upset the other player, don't do it without giving notice that the GAP is disolved.

You don't have to be specific. It just lets you know that something is heading your way and you have time to prepare.

We all know there won't be any horrible surprises when the turns come in, but we also know that we have options to move forward in the game. To me, this makes the game more fun.

So far, nobody has broken or even disolved a GAP with me.