Re: Pitboss BTS: Fog of War - Signups

**Dandridge** · 10-24-2009, 04:36 AM

Originally Posted by Munro

Dan - what's going on here? We are still in a NAP for another 13 turns yet.

you must be joking, right

**Ebenezer** · 10-24-2009, 06:16 AM

I'd kinda like to know the answer to this one Dan.

Were you or were you not in a written agreement with Munro?

Obviously the rules don't say "you can't break treaties", but it says something for the value of treaties with you in the future.

**Niklas** · 10-24-2009, 06:53 AM

What Elkad says. Of course treaties can be broken, but there has to be an opportunity cost to breaking them, and that cost is the loss of trustworthiness for future games.

**Ebenezer** · 10-24-2009, 06:53 AM

BTW, game is paused.

Edit: by me. I'm waiting for a response from Dandridge regarding his apparent lack of good sportsmanship.

**Munro** · 10-24-2009, 09:05 AM

From civstats:

Alright, we got a deal there. NAP untill 1700 AD.

DanDRidge

Congratulations Dan. What an impressive civ player you are.

Out of respect for the other players I am going to try and play on but it's such a cheap and dishonest way to win, I can't say I really see any enjoyment in it now. :|

If we could possibly leave the game paused for a few more hours I will come back and take my turn later today.

**Dandridge** · 10-24-2009, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by Munro

Congratulations Dan. What an impressive civ player you are.

Out of respect for the other players I am going to try and play on but it's such a cheap and dishonest way to win, I can't say I really see any enjoyment in it now. :|

If we could possibly leave the game paused for a few more hours I will come back and take my turn later today.

What are you talking about? You know very well that in 1545 AD our NAP came abruptly to an end, because of your own actions. I told you very clearly that if you attack Pinot Noir or if you continue to gift units to Ricardo/Morgan you'll deliberately break our NAP, since I was in war against Ric/Morgan. Since then you've been openly waging war against me though Morgan. You didn't care a bit of our NAP.

I find it really crooked that you blame me on breaking a NAP that you broke yourself. Quite unbelievable

.

**da_Vinci** · 10-24-2009, 11:42 AM

Well, for the furture, this raises a whole set of questions about whether players are bound by the spirit or the letter of diplomatic agreements, and if clear spirit or letter even exist.

Does NAP mean only no invasions between the two countries, or no declaration of war between the two nations, or does it mean true neutrality (not that Rooseveltian neutrality of WW II), or does it mean cooperation, or even alliance?

Does an NAP between players A and B mean that B can attack player C, ally of A, and not expect A to assist C with gold and gifted troops? Does the B attack on C break the NAP? Does the A reinforcement of C break the NAP? Perhaps not, if the gifts from A only serve to defend in C's lands? After all, it is an NAP, not an NDP.

Then there is the vast uncharted territory of how to resolve perceptions of infractions of the NAP. If one agrees to vague terms, and then dislikes the "partner" taking actions that are not explicitly prohibited, is that grounds for termination before the agreed on date?

Of course, any deal can be reversed at any time by any party, so I am discussing the conditions under which various actions would pass as acceptable in the court of public opinion.

dV

**Dandridge** · 10-24-2009, 11:58 AM

Now the thing here is that Munro knew very well what was going on, but he didn't even bother to answer me anything when in 1540 AD I said that his aggressive actions will end our NAP.

In fact I'm almost 100% sure that he was planning a direct attack against me when he madly whipped and drafted units during his GA. When I noticed this I brought defences to south, which made it an unwise option for Munro to attack me. So just a few turn ago he again decided to gift an enourmous stack of Rifles and Cannons to Morgan.

Munro is really just trying to turn himself a saint here, which he is not. I always try to keep my promises, but if someone is playing unfair I do can reply with the same weapons.

**Munro** · 10-24-2009, 02:41 PM

That's absurd. If we had wanted to be in an alliance that's what we would have agreed to. NAP means not attacking each other, it doesn't mean we aren't still competing. To attack my ally and then try to pretend our NAP prevents from me helping him to defend himself (or use that as justification for breaking your word later) is extremely poor sportsmanship.

Think about what you're saying for a minute - under your rules it would have been ok for me to attack millcc during our NAP, but then not ok for you to help him defend himself. That's not what a NAP is at all and to try to interpret it that way is dishonest and frankly a little insulting.

The game mechanics don't give any way to enforce these kind of agreements so they rely on the honesty and integrity of the other players to ensure a fair and fun game. This kind of behaviour just detracts from the whole enjoyment of the game and doesn't prove anything except your lack of trustworthiness and poor sportsmanship. It's an insult to all the time we have all put into the game for what could have been an enjoyable and close game.

The fact is that I kept my word and you didn't. Sure is a cheap way to win.

**Ebenezer** · 10-24-2009, 03:00 PM

I've always played them how they were written. A simple NAP means you don't burn my cities and I don't burn yours. Proxy wars and enemy of my enemy arrangements are fair game, as are cold-war actions as long as you don't get caught (spies, privateers, etc)

If you want me to close borders to your enemies, or not trade them techs, or whatever else, then put it in the agreement.

As to the war with ricardo/morgan. Aren't you the aggressor there? A NAP doesn't mean "ignore you while you kill my other friends" either.

I guess I'd like to know the contents of the whole 1540 discussion. Cause if it just consisted of "stop your aggressive actions" followed by Munro getting rid of the army you didn't like, sounds like he DID stop.

**Dandridge** · 10-24-2009, 03:12 PM

You are talking here without listening at all what I'm saying. I repeat. I told you in beforehand that you break our NAP if you continue your aggressions (attacking Pinot Noir and supporting my enemy Morgan). Yet you continued your aggressions and did not even bother to reply me anything. Now you pretend that it was a surprise to you that we didn't have a working NAP anymore. Do not pretend a fool here.

This whole talk is silly anyway. What difference does it make whether you attack me directly or whether you gift units to a 3rd party here (Morgan) and ask him to attack me with those units? Absolutely none. That's just a twisted and desperate way to try to evade the NAP. You were clearly waging war against me either way, which is strictly against any kind of NAP.

I find your attitude very weird. Or to be honest I think it's probably just because you made quite a mistake by leaving a major city being defended by a lone Warrior. You had strong defence in your border cities, but didn't think that with a basic commando attack Beijing was under my reach, too. But it's no reason to put out these unreasonable accusations.

I did have the idea that you are an ambitious player, but this is a bit too much. TBH if I had known how untrustworthy you are I would have never made a NAP of any kind with you. As I told I always try to keep my promises, but if someone is playing unfair I do can reply with the same weapons. For me it seems that you can treat other partners of a treaty anyway you want, but expect that you are smoothed down with silk gloves. And all this loud offence by you who evaded TG's Gaming Philosophy by circulating Maussollos inside your alliance to turn a WW into a NW only to get an extended GA for 3 civs at the same time?

Are you sure that you are not upset only because someone is giving you a challenge? I've been enjoying a lot of the challenge you have given me and I hope I'm able to give at least some challenge to you, too. Actually you yourself wrote to me (1470 AD) that "Hopefully the obvious tension over our borders won't detract too much from our enjoyment of the game, whatever the final outcome." It's a good advice and I still hope that we both can observe it.

**Dandridge** · 10-24-2009, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by Ebenezer

As to the war with ricardo/morgan. Aren't you the aggressor there? A NAP doesn't mean "ignore you while you kill my other friends" either.

Actually the first aggressor was Morgan/Ricardo (+Monte+Munro+Niklas who gifted enourmous amount of units to Morgan) who attacked my ally Millcc. Ric conquered 3 cities from Millcc right away and I went to help him and we were able to stop his attack. We all know that this game is about 2 large alliances.

Originally Posted by Ebenezer

I guess I'd like to know the contents of the whole 1540 discussion. Cause if it just consisted of "stop your aggressive actions" followed by Munro getting rid of the army you didn't like, sounds like he DID stop.

1540 AD Munro warned me that I must not sink his ships with my Privateers. I said alright let's do it your way then, but you must retreat your units from Pinot Noir and not supply anymore units to Morgan. So I left his ships alone and gave him a chance to honour our NAP. I played with completely open cards there. But he didn't care a bit what I said him. He continued his attack to Pinot Noir. He didn't even bother to reply me anything. Just silence. As a result I sank all his ships there in 1545 AD with the Privateers. That was the end of our NAP. It was all very clear. And now comes this strange reaction.

**Bernout** · 10-24-2009, 04:47 PM

Ok...2 things right off the bat from an admin perspective.

1. Stopping the clock (i.e. pausing the game) is unacceptable unless it is a turn order issue of utmost importance. You have 24 hours between turns...use it.

2. Diplomacy is what it is. Backstabs do happen as do misunderstandings that are usually the fault of both parties. If you want certain behavior then get it in writing and make sure the terms of your agreement are clear. I would hope that we are all mature enough here to keep in mind above all else that this is a game. Yes, there will be times you get really mad but everything I've seen so far is just part and parcel of the Civ4 experience. We have a lot of talented gamers here and no one likes to lose but someone has to.

Not that this game is over by any stretch of the imagination.

Bernout

**Dandridge** · 10-24-2009, 05:06 PM

Exactly. It's just a panic reaction from Munro. I'm sure that after a few turns he realizes that, too.

**Munro** · 10-24-2009, 05:12 PM

Well, I agree with you Bernout. That's the point - we did have it in writing and I don't think anyone here would have thought it necessary to explain to someone as experienced as DanDRidge that "NAP" means you cannot declare war.

I understand it can be part of the experience when you play MP against people you don't really know, but it sure takes the fun out of the game when you have to actually play against someone who behaves like that. Very disappointing.

Thread Tools

Display