About the (ab)use of city gifting tricks?

[Dandridge]

(OOC)

As we all probably know there are contless ways to abuse the vassal system of civ4 BtS. It would be interesting to hear opinions on this matter. One of the abuses we talked about before was the "capitulation-force-peace" trick, which I think was then after the discussion forbidden in this game with the new rule I proposed.

Another easy abuse is the "gift-cities-back-and-forth" trick to artificially change the vassal/capitulation arrangements. City gifting can of course be abused also without vassals. For example I could gift some cities temporarily to someone to drove the enemy outside my borders, etc. I don't know excatly what has happened in our game now (700 AD) untill I have time to log in next time, but I guess that Viktor/Capsavian gave enough cities to Rennald in order for him to get out of the capitulation to DribNairb.

Personally I think that all these city gifting tricks are a bit ridiculous especially in these kind of roleplaying games where the aim is often to get some kind of resemblance to reality. Well anyway I'm just neutrally asking other opinions to this matter. I'm not asking to ban them in this game, since we didn't talk about them before. I can see some positive in these tricks, too, since I think they give some extra flavour to the game, which is interesting.

DanDRidge

[Sonnybonds]

wel i never really got into the whole vassal thing but i hear so many bugs and things that can be tricked i dont think the vassal state thing really works in MP games.

[DribNairb]

This is particularly annoying because I didn't even know this had happened until I read it here!   

However, what makes it worse is the fact I got assurances from Skarsgardia that the Vassal state would be permanent, regardless of the fact the game would potentially allow the agreement to be broken. This was an 'internal' agreement between me and Rennald when the Vassal state was first made.

I was working on the assumption that an agreement made between two parties should still be binding if it could not be enforced simply because the game engine itself can't handle it. Was I wrong in this?

Secondly, I was also under the impression that if a city was gifted from one civ to another that there was some penalty involved (eg. all cultural buildings are destroyed or something like that). Is that not true either?

Certainly sounds like an abuse of the system on the surface, but it IS in the game rules and not something we had collectively decided to disallow.

When I accepted England as a Vassal, Aidern units were moved out of his territory - this was something I was fully aware of in the rules from the start of the game, but clearly other players weren't. Since then the rule has now changed.

Therefore, although I don't like the idea of gifting cities like that, it seems to me something I'll just have to swallow and get on with it.   Perhaps we should introduce a rule to prevent it - or just make sure all players are aware of the possibility of it happening in the future to any other vassal states.

[Viktor Ahriman]

Yes there is a penalty Drib.  The city loses anything it was building and the population growth in that city starts over.  We can certaintly discuss this for future games if this can be allowed or not.

VIktor

[Dandridge]

This is particularly annoying because I didn't even know this had happened until I read it here!   

However, what makes it worse is the fact I got assurances from Skarsgardia that the Vassal state would be permanent, regardless of the fact the game would potentially allow the agreement to be broken. This was an 'internal' agreement between me and Rennald when the Vassal state was first made.

I was working on the assumption that an agreement made between two parties should still be binding if it could not be enforced simply because the game engine itself can't handle it. Was I wrong in this?

Well for you it might be annoying, but for me it means the perishing of the whole civilization I'm leading 

The 'internal' agreements made between two parties are of course binding if the parties are realiable and have
credibility (as I've pointed you a few times  ). I must admit that for me it's a bit of a mystery that people
rather loose their credibilty as a contracting party than stick to the agreements they make. Just to score
better in one game. But well, we all have different values and preferences.

DanDRidge

[Dandridge]

Yes there is a penalty Drib.  The city loses anything it was building and the population growth in that city starts over.  We can certaintly discuss this for future games if this can be allowed or not.

VIktor

I wouldn't call that a penalty. It's merely a little nuisance in the same way as many of the random events in the game are.

But what is your own opinion on this subject Viktor? Do you consider these vassal state city gifting tricks
abuse of the system (like Drib, Sonny and me seem to think) or suitable tactics? We certainly know that it's
possible to abuse them, but is there any sense in using these tricks (especially in a roleplaying game). Do they
make the game more fun? Temporarily these tricks do bring up interesting situations.

DanDRidge

[Capsavian Hopewell]

I'll be honest -- I think this is gaming of the system, using a loophole in the game mechanics, basically.

That said, I also think there is some precedent.

From a game mechanics standpoint:

1) the diplomatic stance adopted from capitulation when peace is formed, automatically kicking units from a warring nation's borders. (this scenario has since been discussed though).  Obviously, a nation cannot be forced into peace and have its units automatically kicked out without any choice, in real life.

2)  gifting techs -- a nation has the potential to gift wholesale, techs to an underdeveloped nation, instantly catching him up.  This is something that would be a stretch to pull off in real life.

3)  So-called "diplomatic wars" which have been discussed as a means of forcing another nation out of a country or preventing them to use their roads, could arguably be seen as using the game mechanics in an unintended manner.

From a roleplay standpoint:

1) Throughout history, cities are exchanged between nations via treaties and agreements, as boundaries are redistributed.

2) The way I viewed this exercise (and I posted as such in these forums) was as a peaceful coup;  Aidern and Agarthia provided in essence, financial and logistical backing for a change in leadership in Skarsgardia, leading to a bloodless party/government revolution, as happens frequently in real life of course.

3) With #2 in mind, I (personally) interpreted the temporary city exchange as a tangible representation of the costs Aidern and Agarthia incurred in supporting this coup.  Skarsgardia returned the cities but with the associated food and production losses; all cities were zeroed out with their bread and hammers, which is a pronounced cost when one is attempting to rally as many troops as possible in a war-time scenario.


In this instance, Aidern and Agarthia gifted cities to Skarsgardia so that he would reach the required 50% benchmark, declare independence, and then gift the cities back, all within one turn.  This was clearly use of a loophole in the system, however did not cause any disruption in troop movements or force a change in diplomatic stance. 

So the question is:  is this loophole worthy of banning?  Or are the roleplay explanations adequate to leave it in place?  If so, should limitations be made, of some sort, or are the population and production penalties "good enough" in giving nations pause before pursuing such a tactic? 

[Capsavian Hopewell]

The 'internal' agreements made between two parties are of course binding if the parties are realiable and have
credibility (as I've pointed you a few times  ). I must admit that for me it's a bit of a mystery that people
rather loose their credibilty as a contracting party than stick to the agreements they make. Just to score
better in one game. But well, we all have different values and preferences.

I would tend to agree with you, Dan, though simultaneously I would point out that many of us have fallen prey to just that sort of situation.    In the name of competitiveness, survival, or whatever you want to call it...I think the majority of leaders in this game, in fact, have bent or even broken agreements they have made.

Personally, I think this also has roleplay merit and historical precedent; in real life, pacts have been forged and broken over and over again, always in the interest of national security.  The Soviets completely bent the Polish people over during the opening volley of WWII. The Germans of course did that and then some during that same war.  On the other side of the fence, the Brits and French did nearly nothing to assist the Poles during the early stages of the war (arguably because there wasn't much they COULD do).  In more recent times, we can bear witness to King George's trampling of all manner of agreements--domestic and international--in the name of "national security".

Not that I want to get into a political debate!   



Sonnybonds makes an interesting if brief point: maybe the "bugs"--or more accurately, the loopholes--associated with the vassalage mechanics in Civ should give us reason to consider disallowing formal vassalage altogether, just as we did with permanent alliances? 

This wouldn't stop two nations from entering into an agreement akin to vassalage--one nation paying tribute to the other in exchange for protection, for example--but it could circumvent the many potential problems associated with the vassalage mechanics in MP games.

Might be worth considering?

[Viktor Ahriman]

OOC:

I would just like to mention what Dan had said about creditability.  I think as a player, every game is different.  Each game will have its 'events' that will change what a person had originally said.  I agree with Capsavian that all of us in this game have broken a treaty at one time or the other.  However, it is true too in real life that has happened.  Just because what happens in this game I dont think means that in the next game all of us cant be trusted in a treaty.  It is a game after all, and with all our new games that we enter into, I hope that we can all TRUST each other.  Otherwise it will be no fun if we all think we will all be at war from the start.

VIktor

[Dandridge]

I'll be honest -- I think this is gaming of the system, using a loophole in the game mechanics, basically.

As you said it's clearly an abuse of a loophole in the game mechanics. Just a stupid trick. A good basic rule would be that you should not be allowed to gift your cities to a 3rd party if you are in a state of war. And even during peace I think it should not be allowed to gift cities just to end some capitulations. I don't think exploiting these kind of loopholes is much fun in the long term. But this is just one opinion.

And about the trust thing. Of course in real life all kinds of pacts are being broken all the time, but it surely leads to distrust and loss of credibility as a contracting party. In civ games it doesn't mean nothing if you play only once against some opponent, but if you have to play again with the same opponents the loss of credibility has meaning.

[DribNairb]

I think this is an unexpected, yet perfectly plausible explanation for a change in government from a Vassal state. Of course, I will be far more wary of such a deal in the future (as I'm sure all other players will be).

Therefore, with the lack of any rule forbidding it, I must concede that the actions of Aidern/Agarthia was perfectly legitimate (from my point of view). You received a penalty to complete your actions (so it's not like Skarsgardia got out for 'free' thanks to a loophole) and came up with a perfectly good Roleplaying reason for it. In fact, I would go so far as to say this is a very good idea to allow this to happen as long as there is a cost involved to the relevant nations.

Had this happened with my English Vassal state I would have had no qualms (although I would probably still have the feeling I had been 'done'!  )

The one point I am wary of is that with Skarsgardia, the only reason I entered into the agreement in the first place was because of an extra OOC remark I received from Rennald, which I took to be a binding agreement regardless of game mechanics:

Quote: "ooc if you accept I seriously will not leave vassalage, I don't care about winning the game anymore."

ie. I have taken it that any 'agreements' made about trade, peace, unit movement etc. is a treaty put in place which may or may not be broken by either party, at the risk of loss of credibility. However, I assumed (wrongly in this case) that an OOC comment effectively stating something is set in stone (despite the fact the game engine would technically allow it to be broken) should be binding as if the game engine DID allow it.

If this is not the case, then I will now start to seriously worry about other agreements I have made in the past, whereby I might give a technology in exchange for a unit - but because the game interface doesn't allow for this, I effectively give the technology for free with the 'hope' the other party won't break the agreement - but there's nothing in the game engine or our own rules to prevent that. Is that right?

[Dandridge]

I think as a player, every game is different.  Each game will have its 'events' that will change what a person had originally said. 

Of course every game is different, but if I make some treaty with clearly specified (and writen) clauses I surely don't break them. But as I said we all have different values.

DanDRidge

[Capsavian Hopewell]

Well, I can't speak on OOC comments made by others of course, but I will concede that this scenario we have executed (the exchange of cities) might be dancing along the line of breaking the spirit of the game, even if it's well within the game mechanics.

This is akin to the previous vassalage situation with England and the resulting "forced peace and unit ejection" which ensued.

Should we just disallow vassalage altogether, just as we did permanent alliances before this game started?

As a beneficiary of this loophole in-game, I'm of course fine with this situation with Skarsgardia.  However as the game servant, looking at this from as neutral of a position as I can muster, I do recognize that this is gaming of the system, just as the English vassalage situation was, really.

The question of OOC credibility, I think, is another argument altogether and cannot really be measured or enforced--nor should it, I think, in a roleplaying game.  Not knowing if your ally is going to be loyal--or if he will back stab you when you least expect it--adds a very realistic and enjoyable element to a roleplay game. 

If diplomatic relations were predictable and static we would be just as well playing with the AI; we would miss out on one of the most exciting aspects of a large MP game, I think, if there wasn't room for intrigue.

The risk and cost against credibility issues across other games is as Dan mentioned.  So it's incumbent upon all players to either retain their credibility, rebuild their credibility, or let the tarnish upon their word carry over across other games (even though as Viktor indicated, we should at least in theory view each game as an independent world, uninfluenced by other games.  In theory!).

[Dandridge]

Should we just disallow vassalage altogether, just as we did permanent alliances before this game started?

Not in this game anymore, but maybe in the next game if there will be one. Just my opinion.

[DribNairb]

Essentially, I think the whole thing boils down to "how do you know if an agreement is binding"? In some cases, it's obvious:

1) I offer to trade Writing for Iron Working. The other party accepts. The game FORCES both sides to adhere to their side of the deal and it is therefore binding.
2) I ask a player why there are units just outside my borders. They tell me they're non-aggressive. The game does NOT force that player to not attack with those units. This 'agreement' is not binding.

The problem is, as always, the grey areas: What would people think about the following:

3) I offer to trade Writing for two Longbowmen. The game interface doesn't allow this, but I assume if accepted that the other player would honour this and gift two longbowmen over the next few turns.
4) I make a Peace Treaty deal by offering a technology in exchange for peace. I state that the offer is conditional on peace being kept for 20 turns. The game only ENFORCES it to be 10 turns, but I would assume the next 10 turns would also be honoured.
5) I make an Open Borders deal on the understanding it will not be used to move military units. I would HOPE that the other party honours this, but if they don't it's to be expected. The game does not enforce this, and I have to enforce it myself (eg. closing the open borders agreement, or asking nicely for them to move the units)

(3) I would think must be binding, but I can't really say why. The only suggestion I have is because it is a limitation of the game engine that the trade cannot be performed in one go, but it really ought to be in the game engine.

(4) starts to get on dodgy grounds - shouldn't the game engine have the option of specifying the number of turns of enforced peace? But on the other hand, realistically there is NOTHING to actually prevent a peace deal being broken just one day after it was signed, so why does it even enforce the 10 turn rule?

(5) seems a fairly standard agreement which might be broken at any time by either party - but again, I can't really explain why I don't expect that one to be binding.

The problem is, even with these fairly simple scenarios, I'm sure different people would have differing opinions. And we could easily construct more complicated examples (eg. I'll trade you tech X now if you give me tech Y when you have finished researching it). The question is whether there is a line somewhere whereby some deals are binding and others are not? Or should ALL deals rely entirely upon the consience of the parties involved?

[DribNairb]

Should we just disallow vassalage altogether, just as we did permanent alliances before this game started?

I personally think they should be allowed, but what is and is not allowed should be more clear.
The idea of forcing a master to declare war on all enemy parties of a new Vassal prevents the unintended ejection of units from the borders.
The gifting of cities to break a vassal should be allowed if it's clear from the start that it IS allowed. After all, the Vassal would need to be fairly close to breaking free anyway for that to happen.

[Viktor Ahriman]

OCC:

Well yes Dan, for you question on the city swap, it was gaming of the system.  BUT we did not do it purposely because it could be done.  Infact we didnt even know it would work.  It was an experiment that worked.  But now that it was done, the question is what DO we do about it.  I agree with Drib that maybe we should allow it JUST for the fact that the vassal has to be close anyways to break free.  Rennald was REALLY close.  Look at your situation Dan, it would take alot of cities to free Phabuk from you.  So this would not work in that situation.  It is gaming of the system, but should be an option as long as it doesnt affect anyone.  Freeing Rennald didnt affect anyone but Capsavian and myself.  It didnt move troops out of an area nor did it cause you Drib any harm.  If this would have affected troop placements, like the vassalage issue with England, then I would say no.  But I dont see any harm in this as long as it doesnt affect units.  Like Capsavain and Drib said, it does add flavor to the game. 

On the binding agreements, I too cannot speak on the OOC situation, but I feel that if a situation does arise, a person should hold his end of the bargain up.  If I made a deal with Drib to exchange techs for military units, I would not break this treaty.  But when you deal with a peace treaty for 10 turns, but want 20, that is hard to force.  Or using your open borders for peace only and no military units to pass, you cant force that either unless YOU do something about it, the game wont do it.  It does come down to trusting the person you are dealing with.  If you had given a tech to somebody and didnt get paid for it, you will know better the rest of THAT game when dealing with that person.

Dan, I do realize what you are saying about creditability, but what I was getting at was the above situation.  If you do have a binding agreement, that should be considered not to be broken.  Example trading techs for whatever.  If this was broken, that player would lose his creditability.  However, in the situation where a player says he has military on your borders, but isnt going to attack you, but does later, that does too ruin your creditability, but not as bad as the first example.  I think the game does have to have some element of suprise.  We cant expect that in a game where military is the objective (in most cases) that everyone is going to be held to there word.  When I said there will be elements that happen, I am referring to the example with England.  Capsavain and I had an agreement and treaty with England, he broke that by spying.  That was a clause in our treaty, and he broke it.  Like Drib said, the game will not do anything about this, so we have too.  But i dont think that should make Capsavain and I any less untrustworthy because we broke the treaty and went to war.  And talking about other games Dan, I am saying like this game, its no secret that we are enemies in the game. (But still look forward to a peace treaty with you, I dont want to be at war forever with you)   We just butted heads since the start of this game, but next game, I assure you that I wont hold anything against you.  It will start a clean slate.  I know you have broken your words just as much as we have, but I will give you the benifit of the doubt in a new game.  I just think to carry over creditability from one game to another needs to be fair.  After all, we are playing a game where we are trying to envision the real world.  Things like that go on in the real world.

[Dandridge]

5) I make an Open Borders deal on the understanding it will not be used to move military units. I would HOPE that the other party honours this, but if they don't it's to be expected. The game does not enforce this, and I have to enforce it myself (eg. closing the open borders agreement, or asking nicely for them to move the units)

(5) seems a fairly standard agreement which might be broken at any time by either party - but again, I can't really explain why I don't expect that one to be binding.

Of course it CAN be broken, but if it's a written clause of a peace treaty pact, you either stick to what you agreed when the treaty was signed or do what you want and loose your credibility.

In our case your unwillingness to stick to your promise to not let any Agarthian/Aidern units on Skarsgardian territory was especially unpleasent for me, since my strategy was based on trusting you. If I had known that you don't want to close the borders at any cost (just for some trade routes) I would have never signed the whole pact at all, but just continued crushing through Skarsgardia and make it slower for my enemy to attack.

When we signed the treaty I even reminded you that it was a credibility matter. During our treaty I clearly warned you what will happen. I knew exactly what the allied threesome would do. I told you clearly that Rennald would betray you. I told you to close borders, but it didn't happen although Caps/viktor had stepped on Skarsgardian territory already before. All these stupid city gifting tricks would have been impossible if you just had stick to our treaty and closed the borders by declaring war. Personally I would have never sacrificed my trustworhiness for some virtual coins that the trade routes bring.

And I do understand your bewilderment towards Rennald if you have a written proof that he promised not to leave the vassalage. Still it was your responsibility to insure that the peace treaty between US was being followed.

yeah, BTW, all my messages in this thread are of course OOC.

DanDRidge

[Dandridge]

It is gaming of the system, but should be an option as long as it doesnt affect anyone.  Freeing Rennald didnt affect anyone but Capsavian and myself. 

This is very far from the truth. There are always immediate and long term effects. This "gaming of the system" (as you call it) surely has great impact on both your and my strategy. My strategy was based on Skarsgardia being a buffer and your "gaming of the system" ruined it. It surely can not be said that it "doesn't affect anyone".

DanDRidge

[Capsavian Hopewell]

Of course it CAN be broken, but if it's a written clause of a peace treaty pact, you either stick to what you agreed when the treaty was signed or do what you want and loose your credibility.

Again, I would point to real life historical precedent;  treaties are forged and broken all the time.  It damages the nation's credibility, to be sure, but it does happen.

I would be opposed to any "forced" adherence to a treaty, as that further limits the roleplaying options within the game.  Having peace forced for 10 turns, for example, or trade deals unbreakable for ten turns, already adds to the diplomatic limitations. 

Certainly breaking a pact or reneging on a trade deal means a high price against one's credibility, and that in itself I think is a good deterrent from engaging in such actions.  I personally have striven to stick closely with any and all deals I ink.  Sometimes a treaty with one nation ends up competing with a pact I've had with another, however, and if peace cannot be found then I have to choose sides--generally, going with the nation I view as the lesser threat.  This is just the way of things, and I think we each are faced with this dilemma over and over.

As to the specifics regarding the use (or abuse as you call it) of the vassalage system, it seems that the opinions are somewhat split on this issue. I myself would support banning the use of the vassalage system altogether, if not from the rest of this game then at least from future games.  It would have an impact similar to disabling the Permanent Alliance setting in the game.

Basically, players would still be able to engage in diplomatic relations such as becoming a feudal state (paying a tribute for example), but with more flexibility and without the pronounced parameters which leave open loopholes.  It would also prevent a mega-state from forming later in the game, just as a permanent alliance would allow if that were enabled.

Disallowing use of the vassalage game mechanics might be the simplest, easiest solution to the various shortcomings and potential loopholes we have unraveled in the current system.

This is just one opinion however, of course.

Still it was your responsibility to insure that the peace treaty between US was being followed.

IC, I would say yes, that is true.

OOC, I think once again, there is roleplaying at work here; I am purely hypothesizing here, but I could envision scenarios where a nation might be slow or lax to enforce an agreement--such as a defensive pact, whereby the nation is slow to bring his troops to bear, out of fear that he might be leaving his own borders unprotected.  I am not implying that this is what happened here, of course, I just mean to point out that there could well be a reason an ally or treaty participant might not eagerly enforce their own end of the deal. 

In fact, in this very game I have been on the receiving end of such "uneager partnerships" which have cost me technologies that were not paid for in the capacity or swiftness we originally agreed.  Not mentioning any names. 

To quote Fox Mulder, "Trust No One". 

[Viktor Ahriman]

Dan, what i was talking about was the troop placements.  Freeing Rennald did not change this.  I was referring to the move that happened with Drib and England where our troops were forced out and peace was forced.  This move did not do any of that, it just freed Rennald.  That is what i was talking about.  Of course there are other areas it may affect, but that was the point  .  But I think if a move causes a shift in troops like the one with England, then it should not be allowed.  But if a move doesnt do that, as in this case where the only change was a government of a country, then as Drib had said its probably OK.  History has had many coups that were influenced by another country.  So Capsavian and I roleplayed this as to what happened.  But I do think going away with vassalage is not necessary.  It does provide a player to live longer.  But in the future, I think people that take on a vassal state may want to do it when they are on the same continent.  I think that is what happened here Drib.  Your good intentions where good intentions, but you really couldnt enforce anything.  I think with creditability, Capsavian is right, there is not way nor there should be anything to enforce this.  A player will just have to suck it up if he is back stabbed, but in the future that player may think twice or want something that is concrete to make sure a deal is upheld.  Otherwise we may as well be playing the AI.   I would hope that if a deal is made that is suppose to be binding, like a personal PM between two people ( a OOC message to another player) or a deal like techs for something, that a player would keep his end of the bargain.  I have stuck to those kind of pacts.  But treaties that are loosely help together are tuff.  But the bottom line is that you do have to be weary of the other guy.  Just hope that he isnt a back stabber.  But again, this is my opinion.

[Dandridge]

I would be opposed to any "forced" adherence to a treaty, as that further limits the roleplaying options within the game.

I fully agree. The only stake here is credibility. I do know that many people even get kick out of betraying, both in real life and in games . We all have different value for credibility.

Sometimes a treaty with one nation ends up competing with a pact I've had with another, however, and if peace cannot be found then I have to choose sides--generally, going with the nation I view as the lesser threat. 

But then you make conflicting treaties. I always honor the treaty that is made first regardless of it's effect to my success in a game. In real life it may not be that streighforward of course... .

Well I think we agree on many issues in this matter, too. One thing though where I must admit I don't agree is whether it makes any sense in a roleplaying game to resort to this kind of city gifting tricks. I mean in a game where winning is everything I understand it, but in a roleplaying game where fair play is more important I think it doesn't make much sense to resort to "gameing of the system". Again not any absolute truth of course, but just one point of view. So because they are being used in this game I won't promise that I wouldn't use them in future . Though I think that Ottomans' time is getting nigh 

Intersting discussion anyway. Thanks to all who replied.

DanDRidge

[Rennald Skarsgard]

    Being that I am being raked over the coals here let me explain my side.  I did apoligize to Drib.  I should have given him a heads up on the matter.  And I did make a OOC comment to him about not leaving his vassalage.  Being new to playing the game among people I do not know, I should have taken it into consideration about breaking agreements and the long term, next game type ramifications my actions would affect.  (other games I knew all the combatants and it was common practice to betray the others)  But I didn't even think about it before the idea was hatched to break free. 

     But I seen a chance to be a pain in Dan's side and maybe affecting the outcome instead of watching by the side as he conquered the two to the north then eventually came after me.  So I took the chance knowing that if I didn't, Drib would eventually declare war on Aidern and Agathria so they couldn't use my roads. 

     So Drib had nothing to do with the breaking of the agreement, if anything he tried to keep me in check from totally ignoring the treaty.  He gave me two warnings and I know the next time he would have been forced to declare war to close the borders.  So DanDridge don't lose credibility with Drib it was all me and only me.  My quest for vengence for the loss of my cities drove me to the betrayal of sorts.   

    So once again publically I want to apoligize to Drib for the act of betrayal, or at least not giving him a heads up.  On that end, in retrospect, my actions were in bad taste.

     

[Carolus Maltman]

I personally don't go back on my word, but I don't want to prevent people from doing so. Its a necessary and exciting part of the game. Let the game adjudicate where it is given the task of doing so, and let the players decide what to do on the rest.

I don't like Permanent Alliances in the game, because I think they mess with the rules too much and we've decided to play individually, not as teams. I saw it make a game go really weird before - even if I did win in the end.

Vassalage is more complicated. I didn't understand all the ramifications of how it can work with other players... because its way more nuanced. And some of the experimenting that has happened was interesting, other parts annoying or unfair.

I think banning Vassalage takes out an interesting option from the game... because an enforceable treaty is better as the price exacted for war than one that can easily be broken. But times do change, and if a country IS close, its a neat idea for a host of neighbours to be able to meddle in the vassal state affairs and be the impetus for change. But this DOES create a tough situation for the vassal who does so, because they're going back on their agreements, and angering other parties.

But they're certainly making things more interesting too.

So I say - allow it. But be cognizant of the impact of your actions on your reputation. Because in a roleplaying style of game, if you have no credibility and reputation, you are just as good as your OWN army, and are as useful as you can be used by others - not trusted by others.

 

[Viktor Ahriman]

Nicely put Maltman, I think this sums it up.  The breaking away of vassalage is a good idea, because it does change the game and make things interesting, BUT like in this case we did not know there was a personal PM out there that was made betweent the parties, so thats where the issue came up as.  If you agree to a vassaleage in the game and break it, I think that is part of the game and should not hurt your creditability due to breaking away.  I would call it part of the game, BUT if you plea for a nation to take you as a vassale and say it will be a lock for good, then thats where this comes into play for creditability.  Just my opinion.

Viktor

[Carolus Maltman]

Nicely put Maltman, I think this sums it up.  The breaking away of vassalage is a good idea, because it does change the game and make things interesting, BUT like in this case we did not know there was a personal PM out there that was made betweent the parties, so thats where the issue came up as.  If you agree to a vassaleage in the game and break it, I think that is part of the game and should not hurt your creditability due to breaking away.  I would call it part of the game, BUT if you plea for a nation to take you as a vassale and say it will be a lock for good, then thats where this comes into play for creditability.  Just my opinion.

Viktor

I think there's an important distinction between hurting your credibility, and breaking the rules.

Your credibility, your reputation, is an asset. Its preserved game to game - and many of us have crossed paths before, and may or may not like to cross paths again.

I don't think anything that isn't enforced by the game engine is binding. But the stronger the commitment (in public or private message), the more reputational capital you're squandering by breaking it. Some might respect that as being part of your path to ultimate victory - hey, its a tough world - but some might not appreciate it and will never trust you the same again.

Can you win with honour? Maybe. I did in my other game. But you can be someone's lunch with honour too. Its up to you.