from the rich to the poor..

[bjarkekr]

We have noticed the lands of the dokkos is flooded in gold, and they have no army.. We therefor decided it was time for the dokkos to share this wealth with the rest of the world.

Our brave spies managed to take out his precious cobber mines, and making it hard for the dokkos to get an army up and running.

We look forward to seeing their move.

[oyzar]

I must say it is extreemly poor sport to break your word just for 6 turns earlier breaking the peace treaty we have and i'll never forgive you...

[da_Vinci]

OOC: Humor break!

The cobber mines have been destroyed.  Lacking the rare cobber resource, the dokko cobblers will not be able to make shoes.  This will indeed make it difficult for the dokko to get an army up and RUNNING! 

(Unless their irony mines are still intact ... or unless he merely drafts riflemen ... )

dV

[Levgre]

OOC:  I would also be angry if someone broke a treaty them and I had made :p  but I guess all is fair in war (unless it's against the rules).  I tend to never trust people enough that I would not build up military to defend against them... I look at NAPs as deterrents, although not guarantees (the level of guarantee depends on the player).


If there was enough support, we could make rules about declaring 'official' peace treaties, like the in-game ones that disallow combat, but for more than 10 turns.  As it is backstabbing or treaty-breaking is part of the game, as it has been part of history...

[Viktor Ahriman]

 bjarkekr ,

I hope you know what you are doing as Oyzar will probably be knocking at your door with tanks 

[Munro]

OOC:  I would also be angry if someone broke a treaty them and I had made :p  but I guess all is fair in war (unless it's against the rules).  I tend to never trust people enough that I would not build up military to defend against them... I look at NAPs as deterrents, although not guarantees (the level of guarantee depends on the player).


If there was enough support, we could make rules about declaring 'official' peace treaties, like the in-game ones that disallow combat, but for more than 10 turns.  As it is backstabbing or treaty-breaking is part of the game, as it has been part of history...

Thing is, if you play against the same players again... (or even other players know about it in the same game) and people know your word is not worth anything, that seriously limits your options, diplomatically.  Your allies (or opponents) will be wary of trusting you with anything that can't be enforced in-game, which means you potentially miss out on a lot of mutually beneficial opportunities. 

Still, if your opponent is unknown to you.. you don't rely on his word.  I bet oyzar has some rifles hidden away somewhere. :p

[Levgre]

OOC: I personally would still trust Bjarkekr somewhat.  Like I said I never trust people completely. 


Bwas starting to be in a quite dangerous situation, in this case... so it wasn't treaty breaking to gain superiority/dominance, as I have heard a certain someone else in this game has done .   

Once someone starts to get into a corner chances are much higher they'll turn on you like a rabid animal :p



I basically only sign treaties where it doesn't seem there will be any good reason to break it... and I think I'd just tell the other person ahead of time, at least a couple turns, if I was going to undo the treaty, in a case where it was basically dooming me in the game for some reason... I don't know how this would become the case since I don't make treaties for more than 80 turns or so.

[Capsavian Hopewell]

I try to look at each game as separate and distinct from other games.  That said, there's certainly the element of individual trustworthiness which carries over.

I'm definitely in Levgree/Glauko's corner in terms of perspective:  I don't trust anyone *too* much, until and unless I have gotten to know them well.

I'll never leave my cities poorly defended (well, except for apparently versus the AI when I am already at war.  doh!).

I'd be against any sort of "official" binding treaty, unless it was a sort of "strategic alliance" which could only be enacted under very special circumstances (such as a wedding between two leaders).

Otherwise....the diplomatic back-stabbing is all part of the game.

[DribNairb]

OOC: I agree also - the backstabbing part is a major part in making the game interesting. And each game should be taken on it's own merits (especially as we might be RP'ing different characters)

I remember in C&C1 how hurt I felt when a certain-person (who shall not be named ) broke a long term game agreement with me after I had helped him. At the time I was particularly annoyed, but after a day or so I began to realise the background story built up far outweighed my initial feelings and made the whole thing more believeable.

After all, in real life, umpteen wars have broken out just days after an official treaty has been signed. You can always say your military was acting on it's own accord (anyone seen The Sum of all Fears?)

[Rennald Skarsgard]

ooc:  If I remember correctly the certain person broke that agreement not to improve his own position though, it was to ensure another person on his continent would stay paranoid enough to not move his full military north.

Countries break agreements all the time, not openly....funneling arms to rebels, sending spies (Israel to US), not sending promised aid.  Even in the days of chivalry agreements were broken, usually in some religious cause or another, or for all out greed.  Its part of real life, and so its part of Role playing.

[Capsavian Hopewell]

OOC:  Rennald, I think Drib was actually "back-stabbed" twice in CC1.  All the same, your guilty conscience is revealing.

Good points regarding real-world instances of broken treaties--even in the supposed chivalrous times.  What was it Charlemagne said?  Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer?

[DribNairb]

OOC:  Rennald, I think Drib was actually "back-stabbed" twice in CC1. 

OOC: True!  But in any case, I'd like to make it clear that I am personally not upset by any of the actions of any players in CC1, (although I admit I was a little annoyed when it first happened). I certainly won't let CC1 actions affect who I do/don't trust in CC2.
In character though - let the insults and propaganda fly!

[Levgre]

OCC:  In my defense, I truly thought you were going to try to invade me in the future :p So I was considering it a "you or me" situation, although I was working on incomplete information, and was somewhat panicked.  It's easy to react strongly (and sometimes overreact) when you think you are in danger.

and I did give you your city back, and make peace, with some conditions  .