Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Alliances vs. NAPs -- a review

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I'd love to be selective. If any of these players had any kind of feeback on them.
    Originally posted by Bactrian
    Every member of the staff prides him or herself on a constructive relationship with the players, and we expect that relationship to remain constructive in the future.

    Comment


    • #32
      Flint

      I wasn't trying to be decietful. I made a mistake. I won't do so again. If you want to hold a grudge against me and decide it was 'all a big plot against you'. Go ahead. I now know not to make any agreements with you at all. Because it seems that you just get po'd when people do things that make life harder for you. I f'd up. OK, I'll deal with it. Now you should too.

      I make every attempt to hold to any alliances I make. I'm new and misunderstood. If you look back at things, more than 24 hours had passed before I moved in on you.
      By the will of Primus Rian

      Comment


      • #33
        It aint just you man. Its a long series of things that has built up to it. You were the proverbial straw. Ya probably wont have to worry about allying with me again.
        Originally posted by Bactrian
        Every member of the staff prides him or herself on a constructive relationship with the players, and we expect that relationship to remain constructive in the future.

        Comment


        • #34
          My two cents: I have only encountered one player out of 7 games so far that has outright broken an agreement - and I had a lot of fun giving her a flaming review. I have made many agreements and many alliances and many NAPs, and while there has been tension (would be an awfully boring game without it) there has been only the one betrayal.

          I did have an ally attack my other ally by leaping over my stars with gazelle range, but I think I share part of the blame for having too many allies in that game, and that was certainly not a breach of any agreement on my ally's part. Looking back, I should have encouraged the two of them to at least have a NAP.
          Suudal of the Golden Horde

          "A victorious army wins its victories before seeking battle; an army destined to defeat fights in hope of winning."

          Comment


          • #35
            such things are going to happen... if you dont know the other players to well keep your self covered... i have played dozens of games and i have been lucky to only get messed over 2 or 3 times
            you just have to watch who you deal with
            -Shadow

            Comment


            • #36
              such things are going to happen... if you dont know the other players to well keep your self covered... i have played dozens of games and i have been lucky to only get messed over 2 or 3 times

              This coming from someone who just broke a formal alliance with me *smirks*

              Lord Ghoxst of the Blur.
              The Brotherhood of Traevant-Medivh Server

              Traevant Militia First Speaker

              Jerkface

              Comment


              • #37
                About the new diplomacy screen.

                A quirk that has emerged with the new diplomacy screen is that there are "vet" players who will not consider a general open letter to everyone in the game as a "legitimate" form of diplomacy to open talks. Even though the purpose of that screen is to make mass mailing easier, take the time out to hand craft your first contact letter and make it unique to the recipient. That is my experience as a new and now gone player of GE.

                Comment


                • #38
                  there are "vet" players who will not consider a general open letter to everyone in the game as a "legitimate" form of diplomacy to open talks. Even though the purpose of that screen is to make mass mailing easier, take the time out to hand craft your first contact letter and make it unique to the recipient.
                  I think I'm a wee bit late to get Barbie to stay here, but I'd like to mention that I think the new diplomacy interface is excellent (I generally stick to the diplomacy window until other "vets" make it known that they would prefer e-mail).

                  There are a few things that would be further gravy, if it were possible to implement them (like the ability to attach a map - but since that would entail attaching a file, I'm sure it would not be easily accomplished), but even without, I'm still very pleased.

                  Laudio
                  "I'm aging like a fine milk."

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I'd still like to hear a consensus on the matter of Alliance vs Game-Long NAPs, does the Diplomatic Obligation of the Alliance hold over that of the NAP?

                    Specifically: I am Allied with Player A. Later, I agree to a Game-Long NAP with Player B. Much later, Player B attacks Player A. The way I see things, because of the Game-Long clause agreed to as part of the NAP, the only aid I can give to Player A is cash or allow him to occupy stars of mine, but I can not take direct military action against Player B.
                    "Are you sure it was supposed to do that?" he asked, looking at the smoking crater....

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      I would agree that that is the case, Mdubla.
                      Foxcat

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Unfortunately, I'm in the same situation as Mdubla. Matter of fact, same game, same ally.

                        I've had to deal with the situation the same way he has had to. I also asked the aggressor to stand down, to no avail.

                        I suppose the best solution is that we need to remember all potential clauses and possibilities as we specify NAP terms. I don't like being in this type of situation at all. I've proven to be of little or no value to my ally.

                        Laudio
                        "I'm aging like a fine milk."

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Gamelong NAPs

                          For what my humble opinion is worth on the topic.

                          A gamelong NAP is exactly what Blargg stated it was in the first message in this thread; it's a matter of the elemental definition of the agreement. It cannot be broken except by mutual agreement or betrayal; an alliance does not supercede it.

                          I have occasionally seen gamelong NAPs with riders attached, but to me, this ducks the issue--this isn't a gamelong NAP any more, and it tends to create situational complexity and potential for misunderstandings or abuse rather than offer true security.

                          The way to guarantee no complications and happy mutual relationships is to make sure that every member of an alliance has the same gamelong NAP(s) wherever possible.

                          At your service,

                          Kazak

                          P.S. And, Laudio, I wouldn't say you were of "no value" to your ally. It looks like someone(s) gave Kodiak a _lot_ of money to buy BP with. If Kodiak would have talked to me, I would have been happy to arrange an armistice/cease-fire/surrender, and later withdrawal...but he seemed to want to prosecute the war that I, admittedly, did start. I did see evidence of him online via his fleet movements, just no interest in a diplomatic solution.

                          He was just greatly outnumbered, perhaps more so than he truly realized, although those 1133 ships of Task Force Anvil transiting Spork when he briefly held it should have been a good indication of things to come.

                          And I didn't pursue Kodiak as strongly as I could have, because you asked. He'll finish the game with at least a couple of worlds in respect for his fighting spirit, and your expressed concerns for him.

                          Although at least one fewer than I expected. KMDC had no role in another party's entrance into the conflict. It was not encouraged on my part.
                          Last edited by Peraspera; 05-22-2003, 09:36 AM.
                          SLOGH!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            don't hold anything against Knight. I told him to go ahead and come up. I figured he's the only guy left in the game who COULD attack you, so we might as well give you a run for your money.


                            Truthfully, I did NOT expect those thousand ships at Spork.. Unfortunately I've been sick on-and-off for the last week and so haven't been logging in as often as I should. I coulda given you a better run for your money if I hadn't lost so many ships agaisnt Tas. (Yeah, I know it's just an excuse, but excuses are fun)


                            Anyways, getting back on-track to the thread.

                            I don't think I've ever made a game-long NAP, but if i ever do after now I'll make sure I put in a clause that if the other member ever starts hostilities against a named party (Not just saying 'my allies' and making them guess who your allies are) that would be considered the same as assaulting myself.

                            IE:
                            Attention, "Player Q"
                            We are near finalizing our game-long NAP, however, if you ever launch the first strike in any conflict against "PLAYER X" I will see it as a breach of our NAP, as if you had attacked me. IF, however, 'Player X" attacks you first then go ahead and duke it out, I will abide by our NAP so long as you do not 'throw the first punch'.
                            If these terms are acceptable then our NAP can be put into place.
                            -Lord J,
                            Speaker for the Great Bear
                            Sig? I don't need no steenking sig!

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I played 1 or 2 games in Hegemony before my trial acc. ran out, but in those games i made alliances as well as NAPs.
                              In the first one, i had expanded a lot and made a mutual protection pact with my neighbour (i cant remember his name, but in case anyone else might remember, my in-game name was Singh) and expanded in the other direction, allowing me to pull forces next to other players. An inactive who had just come back made an NAP with me, but cancelled it without former warning. I had no choice but to destroy his forces since he was totally untrustworthy.
                              Now, the thing is, I established another mutual NAP with someone on my other border, essentially limiting my total space but still allowing me to produce ships and not waste the ones i already had. This allowed me to help my other nieghbour once he was invaded by hostile forces to the north, letting him skip accross my territory and capture stars on the other side. Keeping the alliance allowed him to survive till end of game. Keeping the NAP with the other neighbour (who was also under attack at the time) allowed me to shift valuable ships to the other side and give me a #2 ranking in the end.

                              Motto of the story?
                              Keep your NAPs and alliances; they may seem inconsequental today, but can be your only hope of survival (or a good ranking) tommorow.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                ooops

                                ooops wrong thread
                                - Gump

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X