GoW, you guys are the best allies ever!

[Hot_Enamel]

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Hot_Enamel
And to continue this theoretical debate ... is a 20 turn luxery trade therefore considered a NAP ?
Any declaration of war would void the luxery trade.
Therefore, a team may not ever declare war while luxeries are traded ?

If the deal is straight something-per-turn for something-per-turn, it can be ended early without either side's receiving an unfair advantage. Similarly, if a civ sells something up front for something per turn, they are the only ones who lose anything from declaring war. But if a civ promises something per turn in exchange for something of value up front and then declares war before the duration is over, they have broken their commitment and cheated the other side. Note that Firaxis seems to share my opinion, since this is how things work in SP. As long as you haven't gotten something up front out of the deal, you can break a deal in which you received something per turn without destroying your reputation.

MPPs are an entirely different matter. Their purpose is not merely to exchange economic value, but for each civ to help provide military security for the other. It is a form of alliance, limited to defensive purposes only. What is a MPP worth if a civ can end it early by declaring war on their supposed MPP partner? In my mind, barring some kind of special agreement for a special purpose, saying you can have a MPP without a NAP is like saying you can have four rocks without having two rocks: it's not possible because the greater amount encompasses the lesser. And I strongly suspect that Firaxis agrees with me in how they implemented the MPP mechanics in the game, although I sign MPPs so rarely in SP that I'm not sure I've ever tested what happens to my reputation when I break one.

Nathan

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by vondrack

This just reinforces my belief that - just like in the real life - all 'treaties' are worth less that the (virtual) paper they are written on. As long as they are beneficial to both parties, they are valid. Once one of the parties becomes unhappy about the deal, *snap* and the treaty is gone. Who cares if the action was legal or illegal...

Who cares? Any other nation trying to decide whether or not a particular nation can be trusted cares. With nations, as with people, a reputation for being willing to keep agreements even when they are no longer in your best interest means something, and a reputation for discarding deals the moment something better comes along means something else entirely.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Reguarding that lux trade.

The 20 turns had more than expired. The deal was in essence over. No extension had been signed.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

Legoland are builders?!

And here I thought they were Isolationists.

Don't isolationists make the best builders, and builders the best isolationists?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by nbarclay


Who cares? Any other nation trying to decide whether or not a particular nation can be trusted cares. With nations, as with people, a reputation for being willing to keep agreements even when they are no longer in your best interest means something, and a reputation for discarding deals the moment something better comes along means something else entirely.

Bingo.

-Arrian

[GhengisFarb™]

GoW and ND declared war on Roleplay, yet we seem to have GS and Lego duking it out in this forum. I guess GoW members are true "agents of Chaos" afterall.

[Arrian]

Lego and GS "duking it out?" Errr, I don't think so.

Debating the nature of GoW's actions? Sure.

-Arrian

[vondrack]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Who cares? Any other nation trying to decide whether or not a particular nation can be trusted cares. With nations, as with people, a reputation for being willing to keep agreements even when they are no longer in your best interest means something, and a reputation for discarding deals the moment something better comes along means something else entirely.

True. I should have expressed myself better. The reputation may suffer (though not necessarily or not that much, because it always depends on who is breaking a treaty with whom).

What I had in mind when writing that part of my post was that the reaction of the "neutral" teams will mostly be affected by things that have very little to do with the (il)legality of the initial action/attack.

I mean - you seem to feel rather strongly that MPP does include NAP. But still, I do not see GS declaring war on GoW. I would also tend to consider an MPP a superset of an NAP. Yet, I do not see us/Lego declaring war on GoW over that issue. That's because other teams have their own agendas. The importance of these agendas is usually magnitude higher than whether there is an "evil aggressor" to be punished for his evil backstabbing or a "fair aggressor" to be left alone to fight... this game is not about "honour" in the sense known from chivalric tales... it is much more about Machiavellian practices helping one to maximize his overall gain and securing the ultimate victory (even if not entirely about it).

[Arrian]

I mean - you seem to feel rather strongly that MPP does include NAP. But still, I do not see GS declaring war on GoW. I would also tend to consider an MPP a superset of an NAP. Yet, I do not see us/Lego declaring war on GoW over that issue.

Our actions will be dictated by our interests, and yours by your interests, yes. However, when you get into planning alliances, tech deals with NDAs, etc., the reliability of any potential partners/allies is an important factor that cannot be ignored.

Can you plan cooperation with a civ you do not trust to honor a treaty? Not really. So while any action/inaction by GS with respect to this conflict may have little or nothing to do with the "morality" of GoWs attack on RP, it is something to think of down the road, when considering cooperation with GoW.

-Arrian

[nbarclay]

As I said before, my focus at the moment is on the theoretical side, not on trying to judge the particular nations involved. I've tried to make it clear that it is not completely impossible for civs to have a MPP without a NAP if that's the way they want it. If discussions between GoW and RP were such that they implied that MPPs would not automatically carry NAPs with them, that changes the complexion considerably. Ultimately, it is what GoW and RP believed that they were agreeing to, and believed that each other believed they were agreeing to, that matters.

As for the spirit of an agreement as contrasted with the letter, in a legitimate contract, the goal is for both sides to understand what is and is not being agreed to. Efforts to deliberately manipulate the wording of a written agreement so that one side thinks they are getting one thing when what they will really get is something else are dishonest and dishonorable and, at least under some circumstances, can be illegal. The ultimate goal of written contracts is to clarify and make a record of what the two sides believe they are agreeing to. The fact that written contracts are sometimes used to lie, cheat, and steal by writing down something different from what one party or the other has been led to expect is an unfortunate side effect of the system, not a part of its design or purpose (except perhaps to the extent that some lawyers have twisted the design to defeat the legitimate purpose). Edit: Just to make it clear, this paragraph is also a statement of general principle, not something aimed at accusing any particular team.

Nathan

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Arrian
However, when you get into planning alliances, tech deals with NDAs, etc., the reliability of any potential partners/allies is an important factor that cannot be ignored.

Though very often, the importance of the "agenda" I was talking about overrides your preference to deal with someone with an "untarnished" reputation. It is an important factor, agreed, but just one of many that come into play.

Originally posted by Arrian
Can you plan cooperation with a civ you do not trust to honor a treaty? Not really. So while any action/inaction by GS with respect to this conflict may have little or nothing to do with the "morality" of GoWs attack on RP, it is something to think of down the road, when considering cooperation with GoW.

Thinking of this, yes, you do have a point. Though, often, one tends to think... "but they would never do the same thing to US!" (hey, I myself believe Voxes will not sneak-attack Lego, despite them doing all those bad things during The War of Chickens... ). There are always "the circumstances" or "the context", which affect how others perceive your deeds.

And here we are getting back to my initial statement. That all that matters is the fact that GoW attacked RP despite having an MPP with them. Arguments over the legality or illegality of that action are useless.

Kudos to GoW for not denying the fact. They are not like that al-Sahhaf guy...

Note: very well said, Nathan.

[GhengisFarb™]

EDIT: Removed part of the post while I hunt for the original documentation to prove it. Ughh, I am not looking forward to digging through all the chat logs. ;(

THe original MPP did NOT include a NAP as Roleplay and Togas discussed the point of including a NAP with the second MPP. The MPP only covered mututal defense against ND only from what I have found.

About a week or so ago they then decided we should negotiate a new MPP and INCLUDE a NAP in the new one.

Feel free to discuss this.

NOTE: If you wish to insure that GoW does not attack you, then you sign a NAP and NOT an MPP, as apparently an MPP is not viewed by GoW as an adequate legal defense from them viewing you as a potential target.

[nbarclay]

Vondrack, I agree that many other factors are involved besides just whether and to what extent a civ can be trusted. Players or teams that do not trust each other at all may band together against players or teams they trust implicitly if mutual self-interest provides sufficient motivation. But even in that type of situation, lack of trust carries a price. Allies who cannot trust each other have to commit more of their resources and attention to protecting themselves against each other, and are left with less resources and attention to devote to their common foe.

Nathan

[vondrack]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Vondrack, I agree that many other factors are involved besides just whether and to what extent a civ can be trusted. Players or teams that do not trust each other at all may band together against players or teams they trust implicitly if mutual self-interest provides sufficient motivation. But even in that type of situation, lack of trust carries a price. Allies who cannot trust each other have to commit more of their resources and attention to protecting themselves against each other, and are left with less resources and attention to devote to their common foe.

Yep, true. However, even being honest and trustworthy (h&t) carries its price, since you are waiving advantages you could gain by not being h&t. Whether it's better to be h&t and enjoy benefits of a high credit in the long run or backstab at the right moment and gain the crucial advantage (that will help you in the long run, too)... that's unfortunately more of a dilemma than I'd like it to be - it usually ends up pondering whether the purpose justifies the means. Exactly as in the RL... I am not sure you could say it generally pays off to be h&t (speaking strictly from the lose/gain PoV, ignoring the moral part). I'd say it pays off only as long as you are dealing with h&t partners.

But that is more of a topic for philosophers than for civvers. Fortunately, most people do consider more than just the lose/gain PoV.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Arrian
Ok, this is the second time I've seen this allegation. And I would very much like to know if there is any truth to it.

With respect to the MPP issue, let's just say that if GS had a MPP with someone else and our MPP partner attacked us, I'd be ripshit. And believe me, if Vox had violated a MPP to attack us, there would not have been a Voxodus if we could have prevented it.

-Arrian

Bear with me here, because while I was around for the Lux situation, I was not around for the Vox one. Concerning Vox, you'll have to talk to someone else.

As for Lux, here's what happened:

Lux Invicta, or specifically Trip, realized he was done for. Lux Invicta DID have an MPP with Roleplay Team.

- First, Lux Invicta was sending warriors through ND's cultural territory.

- We specifically warned Lux Invicta that intentionally pissing off Neu Demogyptica and getting them to declare war on Lux Invicta wasn't what we had in mind when we signed an MPP with them, but we also knew that if ND actually attacked Lux first, we were going to get dragged in and that was that.

- Next, Lux Invicta kept doing things to provoke ND.

- ND, smarter than the average bear, noted that they had a linked source of iron with plenty of money from going 100% tax while Lux did not. ND upgraded their warriors to swordsmen and put them in a pretty stack.

- RP Team, meanwhile, was still in REX. We really had no military to speak of and if we switched to military production, it would have taken time to get a stack of archers marching north. We specifically warned Lux Invicta of this fact as a reason not to provoke ND until everyone was ready.

- ND came to us at some point and we told them that if they attacked Lux Invicta before a given turn, we would be forced to attack them in turn, as it seems GoW likely would as well.

- ND was pretty smart about it. THey moved their stack of swordsmen toward Lux Invicta with only 1 turn left on the RP-Lux MPP, but not yet within their borders. They moved a scout toward Lux as well.

- Lux Invicta, realizing they were screwed if ND actually invaded, called a meeting of Lux, RP, and GoW where Lux basically asked for assistance. RP Team was quite explicit in that we felt Lux had provoked the coming war (though we agree with Trip in retrospect that it would have likely happened regardless), that we had no military to send yet but could certainly switch to military production if Neu Demogyptica attacked Lux and it was possible to save them.

- GoW, for their part, GhengisFarb himself, spent the entire conference trying to convince Lux Invicta to "sell" GoW Lux's northern city in return for aid. At the end of the discussion, GoW also said they had some horsemen they could use to help out Lux if Neu Dem actually invaded.

- Lux Invicta ATTACKED Neu Demogyptica rather than waiting for Neu Dem to attack Lux, which did not activate the very strictly defensive MPP RP had with Lux.

- GoW then proceeded to backstab Lux Invicta in order to conquer the very city they had asked Lux Invicta to "sell" them in the joint chat.

- The RP-Lux MPP had expired AND Lux had started the war, so RP was not obligated to help, nor had pledged it. Given that the situation was hopeless and Lux was abandoning their own ciites, we certainly were not going to commit suicide against the walls of Neu Demogyptica simply for sport.

- GoW and ND finished taking out Lux Invicta.

And that, gentlemen, is the story of the Lux war. Not only did RP Team not pledge direct support, but at least we stayed home rather than backstabbing the people who were asking us for help

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Didn't you have an MPP or an agreement to assist with troops both Lux and Vox? How many of your troops did you sacrifice in those two campaigns.

As I'm not a RP diplomat, I don't recall the specifics of either situation, but I will say that in each circumstance, RP was not in position to provide military aid within time frames that would make any difference.

In the case of Lux, I don't think we ever told them we could send units, as around that time we had nothing but a scant number of warriors exploring the continent, and we had explicitly agreed to keep out of the north, so none of those few were anywhere nearby.

In the case of Vox, once again we were not in a position to get units to them in a timely manner, not having boats at the time, and the distance being so great once we did.

It should be added that the RP diplomatic team was very involved in both circumstances. Offering to act as mediators, trying to calm both sides down and encourage peace, etc.

In my opinion, the only good reason for GoW or ND to have a beef with RP is in fact one that was not under our control - our start position. From our start location, and initially expanding west towards the cows (who wouldn't?), we were able to claim half of Bob. Any team in our position would naturally have done the same.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by vondrack

Yep, true. However, even being honest and trustworthy (h&t) carries its price, since you are waiving advantages you could gain by not being h&t. Whether it's better to be h&t and enjoy benefits of a high credit in the long run or backstab at the right moment and gain the crucial advantage (that will help you in the long run, too)... that's unfortunately more of a dilemma than I'd like it to be - it usually ends up pondering whether the purpose justifies the means. Exactly as in the RL... I am not sure you could say it generally pays off to be h&t (speaking strictly from the lose/gain PoV, ignoring the moral part). I'd say it pays off only as long as you are dealing with h&t partners.

But that is more of a topic for philosophers than for civvers. Fortunately, most people do consider more than just the lose/gain PoV.

Fortunately, in real life, there is no limit to the number of people who can win. A few people define their "victory conditions" in such a way that they can only win by causing others to lose, but many others view helping others win as part of their own victory (to put it in game-like terms). In real life, honesty and trustworthiness help make it possible for more people to win. That's a bit more problematic in Civ, since only one player/team can be the official winner.

[Panzer32]

- GoW then proceeded to backstab Lux Invicta in order to conquer the very city they had asked Lux Invicta to "sell" them in the joint chat.

Was there an agreed upon plan? Not that I can remember. I consider 'backstabbing' to need an agreed upon plan...

Wait! I found the chat log from that...

News: Trip's campain of disbandonment came from an idea from GhengisFarb!!

{[GoW]_GhengisFarb} I think it would be to withdraw them both
and abandon Regio. They gain no city and no gold from your treasury

A prediction from GhengisFarb:

{[GoW]_GhengisFarb} They won't raze Fabio

hmmm...

A common phrase for the possible use of GoW horses against ND:

"Run around and torch stuff"

Another Ghengis quote:

{[GoW]_GhengisFarb} I will be totally frank, if ND wipes out
Lux next turn, I am not 100% sure we can rationally commit to declaring
war on ND

hmmm... did we just say we were going to backstabb Lux?? NO!!! We never made any commitment to go to war with ND!

Profound quotation from myself:

{[GoW]_Panzer32} I don't see permanent peace here.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by vondrack

And here we are getting back to my initial statement. That all that matters is the fact that GoW attacked RP despite having an MPP with them. Arguments over the legality or illegality of that action are useless

Kudos to GoW for not denying the fact. They are not like that al-Sahhaf guy...

Oh come one, that al-Sahaf guy gave us some of the funniest moments in demo game history!

As for legality, I think it is very important that a team be percieved as having done everything as legally valid. If everyone starts breaking treaties whenever it feels like, where is this going to get us? To the point no deal is ever respected in any demo game. We went to great lengths to ensure that what we did is valid, why? For the simple reason that there are other 4 teams in this game which will view and judge our actions based on what we did now.

If GoW is now to be percieved as treacherous and backstabbing where is this going to get us when we ask, say, for a NAP with Lego, or a no-trade clause for some tech with GS in the future? They won't believe it. Or worse, they won't respect it using the same logic and that only means trouble for us.

What we did was not "nice". That I admit. Then again, civ is a game, and we do things that aren't nice, everyone had. Has anyone here not declared war on another in a PBEM? Of course. Why did you do it? Because it was in the vital interests of you so you could win the game. Same with us. We are doing what at this moment is percieved by our team and by ND to be the best course of action, however wierd and crazy you might think it is. But it's legal and you know it, because we did not break any pact which prevented us from declaring war on RP, and I dare any of their members to copy/paste the part in the agreement which said we could not do so.

That's really pretty much all I have to say about this now, I leave it to every other team to judge us according to their own standards and codes of conduct. We are confident that we did not break any pact illegally and it appears most other people agree, and that is most reassuring. What we did was a simple act of doing what was necessary to ensure we have some hope of winning this game, the premise on which not only GoW's but every other team's actions in this game are based upon.

Now stop whining, and start fighting...

[Togas]

For those who astutely pointed out that the technicalities of this whole affair don't matter, you're right. It is pointless to argue legalities, this is not a court of law, and being "right or wrong" legally means squat. What matter is how you view agreements and relationships ... if you tend to live up to them or see them as tools to manipulate and circumvent.

I am dissapointed in some of my teammates for entertaining the silly notion that a MPP = a NAP or whatnot. They were missing the point entirely, as I don't think that was ever Arnelos' point when he made this thread. And even if it was a NAP, so what? What's done is done and GoW isn't going to change their mind and comply with a treaty that they wholely disregarded and schemed their way around.

And as for this little comment:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
When Roleplay offered us the MPP it also rejected a NAP clause that GoW had written in the clause. I believe they specifically said they felt a NAP would be unduly restraining on their team at that time.

It is absolutely false and I would know as I handle diplomacy for our team. I don't know why Ghengis would throw in trash like this, or what good he thinks it does him, but I was infuriated when I read this post.

--Togas

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Togas
For those who astutely pointed out that the technicalities of this whole affair don't matter, you're right. It is pointless to argue legalities, this is not a court of law, and being "right or wrong" legally means squat. What matter is how you view agreements and relationships ... if you tend to live up to them or see them as tools to manipulate and circumvent.

entertaining the silly notion that a MPP = a NAP or whatnot... as I don't think that was ever Arnelos' point when he made this thread.

True. But, then again, you already knew what my plan was (and was not) when I made this thread because I told you what I was up to

As for your point, I agree completely!

[Master Zen]

He's CrazyGhengis, remember???

[BigFree]

Originally posted by Master Zen
If GoW is now to be percieved as treacherous and backstabbing where is this going to get us when we ask, say, for a NAP with Lego, or a no-trade clause for some tech with GS in the future? They won't believe it. Or worse, they won't respect it using the same logic and that only means trouble for us.

So true MZ...your job now is to convince the other teams that GoW is completely trustworthy.


Good Luck!

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Arnelos


Bear with me here, because while I was around for the Lux situation, I was not around for the Vox one. Concerning Vox.....

....yada, yada, Lie, Lie, Lie, Propoganda, Propoganda, Lie, Lie.........

....and that, gentlemen, is the story of the Lux war.

There are a few factual statements in Arnie's quote but you would have to really dig to find them. Roleplay didn't honor the MPP because they just didn't want to and were afraid of ND. There was no way in heck GoW was going to support Lux as we had a signed mutual attack treaty with ND. We flat out told Trip we didn't see anyway we could support him and then they invited us to an emergency conference to work up battle plans to defeat ND.

Hey, if they were stupid enough to invite the enemy to a strategy session we'll show up. At that point in time we just bs'd our way through the session offering advice here and there, but we specifically never agreed to help and never would have. We had been planning to attack Lux for a long time after they kept trying to cut us down to only 3 citysites and we felt we had no choice but to clear out some living space.

After the 3-team discussion, Roleplay and GoW had an after discussion chat in which Roleplay's leaders were laughing and cracking jokes about how niave Lux, how they were going to be totally obliterated, and how Roleplay wasn't going to lift a finger to help them short of sending up a few units to have a shot at getting some spoils of the war.

[civman2000]

[]

I do not believe that anyone would entertain the notion that GoW is "right" in a broad sense. The little details do not matter. The slimiest of liars are those who take advantage of little details and loopholes to turn their lies into "truths". It is COMMON SENSE that if you agree to come to someone's defense if they are attacked, you will not be the one doing the attacking. The argument that we were separately negotiating an NAP is bullshit. I am not closely involved with the details of Spanish diplomacy, but there are plenty of reasons to have separate NAPs and MPPs. For example, the NAP could be a long-term plan (say 50 turns), while the 30-turn proposed MPP was for our imminent concerns.

If you use a technicality to do something that is in spirit wrong or whatever other adjective you want to use, does that make it right? Do you feel that you can trust GoW more because they used a technicality than you woudl if they just attacked us with a full, explicit NAP?? If anything, you should trust them LESS, because instead of just admitting the whole plan was a machiavellian scam and that they had no intention of ever following any part of the treaty they lie about that too! Yes, I know they've partially admitted this. But won't they jsut accept that they are wrong and that there is no moral or even to some extent "legal" justification??

[/]

[Panzer32]

But won't they jsut accept that they are wrong and that there is no moral or even to some extent "legal" justification??

We can't jsut anything!

Does anyone know what jsut means??

[Theseus]

I am, uh, feeling conflicted.

Tough situation, and as my GS teammates have previously noted, I am glad that we are not the focal point this time.

Pulling back, I have to say that all of the parties involved have valid stances, from their own viewpoint... whether the relevant participants, or the bystanders, think so or not.

So, I am posting completely neutrally.

I just have to say, watching Togas, Arnelos, MZ, and GheghisFarb (with the occasional sally by Beta) duke it out... ... in our little community, that's Terminator 10 (Revenge of the Nanobots), The Matrix Revisited 5 (Spam Blockers Unite), and Aliens 40 (Mutant GS Chickens Take Over The Galaxy), all in one.

Random thought: I'd like to run for US President... you guys ready to be my team?

[Panzer32]

Random thought: I'd like to run for US President... you guys ready to be my team?

Are foreigners allowed?

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Theseus
I just have to say, watching ... Arnelos...

Random thought: I'd like to run for US President... you guys ready to be my team?

Funny you should mention that considering my field of work and career path in RL...

(I've spent the past year working on American political campaigns)