 |
| |
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aeson
It's also breaking an agreement. Even GoW respected the NDA on Feudalism while at war with us the first time. How could we do less? |
There is a huge difference between respecting an agreement when you declare war on someone and between respecting an agreement when someone declares war on you. Consider how things work in SP. If you declare war when you owe an AI something per turn, your reputation is shot. If an AI declares war when you owe it something per turn, or if you declare war when an AI owes you something per turn, it's no big deal because the side declaring war is cheating only themselves.
In the earlier instance, GoW committed what we had told them and they had agreed would be treated as an act of war. Had they used that act as a basis for disavowing their NDA, anyone they dealt with in the future would have to wonder whether GoW might stage or provoke a war as an excuse to break an agreement. Further, the earlier "war" was merely an action by a few GoW mercenaries fulfilling a contract (or at least the letter of the contract). Everything they said and did seemed to imply that they had no desire to escalate the conflict beyond a few mercenary engagements into a serious war, or to provoke us to a point where it would be difficult for our civs to do business together later.
But in this situation, we have not engaged in any action that threatened GoW units or territory. Declaring war is GoW's choice, not ours, and this is shaping up to be a way whole lot more than just a minor skirmish. Thus, the only precedent we would be setting is that if civs want us to honor NDAs with them, they should not declare war on us. And the fact that GoW is breaking a NAP in the process only adds to their lack of right or reason to expect us to honor the NDA in the face of their choice to go to war with us.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
 |
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:27
|
|
Don't agree, Nathan. These are two separate deals, and no matter which other deals got broken, the first has to hold.
So, if we find ourselves at war with GoW, we cannot break the NDA. But, correct me if I'm wrong: we don't need to either: next turn we're able to pass Chivalry along if we want to, as the NDA has expired. It is turn 131, right? Which means we had Chivalry in our possession for 10 turns without trading it onwards...
BTW, we commented on this in public (at least I did, but I thought more of our members joined in): we said we wouldn't break and NDA when war breaks out, as it would not be honorable. I agree the situation is different in that we get attacked, but NDAs are no implicit NAPs either, the two can exist besides each other.
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
|
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:27
|
|
Re: leak: that's not certain, definately not if Inchon would be our only lead, or if 'large numbers of troops' would be the intel. But, what does worry me is that on the one hand we have UnO saying he did not tell it to GF, as it was a unvoluntary leak from another game he did not want to feed his own team, on the other we have GF coming with almost the same information. Either UnO is deceiving us, or we have a doube leak 
We should mention it to RP, but it's not sure they can help it. Plus there might be other leaks as well, e.g. a slip from Trip, or from one of us... do not say to RP: "oh BTW, you have a leak, we're certain about that"
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Shiber
|
 |
Haifa, Israel
Jul 2002
time: 07:27
|
|
I've considered the option that RP might be cheating on us behind our backs. There's sense in them wanting to give us a harder time fighting on Bob - they're betting that we're going to win anyway, but they'd rather if it was more difficult for us and we'd be weakened, so that they will face less of a threat when they backstab us...
...or any other conspiracy theory.
The point is, this could be sponsored by RP.
We can know whether RP is involved in this somehow (either deliberately, or one of their members is a rat) by feeding them with false information, as Vulture suggested. We have to say something believable, and yet surprising, and it needs to have a discernable effect that we can monitor on the actions of GoW and/or ND.
Shall we tell them that we intend to move four galleys full of vet knights into Bilbao in three turns and use the fact that its a coastal city to get moves immediately when we land and attack GoW's stack? If GoW moved all their riders towards Toledo this turn and did not bother with Bilbao, but sends a rider to backtrack and eliminate Bilbao next turn, then I think that there's a good chance that something is fishy in RP.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
|
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:27
|
|
Sorry, I think that's too much. We have no proof that any leak (if there is even one) is on RP's side, so we can't start feeding them wrong information, and see if it gets out. For the moment, we should treat this as: "Okay, there might be a leak somewhere, so let's keep all essential information to our own". After all, there is a big chance this was a undeliberate, one-of-a-kind spill from anyone involved, and with over 30 people knowing about Inchon, that even isn't such a wild guess.
This even doesn't take into account that many of us, if they knew Inchon was switching hands, would deduce that the only reason to do that was to either help RP get some troops closer to home, or that GS gifted some cats to RP. Both of which will, in the words of GF, be described as massive amounts of troops teleported to Bob.
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-07-2003 16:49
|