| Re: Is Slimdragoon a NAP breaker or not ? |
Sat, 18 February 2012 06:10   |
|
 iztok |
 | Commander |
Messages: 1206
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
To avoid such situation in my games I hereby announce that if Slimdragoon would like to have a NAP or any other in-game agreement with me, he will be required to read and agree with 3,128,000-words document and 7654 addendums avalabe in several sources (list will be included), describing behaviour in every possible and non-possible interaction case of both sides entering the agreement. Not reading thoroughly and understanding completly the document and all addendums will result in immediate and lethal action from my side, and me holding a grudge against Slimdragoon until 31.12.2345 A.D.
This, or I will just put the Slimdragoon on my black list of Stars! lawyers, and act accordingly 
BR, Iztok
[Updated on: Sat, 18 February 2012 06:11] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is Slimdragoon a NAP breaker or not ? |
Sat, 18 February 2012 09:29 |
|
| Mac1 |
 | Chief Warrant Officer 2 |
Messages: 159
Registered: November 2008 | |
|
| iztok wrote on Sat, 18 February 2012 06:10 |
Hi!
To avoid such situation in my games I hereby announce that if Slimdragoon would like to have a NAP or any other in-game agreement with me, he will be required to read and agree with 3,128,000-words document and 7654 addendums avalabe in several sources (list will be included), describing behaviour in every possible and non-possible interaction case of both sides entering the agreement. Not reading thoroughly and understanding completly the document and all addendums will result in immediate and lethal action from my side, and me holding a grudge against Slimdragoon until 31.12.2345 A.D.
This, or I will just put the Slimdragoon on my black list of Stars! lawyers, and act accordingly
BR, Iztok
|
Me likes that kind of thining 
Don't get me wrong, i think slimdragoon is a nice player. But i wanna name things by name. And in this case i feel like he wanted to avoid 5 years clause and looking for a way to kill me earlier.
We would fight anyway probably but i wanted to have this 5 more years to prepare better. That's why i had this nap signed. And while he having advantege in firepower he did find a way to kill me wtih less trouble, instead of waiting 5 years. And i find this as a dark kind of play and i don't like it.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is Slimdragoon a NAP breaker or not ? |
Sat, 18 February 2012 20:48 |
|
|
|
Mmmh, weird discussion.
There was a NAP between Dragonoids and Undead. The Undead attacked the Dragonoids and have broken the NAP. Why now the fuss?
Let's recapitulate:
There is a planet of the Airstrip the Undead want to attack but there are fleets in orbit from Dragonoids. On top of that Airstrip is an ally/friend of the Dragonoids.
I can't see that the Undead have any right to demand that the Dragonoids move away their fleets. The Dragonoids even say: "wait for 5 years".
But the Undead neither wait nor do they cancel the NAP, they attack nevertheless and they KNOW that this will trigger the Dragonoid fleets helping their ally under attack.
Both sides would had had several options to solve the NAP-problem one way or another. None was chosen. If both sides play it the hard way, none can complain about the results, I think.
But it seems obvious that it weren't the Dragonoids breaking the NAP but the Undead. It might have been a setup the Undead stumbled into but I think they stumbled into it with open eyes hoping it would somehow work out.
To sum it up:
No, Slimdragoon did not break the NAP. The Undead did (knowingly).
[Updated on: Sat, 18 February 2012 20:49] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is Slimdragoon a NAP breaker or not ? |
Sat, 18 February 2012 21:21 |
|
| goober |
 | Chief Warrant Officer 3 |
Messages: 175
Registered: December 2003
Location: +10 | |
|
| Altruist wrote on Sun, 19 February 2012 11:48 |
<snip>
I can't see that the Undead have any right to demand that the Dragonoids move away their fleets. The Dragonoids even say: "wait for 5 years".
|
But its the D's telling the U's they can't attack ...
| Mac1 |
I was preparing to attack another of Airstrip Planet, named Planet9, i was sweeping mines atm.
Then i receive an e-mail from Dragonoids that i can't attack planet for at least 5 turns beacuse he is using the planet as trading route to his front line with Psilons (it might be fair, but Dragonoids already have several other gates at Psilon border
|
So the D's are interfering with the war betweens the U and A's. If they want to defend the A's they need to cancel the NAP and wait 5 turns before doing so.
| Quote: |
But the Undead neither wait nor do they cancel the NAP, they attack nevertheless and they KNOW that this will trigger the Dragonoid fleets helping their ally under attack.
|
BUT the U's don't attack the D's. The D's attack the U's and the D's know this will happpen if they are at Planet 9 when the U's attack. The D's chose to move their fleet there: surely they are responsible for its actions not the U's.
| Quote: |
Both sides would had had several options to solve the NAP-problem one way or another. None was chosen. If both sides play it the hard way, none can complain about the results, I think.
|
Appear to be time constraints which the D's may well have utilised to their advantage too.
| Quote: |
But it seems obvious that it weren't the Dragonoids breaking the NAP but the Undead. It might have been a setup the Undead stumbled into but I think they stumbled into it with open eyes hoping it would somehow work out.
|
I agree in the sense that The U's were aware how the D's would interpret their actions.
However, had there been no communication, the D's would have broken the NAP!
Once again. Outstanding diplomacy if this was Slim's intent.
| Quote: |
To sum it up:
No, Slimdragoon did not break the NAP. The Undead did (knowingly).
|
Too true.
I still think the correct response, if the U and D are set to friends, is a preemptive strike on the D homeworld.
Goober.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is Slimdragoon a NAP breaker or not ? |
Sun, 19 February 2012 17:33 |
|
|
|
Having read all this, I cannot escape the feeling that this whole conversation was to serve one purpose for Mac1: to find an excuse for his actions and try to gain enough support to reach the "moral high ground".
Did he succeed?
In short: nice try, no dice.
The basic facts are:
- Mac1 wanted to attack Airstrip planet. Airstrip was his enemy, but Slimdrag00n's ally. While this doesn't break NAP by itself, it is already slippery (allies are supposed to help each other, otherwise there'd be no point in alliances). If Mac1 attacked my ally in any game, I'd seriously consider cancelling the NAP (with or without keeping the exit clause) and join in on the bashing.
- Slimdrag00n had his fleet at the target planet, and rejected to move it away. That's fine, why should Slim let himself be pushed around by a player he's not allied to? Even allies aren't that bold to each other, at least usually. Expecting non-allied players to do your bidding just because you said so is... well, let's say "overly optimistic".
- Mac1 attacked a planet he knew Slim's fleets were orbiting, with orders so defined they would be dragged into the fray. Doesn't matter for me who fired first - the attack was an intentional action by Mac1. Had Mac1 not known about Slim's fleets before he attacked, he could have been granted the benefit of the doubt, and the damage could have been written off as an incident. However, he was explicitly warned by Slim that his fleets were there, and reminded about the 5-year exit clause. Still, he attacked, which means he should have been ready to bear the consequences.
For me, a NAP (in full: Non-Aggression Pact) - is just that: a promise that we (the two who sign it) don't attack each other (under any circumstances), and give a warning X years in advance if we want to change it. Mac1 was warned that his action would constitute an attack (since allies are free to protect each other), and deliberately chose to disregard the warning. He attacked without giving 5 years leeway, so it was he who broke the promise. Everyone call it what you will, I'll call it breaking the NAP. If anybody did this to me, I'd hit him with everything plus the kitchen sink, effective next turn - just to show him the error of his ways. That was exactly what Slim did, and rightly so.
A situation when a NAP protects an ally of one NAP counterpart against the attack of the other counterpart may indeed be a bit frustrating - one doesn't need to be at war with you to hinder your war plans considerably. Still, that's the inherent cost of signing weird treaties, and choosing to live by them, or break them. I can only second those who said "excellent statesmanship on Slim's part", and pity Mac1 for not being able to stomach the consequences of your own actions.
To recap: IMHO, the answer to the thread's question is: No, Slimdrag00n is not a NAP breaker.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
