Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » First possible attack at end of agreement
| First possible attack at end of agreement |
Sat, 27 January 2007 22:31  |
|
|
|
If an alliance,NAP, etc. is 2420-2500 what is the protocol re. first possible attack?
Orders are in the turn for 2500 so that the battle has occured when the 2501 .M file is opened or the orders are in the first year after the agreement has lapsed (2501).
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: First possible attack at end of agreement |
Thu, 01 February 2007 17:03  |
|
|
|
In the turn marked 2501 you are playing 2501. The implication is that the reports you see, are information about what happened the previous year... So if the alliance is supposed to still be valid in 2500, then I would be disappointed if I got reports in 2501 showing combat had occurred in the previous year.
Of course you should also check the exact working of your agreement - for some people NAP 2420 to 2500 would consider that the NAP had lapsed in 2500, rather than that that was the final year.
I suggest talking with your (soon to be ex-) ally to come to agreement so you both are clear.
Personally I try to explicity specify in my agreements exactly when orders counter to the agreement can first be enacted.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: First possible attack at end of agreement |
Thu, 01 February 2007 17:10 |
|
 vonKreedon |
 | Lieutenant |
Messages: 610
Registered: March 2003
Location: Seattle, WA USA | |
|
I disagree with Dog's take. If the NAP expires in 2500 then you should expect combat to occur in the turn labeled 2501. The orders causing the combat were issued in 2500, but the combat occurs in 2501 and so the NAP has expired. Certainly you should be giving orders, making preparations well prior to the expiration to put yourself in a position to counter any offense by you new non-ally and take advantage of any opportunities to take the offensive yourself.
Edit: But I do agree with Dog that it's best to be explicit about when combat can occur. When I send a message invoking an exit clause I usually note what year combat could occur.
[Updated on: Thu, 01 February 2007 17:11] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: First possible attack at end of agreement |
Fri, 02 February 2007 04:42 |
|
|
|
If possible, I usually send my now ex ally an email on the turn I start giving attack orders.
most recently, to Aiel in The End
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: First possible attack at end of agreement |
Fri, 02 February 2007 21:30 |
|
|
|
The consensus is clear - an agreement for 2520 - 2550 expires in 2550. Do not attack in 2550 since the agreement is still valid that year.
There is no necessity to inform the other party of impending attacks in 2551 without a formal exit clause to the agreement or the other party having violated the agreement earlier.
Attack in 2551 at will. IF the NAP agreement was violated at any time while it was in effect, the agreement is null and void and you may attack any time you wish without notification.
Ptolemy
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: First possible attack at end of agreement |
Sat, 03 February 2007 16:52 |
|
| vonKreedon |
| Lieutenant |
Messages: 610
Registered: March 2003
Location: Seattle, WA USA | |
|
While I in general agree with Ptolemy's post, I think that he's added a couple of items that have not reached concensus.
| Quote: |
There is no necessity to inform the other party of impending attacks in 2551 without a formal exit clause to the agreement or the other party having violated the agreement earlier.
...
IF the NAP agreement was violated at any time while it was in effect, the agreement is null and void and you may attack any time you wish without notification.
|
My reading of this Forum is that there is no concensus that one can launch an attack against an ally at any time barring an explicit exit clause. My reading also indicates no concensus that one can take a violation of a treaty as carte blanche to attack the ally at any later time.
As I said, I generally agree, though personally I think that the violation should be called out at the time to give your ally an opportunity to redress the violation and put the alliance back on firm footing. The Machiavellian side of me though does appreciate the usefulness of such a violation.
Edit: When I say "ally" I'm meaning any treaty partner, not just active allies.
[Updated on: Sat, 03 February 2007 17:03] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: First possible attack at end of agreement |
Sun, 04 February 2007 23:16 |
|
|
|
I also think a key issue here is different peoples interpretation of what year is being played... Some people could consider the year shown in the game client as being the year orders are being issued for, some consider it as being the year whose results you already see...
A subtle distinction, but one that could result in upset. For this reason I try to disambiguate my treaties with something akin to this "orders xxxxx may be issued in the turn where the displayed year is xxxx", rather than just saying the year, which could mean either one of two actuall years depending on the player's interpretations.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: First possible attack at end of agreement |
Mon, 05 February 2007 01:13 |
|
|
|
| Dogthinkers wrote on Sun, 04 February 2007 23:16 |
I also think a key issue here is different peoples interpretation of what year is being played... Some people could consider the year shown in the game client as being the year orders are being issued for, some consider it as being the year whose results you already see...
|
Yes, that is the main point I wanted to clarify!
I'm a little surprised that all you expert players haven't come up with a protocol on this years ago though.
Thanks for all the input. I agree that it's best to communicate with your (ex-)allies to ensure everyone's on the same page re. when an assault is possible at end of agreement. I doubt that too many players put a clause in the original agreement tho - not that it's a bad idea.
AlexTheGreat
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: First possible attack at end of agreement |
Mon, 05 February 2007 01:34 |
|
|
|
Not everybody will want to have the agreement end at a certain pre-specified time. You don't know what your situation will be 20 turns later, the best laid plans of mice and men and all that.
Trying to arbitrarily "enforce" agreements like this, as if they had some sort of actual bearing beyond the game effects and as if there is some sort of authority to appeal to, is stupid. If you want your alliance to last, be useful and help out; otherwise, you're just holding your allies back and they'd be better off without you. That's all there is to it - a partnership based on mutual benefit. If you aren't benefiting from the partnership, you shouldn't be stuck with it. Remember the lessons of alliances and World War I. Putting honor before common sense can turn one death into millions.
Be more of a leader and less of a lawyer.
In any event, alliances are only going to last if alliance wins are allowed. If you're in a strong two-player alliance and two players can win, there's not much reason to pull out if you have a decent chance. Now, if there's 2 victory positions and you're in a strong alliance of three, that's where things get interesting!
[Updated on: Mon, 05 February 2007 01:44] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: First possible attack at end of agreement |
Mon, 05 February 2007 13:42 |
|
| iojho |
 | Officer Cadet 4th Year |
Messages: 280
Registered: October 2006
Location: EPBA | |
|
Coyote,
It seems as if you had extended this thread a bit  But it is interesting what you wrote here.
Should I understand that you stay in alliance as long as it is suitable for you, and when you lose interest in it, you are ready to leave it at once regardless of the terms of agreement (even without notification you quit). In the other words, do you violate agreements just because they are not useful for you?
You referred to an alliance only. Could you present your approach with regard to other agreements, in particular to NAP? NAP is passive agreement, i.e. parties are obliged to refrein from doing something. The second party cannot make it more useful for you. Should your partner expect attack from your side at any time?
[Updated on: Mon, 05 February 2007 13:44]
"Every person speculates on creating a new need in another, so as to drive him to fresh sacrifice, to place him in a new dependence and to seduce him into a new mode of enjoyment and therefore economic ruin."
Karl Marx,1844Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: First possible attack at end of agreement |
Tue, 06 February 2007 01:38 |
|
|
|
| iojho wrote on Mon, 05 February 2007 10:42 |
Coyote,
It seems as if you had extended this thread a bit But it is interesting what you wrote here.
Should I understand that you stay in alliance as long as it is suitable for you, and when you lose interest in it, you are ready to leave it at once regardless of the terms of agreement (even without notification you quit). In the other words, do you violate agreements just because they are not useful for you?
|
Yes.
I'll give notice before leaving, sure. But there's no reason to follow an agreement if doing so is detrimental.
I think a better way to put this is: why would you want to get yourself into an agreement that's likely to end up holding you back?
| Quote: |
You referred to an alliance only. Could you present your approach with regard to other agreements, in particular to NAP? NAP is passive agreement, i.e. parties are obliged to refrein from doing something. The second party cannot make it more useful for you. Should your partner expect attack from your side at any time?
|
I'd present it as relevant to any sort of diplomacy.
A non-aggression pact can be assumed to be in effect so long as the players involved are not attacking each other, QED. This is supposed to be a mutually beneficial state of affairs - otherwise there would be no purpose in engaging in an NAP. Indeed, it's generally a great thing for anyone to have a peaceful border or two. When someone decides to no longer honor it, well, the gloves come off. But don't go crying to anyone - this sort of thing happens, that's the way diplomacy works.
I suggest you read The Prince if you need further clarification on my viewpoint. I'm a utilitarian. Whatever will gain me an advantage is fair game. Most of the time, cooperation is much preferable to competition. My goal is to win, or failing that at least to place well, or failing that to make things interesting. If you are helping me do that, you have nothing to worry about from me. If I'm helping you do that, I should have nothing to worry about from you. It's simple.
I just resent that some people seem to take my comments out of context and think I'm some kind of sociopath. I do not get a kick out of breaking treaties, I do not take game events personally. I may be your mortal enemy in one game and your best ally in another. It's a game. The point is to do what you can to win, and have fun doing it. Enjoy the challenge of competition.
If you don't do everything you can to win, you're not going to be very fun to play with.
[Updated on: Tue, 06 February 2007 01:52] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: First possible attack at end of agreement |
Tue, 06 February 2007 11:06 |
|
|
|
| Coyote wrote on Tue, 06 February 2007 07:38 |
It's a game. The point is to do what you can to win, and have fun doing it.
[...]
If you don't do everything you can to win, you're not going to be very fun to play with.
|
Yes, it's a game!
And as a matter of a surprising fact: I am playing it for fun.
Sometimes even loosing is more fun than winning. As nice as it is to win, it is no fun to win if it is a boring game. Thus I prefer an exciting thriling challenge which I finally loose to a boring game I win.
I also made the experience that I have much more fun playing Stars when I can talk and plan everything together with an ally. Thus I don't view my ally ONLY as the means to win the game.
As much as I strive to win I nevertheless think it is a general and widespread misconception to think that winning is everything or even the essence of playing. It is a very limited and rather poor view.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: First possible attack at end of agreement |
Tue, 06 February 2007 13:06 |
|
| iojho |
| Officer Cadet 4th Year |
Messages: 280
Registered: October 2006
Location: EPBA | |
|
Coyote,your approach is something new for me. Many questions come into my mind but I do not want to abuse this thread. Perhaps, I will have a chance to get know your approach in practice since we play in the same game.
BTW, as I remember, the Prince treats solely about internal affairs of the state. Even if Machiavelli wrote about external affairs, he mentioned them only in the context of keeping government by individual. Isaiah Berlin wrote more in this respect (sadly, I have forgotten the title of this book). Should not you look for handbook of leading diplomacy? 
"Every person speculates on creating a new need in another, so as to drive him to fresh sacrifice, to place him in a new dependence and to seduce him into a new mode of enjoyment and therefore economic ruin."
Karl Marx,1844Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: First possible attack at end of agreement |
Tue, 06 February 2007 13:12 |
|
| Iconian |
 | Officer Cadet 2nd Year |
Messages: 233
Registered: January 2006
Location: Nevada, USA | |
|
Regarding alliances, treaties, etc:
If someone proposed to me an alliance or something, I wouldn't enter it if I didn't think we'd both benefit--I'd probably just suggest an alternative treaty that would benefit both of us. Proposals I do accept, or make, I'd have to consider very carefully.
On that line, I would only propose treaties or alliances that I thought were mutually beneficial, and I would have no intention of breaking them in the future--though I would put an expiration on them (w/the possibility of extension) and also provide an Escape Clause. This would guarantee that should the agreement become a liability to either of us in the future we could exit it easily without actually having to break it.
But as far as outright breaking an agreement, why should I? If I was to include an Escape Clause in the agreement then I'd just use that, and if I wasn't able to then I probably wouldn't accept the agreement. The only exception might be: if a much more powerful player proposed an agreement to me and he wouldn't let me work an Escape Clause into it, and I would almost certainly be destroyed if I didn't accept, then I might accept the agreement. This might eventually lead me to break the agreement--BUT, if the other guy really is so powerful that I don't really have a chance of winning, or making a difference, then why bother breaking the agreement--what good would it actually bring? Further, if he's weak enough that there doesn't seem to be a certain chance of him winning, then why would I accept his outlandish (no Escape Clause) proposal in the first place? I think a lot of these problems can be solved by closely looking at the situation ahead of time and getting a good idea of what's really going on, and deciding from there what to do.
I pretty much believe there's always an alternative to breaking an agreement.
Yeah, bread too.
Don't Let the Stars! Fade AwayReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: First possible attack at end of agreement |
Wed, 07 February 2007 11:09 |
|
| vonKreedon |
| Lieutenant |
Messages: 610
Registered: March 2003
Location: Seattle, WA USA | |
|
| Coyote wrote, among other things |
If you don't do everything you can to win, you're not going to be very fun to play with.
|
As long time readers of this forum will recognize, this is one of my big peeves (the other being the fracking stupid assed battle engine). That being said, to refer back to The Prince (though iojho is correct that it concerns mainly maintaining internal power rather than expanding the Prince's power) you do not want to be hated and careless breaking of treaties will get you hated by many, both in the specific game and long term, so be very very careful, deliberate, and methodical about any such backstabbing. Be sure that the benefit of the backstab is such that it is worth having the hatred of at the very least the victim of the backstab, if not other players.
As others have said, such as Iconian, it is best to consider very carefully the language of any treaty you accept so that you can keep to the letter of the agreement no matter the reasonably expected eventuality. If your treaty partner gets too powerful you can consider other means of curbing the power, such as tech/info/ship trading with the partner's opponents, or building up and positioning fleets prior to giving notice so that you are in a position to take the offensive before your partner can shift resources to your front. Breaking an agreement should be a last resort due to a need not an advantage.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: First possible attack at end of agreement |
Thu, 15 February 2007 02:17 |
|
|
|
Mmm, I think it's nice to play with a little honour. If I commit to something, the game is more pleasurable to do so.
The comments further up on NAP are good example... It is said that if agreement is no longer usefull, why abide by it any more... Well, I say the NAP has no value *at all* even from the start, if one or both sides has no desire to abide be it if for a moment they are better off breaching the agreement. The whole benefit of a NAP, is that you have confidence the other party will not attack you.
When I choose to end a NAP, it is always painfull to have to wait the agreed period, painfull to have effectively warned the opponent that I will attack them... But (so far at least) I have always done so.
After all - the community is quite small. If a player breaks their word to you in one game, then no matter how good relations you have with them in the next, you'll always be wondering... And you'll also have a reasonable argument to return the favour.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon May 06 07:23:22 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
as lawyer 
.
