[Updated on: Mon, 20 February 2012 07:43]

Report message to a moderator

iztok wrote on Mon, 20 February 2012 05:39

Hi! OK, let's recap. I have a NAP with someone (let's call him Gullible). He's attacking someone else. I see he has moved most his fleets to his victims's side and has left our border undefended, because we have a NAP with 5 turns termination. I see that as an opportunity to mount an successfull attack on him, I just need a "casus belli". So I send a handfull of sacrifice ships to a planet he's attacking, knowing those ships will be destroyed and will give me the "casus belli". He warns me to remove ships, but why should I? I want that "casus belli", my fleets are already prepared to attack him. So I let this Gullible go his gullible way thinking he has a NAP with me with 5 turns termination clause, while I'm thinking of 5 turns termination of him, because he was the one who broke the NAP. Anyone sees a problem in that way of thinking? How will we wage wars in Stars! in the future, if this kind of thinking prevails? Where honor is but another word to be twisted and broken? BR, Iztok

Bravo.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

iztok wrote on Mon, 20 February 2012 13:39

How will we wage wars in Stars! in the future, if this kind of thinking prevails? Where HONOR is but another word to be twisted and broken?

What do you mean "in the future"?

What do you mean "if"?

What has HONOR got to do with NAPs?

For those in the alternate universes where everything goes according to plan and everybody else acts as they think everybody else should, let me recap:

It doesn't work that way. Your task is to survive and thrive despite the inherent untrustworthiness of your fellow alien space travelers.

If you sign a NAP, you're bound by it. Period. Don't sign what you don't plan to follow or you'll be labeled as NAP-breaker or worse. If you think the other party is looking for a casus belli don't give it to them unless you're ready for the consequences!

Been there, done that, got bitten in the back.

Report message to a moderator

Ashlyn wrote on Mon, 20 February 2012 18:13

iztok wrote on Mon, 20 February 2012 05:39 Hi! OK, let's recap. I have a NAP with someone (let's call him Gullible). He's attacking someone else. I see he has moved most his fleets to his victims's side and has left our border undefended, because we have a NAP with 5 turns termination. I see that as an opportunity to mount an successfull attack on him, I just need a "casus belli". So I send a handfull of sacrifice ships to a planet he's attacking, knowing those ships will be destroyed and will give me the "casus belli". He warns me to remove ships, but why should I? I want that "casus belli", my fleets are already prepared to attack him. So I let this Gullible go his gullible way thinking he has a NAP with me with 5 turns termination clause, while I'm thinking of 5 turns termination of him, because he was the one who broke the NAP. Anyone sees a problem in that way of thinking? How will we wage wars in Stars! in the future, if this kind of thinking prevails? Where honor is but another word to be twisted and broken? BR, Iztok Bravo.

Hate to say it, but there should be likes or +1s or reps for posts..
I agree wholeheartedly with iztok and would only repeat the arguments in different words.

I'm a friend of slimdragoon and have gone against mac1 in the past, but here, it was a breaking of the Nap by slim... Which leads to the argument that if you are going to ever have an agreement with slim, you have to be careful with all the clauses as he follows the letter and not the spirit of the Nap.

You simply can't defend an ally planet by stationing your ships on it... Even if you do, that isnt being questioned here...
His subsequent HOSTILE actions of attacking mac1 next year was breaking of the nap..


Btw, why don't ppl make full disclosures... Whos playing which race and who's stating their own or their allies story here?
I hate using race names for this reason if no game files, screenshots are involved... Just use the player names.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

So Slimdragoon can also escort an attack fleet against Gullible by following the flight path and if Gullible intercepts the attacking fleet and Slimdragoon loses some ships Gullible is the Treacherous player? I don't think so. ANY actions that are hostile are a violation of NAP, such as defending an enemy planet.

Slimdragoon broke the NAP.

To illustrate: If Franco's Spanish army defended the beaches of Normandy on D-Day then the entire Allied side would be screaming for blood and it would be entirely justified. Madrid would Burn.

Mac1, you have been betrayed, its that simple, find a creative way to deal with it.

Report message to a moderator

iztok wrote on Mon, 20 February 2012 07:39

Hi! OK, let's recap. I have a NAP with someone (let's call him Gullible). He's attacking someone else. I see he has moved most his fleets to his victims's side and has left our border undefended, because we have a NAP with 5 turns termination. I see that as an opportunity to mount an successfull attack on him, I just need a "casus belli". So I send a handfull of sacrifice ships to a planet he's attacking, knowing those ships will be destroyed and will give me the "casus belli". He warns me to remove ships, but why should I? I want that "casus belli", my fleets are already prepared to attack him. So I let this Gullible go his gullible way thinking he has a NAP with me with 5 turns termination clause, while I'm thinking of 5 turns termination of him, because technically and by my manipulation he was the one who broke the NAP. Anyone sees a problem in that way of thinking? How will we wage wars in Stars! in the future, if this kind of thinking prevails? Where HONOR is but another word to be twisted and broken? BR, Iztok

Well, that's the best explanation of situation and very correct.
I must admist with the shame that i've been played by slim. I did exactly what he wanted me to do, while his fleet was waiting at our border same turn when i suppose to attack Airstrip (or not). He was ready, just waiting for casus belli.

vonKreedon wrote on Mon, 20 February 2012 13:40

A couple of questions for Mac: Where there no other Airship planets or other targets available for you to attack with your fleet? Did you consider the cost/benefit of attacking the Airstrip planet and so immediately losing the NAP? If you did, then I assume the c/b analysis was positive for you. If you did not, then you failed to do due dilligence on the strategic implications of your attack.

Yes, i was attacking multiple Airstrip planets at same time, the war was lasting for years. Actually i might say i was killing the remainings of Airstrip.
But if you ask about that one particular fleet, it has only 1 target, Planet 9 was a solo planet in the area.

I must say i did not take a time to think that this could end the nap and I wasn't prepared for that. I made most my turns in 5 minutes (cuz real life time shortage), it's my stupidity, or ? ......
OR Slim just didnt gave me reasons earlier to think that way. We have several cases when I had to sweep his mines to go for Airstrip planets, or he did sweep my mines to go for his enemy. Or when some1 was trying to colonize in enemy territory etc. We explained it all in mails and it all looked just fine. So after that who would expect that suddenly he won't move away from my way to Airstrip ?.
Maybe someone would and next time when I'll play with Slim i will too, but this time i just forgot to think about such possibility

sprocket wrote on Mon, 20 February 2012 14:21

Mac1, you have been betrayed, its that simple, find a creative way to deal with it.

Yeah, well ... maybe in another game.
Cause in this game everybody is already fighting with Slim or allied to him (and those don't think the way you do )

[Updated on: Mon, 20 February 2012 14:31]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Mon, 20 February 2012 16:54]

Report message to a moderator

Didn't mean to revisit this topic... but I feel I just need to address the mindset shown by certain players, two of which I happen to have an ongoing game with as I write this.

I'll start by saying that I have a big problem understanding people who seek legal excuses for their own actions or decisions. If I agree to be bound by law, I either abide by it, or break it. There's no "in-between". Same goes for treaties, contracts or agreements of any kind and guise, be it formal written pact, or just my word. If I decide to keep it, I don't do anything that might put me in question. If I decide to break it, I just do it, and accept that the other party will hold me responsible for breaking the agreement. This will inevitably make them lose any trust in me - I have to accept that as well. You cannot "eat the cookie and keep the cookie" (i.e. break your word and keep your integrity).

One can discuss whether or not stationing of Slim's ships at his ally's planet was legitimate. If asked, I'd say it was, for two reasons:
1. Anyone is free to order his fleets wherever he wants in Stars!, so there should be no reason why I cannot put my ships in orbit of this or that or any other planet. The worst thing I risk is that someone says it's his turf, and kicks my fleets out of there. Slim was on his ally's turf, so there was no reason for Mac1 to push Slim's fleets around. It's the ancient schoolyard dilemma: you rule the yard, you get to push others around. You don't rule the yard, you get to be pushed around... and be prepared to have your teeth knocked out if you resist. Simple as that.
2. Slim and Airstrip were allies, and allies are supposed to help each other. I could send half my fleets to my ally's space - for example, just because I would like to aid my ally in defence against his enemy I don't have a NAP with. But hey, now that this ally of mine is attacked by someone I have a NAP with, I cannot help my ally because I risk breaking a NAP? To hell with that! I put my ships wherever I want on my side of the fence because it my side and I can do what I want while I'm on my side. If you cross the fence and attack the place where my ships were stationed, it's you being the aggressor and not me.

I am again pointing out that Slim warned Mac1 beforehand as to his ships being there. If he wanted to break the NAP himself, I doubt he would - he'd quietly put his ships there and ambushed Mac1's fleet, or simply attack outright, preemptively. He issued a fair warning to Mac1 and left the decision to him. It was Mac1 who decided to send his fleets and risk attacking Slim's fleets.

Those of you who side with Mac1 seem to think that having a NAP with someone should serve not only as an immunity from his attacks, but also give you the right to force him to change his plans to account for you. This is never the case. A NAP is just what it is - I explained it last time, refer to that post. It doesn't grant you the power to exert your will over the other party. If that's the way you think, I'll immediately propose a NAP to both of you (you know who I'm talking to right now), and with no less than 10 years exit clause. Then, I'll ally to all others, send my fleets (simple armed scouts will suffice) to all their planets you'd ever want to attack, and tell you to keep your fleets away, or I'll treat this as breaking a NAP, and unite the whole galaxy against such abject NAP-breakers as you. If you just try to use the exit clause, I'll ring the bell so loud as to wake the dead, and the whole galaxy shall be on their feet long before your ships set out to attack anyone.I can do this, because I can. I shall never attack you directly, so you cannot blame me for breaking a NAP myself, and if you attack any planet where my ship is stationed, I'll make sure you're known as evil barbarians who raze children, rape livestock, slaughter women and abduct cottages. Or something to that tune. How's that for a proposal?

A few precious jewels from last posts:

Eagle of Fire wrote:

On a side note for those who don't seem to unders

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Mon, 20 February 2012 18:45]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

sprocket wrote on Mon, 20 February 2012 20:21

Slimdragoon can also escort an attack fleet against Gullible by following the flight path and if Gullible intercepts the attacking fleet and Slimdragoon loses some ships Gullible is the Treacherous player?

Depends on the terms of the NAP. It would need to be a particularly leaky NAP, tho.

Report message to a moderator

Eagle of Fire wrote on Mon, 20 February 2012 20:47

What exactly are you trading for in an NAP?

Mutual benefit. What else?

Report message to a moderator

vonKreedon wrote on Mon, 20 February 2012 22:50

So, if honor has nothing to do with my NAPs why should anyone trust my honoring the NAP? Because it's in my self-interest to do so. If I blatantly backstab an NAP partner I lose a lot of diplomatic leverage in the game I'm playing, not to mention in subsequent games with the less Machievellian minded. I'm also very careful about how any NAP I sign is written. Yes, I'm a lawyer in this regard.

+1 +2 +3

Report message to a moderator

Eagle of Fire wrote on Tue, 21 February 2012 04:44

And the answer is simply plain yes.

And another answer is simply plain no.

Report message to a moderator

Eagle of Fire wrote on Tue, 21 February 2012 06:19

But it didn't. As many people said and explained, the Dragonoids forced the Undeads hand. The Undeads actually warned the Dragonoids they would still attack nonetheless.

The Dragonoids warned the Undeads first!

Mac1 wrote on Fri, 17 February 2012 10:40

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 for me the reason was fake, but it's not about it).

So how should we call someone who is warned that they're about to break a NAP and they go ahead and break it anyway?

Eagle of Fire wrote on Tue, 21 February 2012 06:19

I also take the Dragonoids lack of foresight as a sign of guilt from not mentioning to the Undeads that a new situation emerged which could jeopardize the whole treaty

Do you ever read what other ppl say? Do you even read yourself?

Quote:

the fact that SlimDragon didn't show up to defend himself is also a sign of guilt. He is a regular poster, I'm sure he's watching this right now yet he's nowhere to be seen.

Man, did you ever get that wrong!

Report message to a moderator

[email

m.a@stars[/email] wrote on Tue, 21 February 2012 01:00 So how should we call someone who is warned that they're about to break a NAP and they go ahead and break it anyway?

Not exactly.
I was warned (or maybe asked ?) to not attack a planet cause he needs it for a transport route and is traveling with ships through that planet.
Not that if i attack i will find his warfleet there and will break a NAP.
That's a quite difference.
And in short i reply "find another way to travel"
I warned that i will attack, so Slim did expect my fleet going there and i was rather expecting to find at most few transport ships.

Eagle of Fire wrote on Tue, 21 February 2012 00:19

On a side note I also take the Dragonoids lack of foresight as a sign of guilt from not mentioning to the Undeads that a new situation emerged which could jeopardize the whole treaty, and by this I of course mean the fact that the Undeads were attacking their own ally from God know how long but didn't either help them or mention this fact to the Undeads before. .

Exactly

[Updated on: Tue, 21 February 2012 07:08]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator