Ending a Pact

[Mongoose]

Flubber, you've been stabbed. Attack the SOB.

IMO, his annexation is a clear violation of the buffer agreement. True, no end date was specified. In that case, hiowever, it is only reasonable to assume the agreement remains in effect until renegotiated or violated. Violated applies here. Combined with the inexcusable presence of his unit in your territory ($5 to a donut hole there are more somewhere.) a reasonable man could only concude that open hostilities are imminent, needing only the ripening of his plans to take you unawares.

Attack the SOB.

[big_canuk]

I cross posted with Mongoose.

He said it better than I.

[Flubber]

Thanks for the input. Unfortunately for my chances for winning, I have chosen to role-play this one a bit. I am the Cult and my "friend" is the Gaians. Since they are ecologically sensitive, I am playing the cult as doing cartwheels to try to keep the only other ecologically sensitive faction at peace with us.

However, I am not playing them as being totally stupid so I have rushed a bunch of military to dissuade an attack from him.

Also on a metagame level , the human-controlled peacekeepers are about as powerful as the Gaians and I so fighting each other and bashing each other senseless would likely allow the PKs to rule the day.

[johndmuller]

So, from what I gather in the (Poly PBEM) "Rules" thread here, coop victories are allowed except on the tournament map ('and why might that be', he wonders). It is detailed a little further by "Coop victory is limited to two non-submissive players." although for me that doesn't come totally clear - I think it means no more than two factions altogether, but maybe it could conceivably mean two factions in addition to yourself (I think someone said that they were a lawyer earlier ).

I can't say that the nature of our pacts has been discussed thoroughly, if at all, in the non tournament-map tournament games I'm in; from what it says in the "rules", coop arrangements are allowed, so the pacts could be expected to last all game, except that there are pacts of more than 2 people, so not all of these pacts can last the entire game (unless outside forces conveniently eliminate just the right number of pactmates). That being said, there are different kinds of relationships between the various players, so perhaps we all know on some level where these pacts are at. Raising the issue into the light of day well into the game, however, could be regarded with suspicion, but I suppose it is better than the alternatives. Perhaps I'll just reference this thread in the game thread.

Of course, now I can't say anything substantive about my wonderful pactmates-for-life .

When new players come into an existing game there are other complications. First, apparently they may or may not be playing the game for keeps (I gather that there is an option to decide some time after seeing what you are in for). The other players may not know whether the substitutes are vested or not (in a game in which I am the substitute, I don't even know whether or not I am playing for real ). Also, when there are replacement players, any agreements that the departed player had made are not necessarily going to be honored by the incoming player and the new player may have a different concept of any pacts that they may inherit.

[Mongoose]

Originally posted by Flubber
Thanks for the input. Unfortunately for my chances for winning, I have chosen to role-play this one a bit. I am the Cult and my "friend" is the Gaians. Since they are ecologically sensitive, I am playing the cult as doing cartwheels to try to keep the only other ecologically sensitive faction at peace with us.

--snip--

Fine, wait for them to build a borehole, THEN attack the SOB.

[vitamin j]

Being the SOB you're referring to, I have to add a couple things. Flubber excused his unprovoked sneak attack on the Drones by saying they only had a truce, and he never promised anything. Legalese? We never specified a duration for our jungle DMZ, and more importantly, the actual deal between us was still pending when I re-attacked the Cyborgs - he had not completed his part of the bargain. His attack of the Drones, who had done nothing to him, immediately changed the diplomatic situation.

He also tried to justify his attack with some ecological mumbo-jumbo - Drones can't run green, they might cause eco-damage, etc. Now he has at least one base generating eco-damage. So much for his eco pretense.

Flubber, go ahead and attack me. I'll give you a head-start. I know you've been planning on it all along. Don't try to make out like you've been wronged in some way. Any willingness I had to cooperate with you went up in smoke when you sneak-attacked the Drones without provocation. You're losing to a newbie. Deal with it, don't come whining here.

[Flubber]

vitaminj

a few points in response

1. I did not name you or the game as it was not my intent to "whine" but simply to understand how others view diplomacy. I was using this game as an example. I have only completed a couple of games and was curious on more experienced players "take" on various diplomatic situations. You seemed so emphatic in your views that I questioned whether my "take" was unreasonable.

2. I chose the Cult as I intended to roleplay this game from the beginning. The Drones are natural enemies and I played them as such, refusing treaties since i was playing a ROLE. It did help my chances to take them out but that was just part of it. Its roleplaying pure and simple . . . and my arms build up in your areas is because I do not trust you

3. I don't have to "deal" with anything. I may win, I may lose, so what? I get enjoyment out of playing the "role" whether I win or lose. The Cult are widely proclaimed as the weakest faction, yet I freely choose them because they are fun and different to play.