Lux-Lux trades and NAPs

[notyoueither]

It is being discussed in the Current trade proposals thread, what effects should a Lux for Lux trade have on our ability to declare war (back door NAP).

I am of the opinion that we should provide any team who has dealt with honour in this game with 1 turn warning of a DoW if we have a trade where we provide a Lux for a Lux or a Lux for cash. Those who have broken their word to us blatantly should enjoy no such benefit. It could be allowed that we reset the treachery counter to zero as of adopting this policy. Afterwards, if we know that a team has betrayed our trust, they should enjoy no benefit of honour from us in these regards.

Some exceptional circumstances would be where we have an MPP in game and an action not of our own triggers a state of war.

Also, a trade where we gained up front, say for a tech or a large amount of cash, we should not Declare War during the ensuing 20 turns if part of our end of it was providing a Luxury or any other per turn benefit, so long as that Luxury continues to be delivered. If that delivery is interrupted, through no intervention on our part, this no longer applies (we don't cut our own roads).

What say you?

[DeepO]

I agree. Lux are no NAP, but we need to give 1-turn warning before breaking a deal, and expect the same from others. And yes, if they broke previous deals, we should not adhere to that code.

We need one, very clear message, which gets send to all teams (either in private, or in public). This message has to be written like we are doing them a favour, as the chat with BF clearly shows that it is very easy for another team to see this as a hostile act. But we have to make sure that for us, Lux deals are separate from NAPs, as long as we are honorable enough to not damage other teams in retracting one prematurely.

DeepO

[vulture]

First draft policy document:

Gathering Storm policy on luxury trades and non-agression pacts

• Luxury for luxury trades
  Although the game mechanics fixes these for 20 turns, and leaves them in place after that, we do not see any reason why this constraint should apply to in-game trades if other agreements can be worked out. We regard lux-lux trades as being of indefinite length; from the time they are initiated, they will continue to be in force until one or both parties in the trade cancel it. Either party can cancel at any time with no penalty should they no longer need the imported luxuries, or no longer wish to export a luxury to that country for any reason (including having had a better offer for the luxury from another partner, or wishing to get something different in return for their luxury export) although warning periods can be implemented during negotiations to allow teams time to make adjustments for the loss of a luxury, either by changing the luxury rate or finding a new trading source.
  
• Luxury, resource and gold-per-turn trades
  These appear similar to pure lux-lux trades, but the value of strategic resources is more dependent on time and situation, and the gold per turn value of luxuries changes over time due to population change. As such, these agreements will more often be for fixed durations, traditionally 20 turns, although longer or shorter ones can be arranged. Shorter trades can be dealt with by ending the deal with a technical state of war, per-arranged by the parties involved.
  
• Luxury or resource for one off payment
  For obvious reasons the deal has to be a one off payment, typically of gold or technology, in return for the supply of a luxury or resource for a fixed period, negotiated by the parties. If for some reason the trade is interrupted by the severing of a trade route, the remainder of the luxury or resource will be supplied once a trade route is restored.
  
• Non-agression pacts
  Gathering Storm will not break any trade deals. As such, deals that are for fixed durations are also non-agression pacts for that same duration. Specifically lux-lux trades are not non-agression pacts, although if the agreement is that notice must be given before ending the agreement, then a de facto non-agression pact exists until the end of the notice period.
  
  Obviously, non-agression pacts for fixed periods can also be negotiated separately from other trades, but they are considered implicit in fixed duration trades. As such there is no need to regard lux-lux trades as implicit non-agression pacts, since such a treaty can be negotiated for independently if it is desired.

I'm hoping to get across the idea that having indefinite lux-lux deals allows a civ to break the trade to trade a luxury somewhere else if they can get a better deal for it. Or, if they decide they can live with one luxury less, they can quickly change the deal to get something more useful for their exported luxury (or cancel the deal altogether). Tie-in periods reduce flexibility for all sides. And if a NAP is desired, there is nothing stopping a civ for asking for one directly, withouth tying it to a lux-lux deal.

[Shiber]

Correct the spelling of 'separately' and I'll be pleased.

[vulture]

Originally posted by Shiber
Correct the spelling of 'separately' and I'll be pleased.

Bloody pedants...

[DeepO]

Hmmm... I would like the 1-turn warning period more clearly defined, and also why we do it: We want others to have the time to prepare, so that we don't damage their empire at a time they can't do anything to prevent it.

And the point of nye that we will be honorably as long as nobody crosses us (because we can't demand that others do the same) should also be included somewhere. At least if this is the wish of the majority.

Further the message looks fine, it's a very good start, but not final yet

DeepO