GoW, you guys are the best allies ever! - Page 2

Tiberius · July 17, 2003, 02:52

Quote:

Originally posted by BigFree
Tioberious, do you really think it needs to be wrote out like that?

Yes, I do. But that's just my personal opinion.
(on a sidenote, where did you get all those "o"-s in my name from?

)

asleepathewheel · July 17, 2003, 02:55

The fact that RP would leave such simple language out of the agreement (in a multiple page agreement!) borders on malpractice. GoW found a loophole and exploited it, I have no doubt that RP would do so (and in fact, didn't you do something similar during the lux war?) themselves if they needed the opening.

BigFree · July 17, 2003, 03:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Tiberius
(on a sidenote, where did you get all those "o"-s in my name from?

)

See, I was eating some Oreo's and some of the o's must have fell out. I thought a few of them tasted a bit odd.

BigFree · July 17, 2003, 03:05

It is not a "loophole."

You cleary can not have a MPP with a party AND declare war on the same party. The game does not support this. Therefore, it is not a "loophole." Else GoW would have to decalre war on itself (to protect RP) and, again, the game does not support this.

Hot_Enamel · July 17, 2003, 03:11

I find it highly amusing that RP is complaining about loopholes.

And to continue this theoretical debate ... is a 20 turn luxery trade therefore considered a NAP ?
Any declaration of war would void the luxery trade.
Therefore, a team may not ever declare war while luxeries are traded ?

My personal opinion is
A luxery trade is not a NAP
A MPP is not a NAP
A NAP is the only thing considered a NAP. (Unless you insert a loophole

)

{edit - sorry BF .. we cross posted .. I see you are not complaining about loopholes }

Tiberius · July 17, 2003, 03:16

The declaration of war voids any previous agreements so GoW shouldn't declare war to itself. Once they declared war to you, they voided the MPP. Besides, did you have an ingame MPP with GoW? If not, why do you keep using that ingame example?

This is about an agreement made by men. As such, it means nothing more and nothing less than what is
written in your contract. Does is say is your contract that they can't attack you? If not, it is a loophole.

Important note: I'm not in any way defending and/or attacking anyone here. This is just my personal opinion based on my logic. It has nothing to do with who's who. I'd say the exactly same thing if RP had attacked GoW.

asleepathewheel · July 17, 2003, 03:20

Quote:

Originally posted by BigFree
It is not a "loophole."

You cleary can not have a MPP with a party AND declare war on the same party. The game does not support this. Therefore, it is not a "loophole." Else GoW would have to decalre war on itself (to protect RP) and, again, the game does not support this.

To me a MPP is only with regards to third party actions.

Even you must think that there is a significant difference in the two aggrements, since earlier in this very thread you stated "But RP was in fact trying to secure NAP's with both ND and GoW for the longest time, but to no avail".

So what's the story Bigfree? Why bother with the NAP if the MPP encompases all that a NAP is?

Master Zen · July 17, 2003, 03:36

Oh boy, these people just don't get it...

1) In MP games we do deals which are not permitted by the game. A NAP is one of them. There is no way to have a NAP in a single-player game. Therefore your excuse that we did something not allowed by the game is moot since a NAP itself isn't allowed by the game, thus this gives us even more legitimacy in doing what we did.

2) Since you seem to be sticking to what in-game deals can be done, A WAR VOIDS ANY OTHER AGREEMENTS MADE. Simple as that. We declare war on you, all treaties including our MPP are void. Notice the difference between the words void and violated.

You're just pissed because you got caught in your own loopholes... which by the way for the record, it was your team who wrote the MPP, not us. Face the consequences, and never, NEVER, imply things that should be made more than explicit in writing.

BigFree · July 17, 2003, 05:27

You are saying it yourself: You said you voided the MPP.

"...exactly, it was voided by our declaration of war. But there's a difference between voided and violated."

When you declared war you voided the MPP, true.

Voiding an agreement with out the consent of both sides nor a condition being met that allows it to be voided, as worded in the agreemnt, is breaking the agreement.

To RP, GoW voided(violated) our MPP with out pretext. The had no legal rights to do so. GoW is guilty of illegally voiding an agreement.

MZ: We never put any "loophole" in any agreement with GoW

asleepathewheel:
"So what's the story Bigfree? Why bother with the NAP if the MPP encompases all that a NAP is?"

I misspoke there, the NAP was with ND and an extension of the MPP AND an Alliance proposal was put forth to GoW. We never asked GoW for a NAP because we knew they would have to void the MPP in order to attack us. It's the same to RP; whether GoW "voids" a MPP or a NAP.

asleepathewheel · July 17, 2003, 05:30

Quote:

Originally posted by BigFree

asleepathewheel:
"So what's the story Bigfree? Why bother with the NAP if the MPP encompases all that a NAP is?"

I misspoke there, the NAP was with ND and an extension of the MPP AND an Alliance proposal was put forth to GoW. We never asked GoW for a NAP because we knew they would have to void the MPP in order to attack us. It's the same to RP; whether GoW "voids" a MPP or a NAP.

I understand. I would be quite pissed as well if they did that to GS.

Darekill · July 17, 2003, 05:44

Just for clarification our NAP with RP run out about 100BC if I recall it correctly. We currently had neither a NAP noe a MPP nor any Trades running.

I still do not think that a MPP necessarily includes a NAP.

A MPP is needed if you fear that a third Party might attack one of the Nations that have a MPP.

A NAP is to make sure that you don't get attacked by the Nation you have a NAP with.

Of course you would think that you are at good terms with a Nation that has a MPP with you but that can change like the weather. Even in singleplayergames you are often forced to break an MPP. That happens a lot.

BigFree · July 17, 2003, 05:53

ND has been very forthcoming. ND is a respectable Civ, after the war we hope to find ourselves at peace with them. Bob can become a peaceful environment once again when the "Warmonger's" are gone.

Perhaps ND would like to consider a future Bob with themselves in the North and RP in the South.

BTW, how do GoW and ND plan to try and split up Bob among themselves?

Just my personal opinion, but it would make more sense for RP to ally with ND or GoW against the other. How it is now makes for re-distrubuting a mess. If ND and GoW win this thing completely; ND gets 3/4 of Bob and/or GoW gets some very corrupt cities in the South of Bob. Very confusing situation to say the least.

Darekill · July 17, 2003, 06:48

Uh, don't you worry about us and our trusted ally the Glory of War?
We know what we want and we know what to do. We even know that this alliance may look strange and unusual. that is why we belive it will work

vondrack · July 17, 2003, 06:55

BF, don't worry, I believe they would do it somehow...

And as for the MPP/NAP discussion... I think there is only one thing that needs to be said: "GoW unilaterally voided an MPP with the RPers." Whether it was 'legal' or 'illegal' is not all that important (at least not to me) and very much depends on how one understands the mechanics and logic of MPPs/NAPs - even though I would probably consider an NAP 'implied', there certainly are very good reasons against such an implication. What if A has MPPs with B and C... and B attacks C? A will have to attack B, voiding the MPP with C - but in this case, I'd hesitate a lot whether there was a 'breach' of any 'implied NAP' involved. And if not here, why anywhere else?

This just reinforces my belief that - just like in the real life - all 'treaties' are worth less that the (virtual) paper they are written on. As long as they are beneficial to both parties, they are valid. Once one of the parties becomes unhappy about the deal, *snap* and the treaty is gone. Who cares if the action was legal or illegal...

That's why I say that the only thing that matters here is: "GoW unilaterally voided an (outgame) MPP with the RPers." It is my understanding that GoW admits that. Every one of us can use this information as he/she sees fit. No point in debating over the 'legitimity' of the action. I doubt it could make anyone change his/her opinion.

And the usual disclaimer

: I am not siding with any party, just speaking about the very principle. I do not mean to defend or attack anyone's actions.

Hot_Enamel · July 17, 2003, 07:00

Quote:

Originally posted by BigFree
BTW, how do GoW and ND plan to try and split up Bob among themselves?

Just my personal opinion, but it would make more sense for RP to ally with ND or GoW against the other. How it is now makes for re-distrubuting a mess. If ND and GoW win this thing completely; ND gets 3/4 of Bob and/or GoW gets some very corrupt cities in the South of Bob. Very confusing situation to say the least.

I thought RP would have other concerns than worrying about how ND & GoW plan to split the continent..

Beta · July 17, 2003, 07:34

Quote:

Originally posted by BigFree
BTW, how do GoW and ND plan to try and split up Bob among themselves?

Just my personal opinion, but it would make more sense for RP to ally with ND or GoW against the other. How it is now makes for re-distrubuting a mess. If ND and GoW win this thing completely; ND gets 3/4 of Bob and/or GoW gets some very corrupt cities in the South of Bob. Very confusing situation to say the least.

United Nations regulation 104-B-(ii):

"In the case of excess land being made available as a result of war and a civilization being eliminated, said lands will go to the smallest remaining civilization."

vulture · July 17, 2003, 07:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Beta

United Nations regulation 104-B-(ii):

"In the case of excess land being made available as a result of war and a civilization being eliminated, said lands will go to the smallest remaining civilization."

You mean that Lux are re-joining the game?

Oh, and I have to agree with Vondrack. Both GoW and RP agree there was an MPP active when GoW attacked. The legality isn't so much the issue - it's what this tells everyone about the parties involved. If GoW did it legally, would RP be any happier?

DeepO · July 17, 2003, 07:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Tiberius
Continuing the purely theoretical debate, I think that a declaration of war voids any previous agreements and treaties, including MPPs. (just like in the game itself).

Personally, I don't agree. I mean, of course, certain agreements are declared void when war breaks out, but others are not. Luxury trades I (personally again) consider as voidable, NDAs on techs not... it's not because you're at war with a civ that you can freely distribute a tech you have gotten from that civ, when you signed an agreement to keep it secret from others.

Note that this says nothing about whether an MPP is an NAP or not, nor whether it's good practice to find / create and use loopholes.
And again, it's not because GS upholds a certain code of honor (in which the spirit of an agreement is more important than its precise wording), that we expect others to keep to it... we in general, and I specifically are far from judges.

But boy, is it refreshing to not be the subject of flame wars for once

DeepO

Tiberius · July 17, 2003, 08:14

Quote:

Originally posted by DeepO

And again, it's not because GS upholds a certain code of honor (in which the spirit of an agreement is more important than its precise wording), that we expect others to keep to it... we in general, and I specifically are far from judges.

DeepO

Well, the spirit of an agreement could mean something entirely different for one team than for another one, while the wording not. Well written, it should mean the same thing for both of them. I'm not saying that what you are saying is totally wrong (it is your own expectation, how could it be wrong?) and I would certainly not sign a MPP with a civ I wanted to attack (I suppose this the "spirit" thing you are talking about), but still, arguing about the spirit of a deal is highly subjective.

As for the code of honor: it is praiseworthy that you have one and play folowing it, but: (and this is my very-very own opinion) mentioning it so often doesn't make too much good for you. It is ... irritating, to say the least. I feel as if it was an indirect suggestion that the others (including me and my team) are not honorable.

GhengisFarb™ · July 17, 2003, 08:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Arnelos
Hell, RP Team has never attacked a single unit of any nationality other than barbarians the entire game to my knowledge.

Your faithful allies,

Spain

Didn't you have an MPP or an agreement to assist with troops both Lux and Vox? How many of your troops did you sacrifice in those two campaigns.

Come to think have you EVER fulfilled any agreement to send troops? We agreed to send troops to Roleplay and we have sent almost a third of our Riders.

MPP stands for Mutual Protection Pact for those of you who are unaware and think it stands for a Non Agression Pact. In reality and IN THE GAME RULES OF CIV III they are two different things. If a state of war exists between two civs neither an MPP nor NAP can exist.

Besides, we couldn't have had an MPP because neither of us has discovered the required tech yet.

DeepO · July 17, 2003, 08:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Tiberius
Well, the spirit of an agreement could mean something entirely different for one team than for another one, while the wording not. Well written, it should mean the same thing for both of them.

True... it is subjective. What I wanted to say is that sometimes both parties know more or less what the (common) spirit of a deal is, while one chooses to look for loopholes to go against that spirit, but don't break any treaty when following the words. I'm not saying that that is what is happening here (I don't know), and again, I'm no judge, nor do I want to be one.

Quote:

As for the code of honor: it is praiseworthy that you have one and play folowing it, but: (and this is my very-very own opinion) mentioning it so often doesn't make too much good for you. It is ... irritating, to say the least. I feel as if it was an indirect suggestion that the others (including me and my team) are not honorable.

My apologies, I didn't realize this. It certainly was not my intention to imply others do not follow the same code of honor, because they don't scream about it every other day... I feel a bit ashamed because in retrospect, you're right

So why do I mention it quite often then? Well... it's the only 'good' thing GS has as a team. In all other aspects, we're blend, boring even. We're no warmongers, we're no builders, we're no roleplayers nor mercenaries. We play the game to win and have fun like all other teams, and the only thing that could perhaps set us apart is the total commitment to staying honest.

In a way, this makes us even more boring for other teams (at least you could expect Vox to break a deal now and then, just to keep things interesting), but this self-implied handicap is part of the fun for us. I can imagine that Legoland is proud to be builders (I would, if I was part of your team), well we at GS have only one thing to be proud about... and mentioning it so often does not imply that we're the only honorable team out there, just like even if you are the builders, other teams can build and remain peaceful (if not attacked) too.

DeepO

mrmitchell · July 17, 2003, 08:41

Suppose that one day you signed an MPP with Lux and then you looked out to the sea and saw fifty Luxian ships filled past the brim with angry soldiers?

Tiberius · July 17, 2003, 08:47

Quote:

Originally posted by DeepO
In a way, this makes us even more boring for other teams (at least you could expect Vox to break a deal now and then, just to keep things interesting), but this self-implied handicap is part of the fun for us. I can imagine that Legoland is proud to be builders (I would, if I was part of your team), well we at GS have only one thing to be proud about... and mentioning it so often does not imply that we're the only honorable team out there, just like even if you are the builders, other teams can build and remain peaceful (if not attacked) too.

DeepO

Of course we are proud to be builders and this is a handicap, too (civ3-wise), but regardless you don't hear us every other day saying that we are builders, do you?

Is this really the only thing to be proud of for GS? I think not. You are probably the best civ players around. I'm not saying that others teams don't have good players, too, but on average, your team must be the most skilled. I certainly would be very proud to have your knowledge of playing civ3.
Of course that does not mean you can't lose

If you would allow me a comparison with football/soccer (sorry for the americans if they don't get it) you are kind of Real Madrid. The best players in the world, yet they didn't win the Champions Leage

On the other hand, don't get me wrong. If this is some sort "national pride" for GS, I have nothing against you saying it. Just maybe not so often

GhengisFarb™ · July 17, 2003, 08:56

Quote:

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Suppose that one day you signed an MPP with Lux and then you looked out to the sea and saw fifty Luxian ships filled past the brim with angry soldiers?

I wouldn't be all that worried, I figure they would be headed towards one of their worthless allies.........

Legoland are builders?!

And here I thought they were Isolationists.

UnOrthOdOx · July 17, 2003, 09:02

I am not going into allot of particulars unless RP deems to allow me to. I can produce evidence of the following.

An MPP is not an NAP to GoW. Furthermore RP KNEW it was not. I recently took over as ambassador to RP. During this short time, however, we were discussing possible deals.

RolePlay WROTE, and proposed a contract to GoW that SPECIFICALLY stated is was to be seen as an MPP AND an NAP among other things. This clearly demonstrated that they viewed them as two entirely seperate negotiations else why would they deem fit to include the NAP if they were under the impression that it was included in the MPP?

The contract that RP is bringing into question, though, only specifically stated an MPP why did they not include NAP if they felt they were seperate negotiations as already stated?

Furthermore, this is a big misunderstanding as far as I can see. There was no starting date ever written into the MPP in question, just a length of 30 turns. Nowhere was there an agreed start or end turn or date. Could it be that RP is silently extending the deal due to such ambiguities(sp)?

DeepO · July 17, 2003, 09:05

There may be other things to be proud of, but really, there are very few that can be made public, yes. Inchon was nice, but that is not a trait of GS, it was a one time event...

Quote:

Originally posted by Tiberius
On the other hand, don't get me wrong. If this is some sort "national pride" for GS, I have nothing against you saying it. Just maybe not so often

It is a national pride thing, yes... But I promise to keep it down

DeepO

Arrian · July 17, 2003, 09:08

Quote:

Didn't you have an MPP or and agreement to assist with troops both Lux and Vox? How many of your troops did you sacrifice in those two campaigns.

Ok, this is the second time I've seen this allegation. And I would very much like to know if there is any truth to it.

With respect to the MPP issue, let's just say that if GS had a MPP with someone else and our MPP partner attacked us, I'd be ripshit. And believe me, if Vox had violated a MPP to attack us, there would not have been a Voxodus if we could have prevented it.

-Arrian

GhengisFarb™ · July 17, 2003, 09:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
With respect to the MPP issue, let's just say that if GS had a MPP with someone else and our MPP partner attacked us, I'd be ripshit. And believe me, if Vox had violated a MPP to attack us, there would not have been a Voxodus if we could have prevented it.

-Arrian

I don't think anyone at GoW expects Roleplay to not be miffed. This may well be a battle to the death. They've been screwing us for several thousand years and had assumed we had gotten to where we enjoyed it. Turns out they've been screwing everyone and GoW and ND don't want to be Roleplay's next Lux or Vox.

Hot_Enamel · July 17, 2003, 09:36

IMO.

I fully expect RP to be pissed.
Hell, so would I.

But the fact is... in this case...the MPP in question, was not a NAP.
RP knows it & GoW knows it.
If RP felt some comfort that the MPP meant that we would not attack, then that's an error on their behalf.

No rules were broken.
RP can try to tarnish our rep, but all it's doing is making us more determined.

GhengisFarb™ · July 17, 2003, 09:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Hot_Enamel
I fully expect RP to be pissed.
Hell, so would I.

Well, your smilies did flip them off a couple of times........