Will everyone just stop with the whole "honour" thing

[Grimlock]

People are taking this WAYYY to seriously. Like if you make a NAP its written in stone that if you break it (obviously every NAP and alliance is broken in time, since there can be only one faction remaining)

Once you make an alliance its set in stone and if you break it you are a honourless, cheating ******* not worthy of playing the game...i mean cmon

self-preservation and all that aside, everyone knows that every nap and alliance will be broken why do they seem so surpirsed when it happens. The important thing is that you have fun and not take it too seriously

Hypothetical situation.

faction a makes an alliance with faction b. together they go kill factions x and y. faction n wants in on the alliance, so a and b say sure then they attack n cuz they are the next logical target.

does faction n have a right to call factions a and b honourless cheating scum for atttacking em even when they are obviously the weakest and thus easiest target

[suicidesquad]

Please edit the bad language, I don't want to have to.

But you're right, it's not dishonourable breaking a NAP. How else are you going to win the game? If you don't break it then the other side will.

[jumesyn]

That may be true (I'm talking about the honour issue, not the language) but if I were FC or LC in TVS, I'll always like to warn the enemy FC by a formal declaration of war. Then again, it may be just me as when I was LC in TVS b4c Frantic, it is usually the enemy LC who break the NAP, although honour was not mentioned then, as none of us minded...probably due to too few people online...

[suicidesquad]

Why tell them that you're declaring war? It takes the edge off it. If you don't tell them then you have the element of surprise, that can win a war.

[Celt]

I used to play a webgame with around 10000 active players, all who mouthed off about honour at every opportunity.
If you attacked someone smaller than you, there were cries of "no honour!".
If you attacked a clan smaller than yours, there were cries of "no honour".
If you got an allied clan to help you, there were cries of "no honour!".
The game imploded.

[Spektyr]

While I agree that every alliance/NAP is broken in time, you have to admit that in the case you mentioned it's going to be viewed as a bit underhanded or 'sneaky'.

"faction a makes an alliance with faction b. together they go kill factions x and y. faction n wants in on the alliance, so a and b say sure then they attack n cuz they are the next logical target."

That's like forming an alliance simply to get a sneak attack. The 'honorable' thing to do would be just to attack. By forming an alliance prior to your attack, you're being deliberately misleading (or as some would see it, dishonest).

Yeah, it's a game. There's an ever-popular saying "All's fair in love and war."

But when you do something sneaky and misleading like that, you have to expect the people you do it against to cry 'foul'.

Don't forget too, that this game is played over and over, and reputations are built. If an FC develops the reputation of being particularly nasty about they way they break their alliance/NAPs, the other people playing the game will start to lose confidence in that player's word.

"Well, we have a NAP with Faction 0, but their FC is well-known for making alliance/NAP's simply to gain tactical advantage over their allies. So let's be ready to get them first."

Although I must admit Grimlock... that "NAP" you guys worked out with the remnants sure as hell was a master-stroke...

I can't believe they actually think you'll honor it for a second.

[Cepheus]

Well, I agree that there's no point acting all surprised when your rivals attack you - that's just silly. There can only be one winning faction.

But at the same time, keeping your promises is a _rational_game-winning_strategy_.

Why?

Because EoC is a _long_ game, and many players come back for later games as well. If FC A is known never to attack his allies for the duration of the agreement, and his rival FC B is known to stick the knife in at the first good opportunity, then FC A has a strategic advantage - because the wavering FC C, when in doubt, would rather ally with A to crush B than risk allying with B against A. If you keep your promises, you make your promises valuable - which gives you something to trade.

It's not difficult to be honourable and grab the best opportunities. I mean, all alliances have always had an 'until we're the last two left' clause, and it's easy to negotiate shorter term stuff.
You know, "We're allies against faction A until their HQ is destroyed, then a five turn NAP to let our forces separate."

My point is that _both_ styles are reasonable. An FC who always keeps his word loses out tactically - by missing good opportunities to attack his allies or NAPs - but gains in the big picture by _having_ more allies.

Of course, personality issues also come into it. I mean, I would try to keep all my promises if I was FC because I _always_ try to keep all my promises in every game I play - as above, it makes my promises more valuable. On the other hand, I don't have any ambition to be FC some that's easy for me to say. :D

[Spektyr]

That was very well said Cepheus. You very effectively made the point I was trying to make. With the number of multies, spies and pilots who end up in other factions after their HQ is destroyed, the annonymity of the FC's is fleeting at best. Even the smallest concious effort will result in discovery of the identities of all 5 of the other FC's for the simple fact that there's so many blabber-mouths in the game.

So while every NAP and alliance is bound to be broken eventually, there's a nice way to do it and a 'devious' way to do it.

Become known for being devious at your own risk.

And remember when you're choosing an FC that the guy who dominated the last game by artfully deceiving and backstabbing his allies may find himself in short supply of dedicated allies in the next game.

Decieving an enemy by (for example) jumping 3 ships early in the turn past their incoming assault making them believe you are counterattacking their inactive ships that didn't jump (thus making their assault group turn back around at T+5 and having those 3 ships do the same) is called "Misinformation", "Superior Tactics", "Out-maneuvering", etc.

Decieving an ally by attacking them after they develop a false sense of security is called a lot of things, most of which aren't post-able. Keep in mind too, that while your reputation in the long run may suffer, that faction you bend over the barrel now may not die as easily as you thought. Should they return to power later your chances of peace are pretty much shot.

(Such is the case with the League/Oman relations. An ill-begun war precipitated by the Waffles (if I remember correctly) pretty much eliminated any chance of a NAP or Alliance and resulted in a war that destroyed the League HQ.)

[Grimlock]

Diplomacy is the strongest wpn

Ok the general strategy that i suggest and encourage in EVERY faction im in , is the following

Keep all options avalible and try to stay neutral until you pick a clear winner.

If you make a NAP with a dead factions thats cuz they are very unimportant so you are not particulary after them, just buisness. If they help you out to let em live, if they fight you, you attack em

I think the overall forum community in eoc is just as important as the game so i want a good rep but i dont like to loose :)

Btw do u guys think i got a bad rep? :D

[captcoyote]

Originally posted by Grimlock
People are taking this WAYYY to seriously. Like if you make a NAP its written in stone that if you break it (obviously every NAP and alliance is broken in time, since there can be only one faction remaining)

Once you make an alliance its set in stone and if you break it you are a honourless, cheating ******* not worthy of playing the game...i mean cmon



I don't understand this thread at all. I can understand that everybody should simply accept the idea that a NAP or alliance will eventually be broken. What I do not understand is why anybody should be offended when the other person get upset that you broke the NAP. I think getting upset and making a scene is also part of the game. By being upset you can rally the troops to seek out revenge for the injustice. You might even get another weaker faction to help you attack the back stabber. All the time the person who is upset is using his emotions to draw sympathy and anger to incite revenge as part of the game. Mind you, I have never been an FC, and I would hope people could be mature about things, still any competitive game is about winning. We use whatever weapon we have at our disposal.

[Jagge]

Honor in it's essence in online game is questionable, there are pilots who yell about honor and yet do "dishonorable" things themselves, like have multies or change factions just because leadership doesn't do everything they say. Also breaking an alliance is a huge part of a warfare, look back in history, there is more backstabbing there than we can ever manage to do in this game. Sometimes the backstabber has won, sometimes lost. I for one am a firm believer that everything is indeed allowed in war. Just have to weight the pros and cons of backstabbing somebody. I.e. in the beginning of the game does our faction gain much if we backstab that other faction and in otherhand if we backstab them now, will that third faction stab us. This all is politics and in my oppinion makes this game so enjoyable. If we all would fight like gentlemen and declare wars 10 turns before troop movements, now that would be boring. I like surprises, good or bad, they spice up this game very much. I mean the only way for a weak faction is to win by good politics and occasional backstabbing. I agree if somebody is known to constantly backstab, then his/her words doesn't weight as much, but if some FC hones alliances and sometimes backstabs because the occasion is so good, it only rises his/her points in my eyes. It's a simple fact of life, be too nice and people will push you around, be rough we need be and otherwise nice and people will respect you.

[Waldosan]

PLEASE REMEMBER THIS IS JUST A GAME!!!

I remember a good boardgame called "diplomacy". Every player makes NAP or Alliance with another or more player. Or he fights alone (no chance). As all player play this game at one location and at the same time, its easier to discuss the situation from player to player in a seperated room. A situation like 3 players in war against each other and everyone meets the other leader before the next turn is not unusually. And be sure, if you break one treaty after the other you wont have a chance in the next game. No one counts on you, and everyone will declare war very soon.
Breaking a NAP is ever dishonorable. And breaking an alliance is extremly dishonorable. But unfortunately its not the same effect here. The gameround takes too long, I think.
The argument every alliance has to be broken sooner or later is really poor. Of course, when only two factions are alive and the third one is dead, the alliance is stopped automatically. But using this for an argument to push the knife into the back of your allied is poor and not even creative. BTW I dont think its dishonorable in a game to attack someone you have no treaty with him.
You have the choice if you are in a unwanted alliance: Abort this alliance and declare war ( In 4 turns ....) or attack him directly. If you attack him diretly you have to live with voices which says "dishonorable". I´m happy to know ´people think like that.



AND ALWAYS REMEMBER ITS JUST A GAME!
and sorry for this english. I tried my best.

CU
WALDO$AN

[Tagert]

I apologise for bringing this back up to the top, but I just have to say one thing: This is a game. Characters get killed, not you. Make-believe 'NAPs' are formed. They are not real, though some may wish it so.
NAP stands for 'Non-Agression Pact', which is a temporary agreement where one factions ships agree to not attack another factions ships, and vice versa, hopefully. Temporary. They do not stand. Alliances, are a bit more complicated.
An alliance would be where one faction helps another with attacking another faction. There are other definitions ofcourse, but I'm only going to say that.
That's said, and out of the way. Now I move onto another point, though it starts the same:
This is a game! It does not do well to calling the entire other faction 'cheating-scums' and people who are not worthy of playing the game, and then saying that you would be noting their names and spiting them for the entire history of the game whenceforth.
This has happened, but I shall not name who said it. They know who they are. Now I'm sure you would come along later and say something like 'It was a joke!'. Most people will accept that, but there are some who will not. Make it clear!
Now this may seem like I care, but, in truth, I do not. I merely posted here because I am bored, and it's 12am on a school night. So, I bid you all, goodnight! :D