Can we respond to neutral comments?

[Jamie]

WTF is wrong with you people. I NEVER said truces were wrong or unsportaman like. What is BS is trucing against someone til he's eliminated from the game. You truce against someone when he's been weakened to the point of not running away with the game, then it's back to a free for all. This thread was started by someone saying they agreed to truce with someone til the other player was eliminated, making it impossible for that guy to win no matter what he did. So far as my ganging up on noobs, if a noob joins a game with nothing but high ranking opponents who don't want to lose to a noob, then yes, he will be selectively eliminated by everyone else. The samething happens to me, if i join a game with nothing but noobs. They usually focus on me, because they see my higher rank as a threat to their ability to win, so I usually join a game with people of equal rank, or a good mixture of both.

[wicked]

Anyone can run a truce however they see fit. There are no set rules to truces, other than announcing them, so everyone uses them however they want. Imposing your expectations on others isn't really necessary Jaime, as everyone plays how they want, not how Jaime says.

[tahitiwahini]

Anyone can run a truce however they see fit. There are no set rules to truces, other than announcing them, so everyone uses them however they want. Imposing your expectations on others isn't really necessary Jaime, as everyone plays how they want, not how Jaime says.

Thank you for saying in 45 words what would have taken me me several hundred to say; I appreciate your pithyness.

I am getting to believe that people's ideas about NAP's are as deeply held as their view's on politics or religion! And about as impervious to argument.

However, I did solicit Jaime's views so I appreciate his sharing them. I don't agree with them, but I'll extend to Jaime and others an opportunity to explain why it is proper to use NAP's to weaken a player, but not to eliminate him. It seems to me their strategy is to weaken a player through an NAP to which he is not a party, terminate the NAP, then finish the weakened player off, then act shocked, shocked! that the NEP weakened player was elminated so easily. It puts me in mind of the scene from Casablanca:

Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?
Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.
[aloud]
Captain Renault: Everybody out at once!

Maybe it's the hypocracy underlying their position that makes them so vehement in their views. So willing to leap to the personal attack because the weakness of their argument is at some level apparent even to themselves.

At least that's the way it appears to me.

I've also noticed that the people most upset with NAP's tend to be high ranking players (especially high ranking players who often play with -- or prey on, if you prefer -- much lower ranking players). I sense a whiff of the air of self preservation to their arguments. Nothing wrong with that, but it does put their high sounding pronouncements about sportsmanship in a different context. These players also seem to me to value tactical skill on the battlefield (which they have polished through playing many games on the same board under the same rules) far above strategic or diplomatic skill. That's fine if that's their style of play, but it doesn't mean other styles of play are necessarily unsportsmanlike.

In closing, I challenge anyone to explain to me why it's morally superior to weaken but not elminate a player who is a not a party to a NAP, than it is to weaken and elminate that player. It seems to me that entering into a NAP is sort of like getting pregnant. NAP's by their very nature harm the players who are not party to them. That may not be their direct purpose, but it is the indirect and inevitable result of them. It seems to me that some pretend not to acknowledge this fact and that failure leaves them feeling morally superior when it sould leave them feeling hypocritical.

Off my soap box now.

Wow, I can't even agree with someone in less than several hundred words anymore...

[flashleg8]

These players also seem to me to value tactical skill on the battlefield (which they have polished through playing many games on the same board under the same rules) far above strategic or diplomatic skill.

Very well put!
I personally think that diplomacy in creating pacts and treaties (and knowing when to dissolve those pacts!) is one of the best things about Risk. When I play Risk in board game form I always think that if you're not in an alliance by turn 3 you've basically been doing something wrong. I understand why sercret alliances are banned here (because friends could team up to take over a game, without others knowing) but its a pity as thats one of the great parts of the game and also has a more realist feel to how world powers act.

[tahitiwahini]

Thanks flashleg8,

As Karl von Clausewitz was fond of saying:

"War is simply a continuation of political intercourse, with the addition of other means."

[Anarkistsdream]

Thanks flashleg8,

As Karl von Clausewitz was fond of saying:

"War is simply a continuation of political intercourse, with the addition of other means."

Damn, you are well-read...

Or you can use Google and Wikipedia like a madman...

I'll go with the well-read.

Glad to see others with varied interests... The quote from Casablanca was what got me... No one else outside of my filmbuff buddies like the classics.

[tahitiwahini]

Damn, you are well-read...

Or you can use Google and Wikipedia like a madman...

Sadly more the latter than the former, but it's a kind of like being well-read in a third-rate, derivative sort of way.

Casablanca: source of more great movie lines per minute than any other film I know. imdb.com is the best friend a film buff ever had.

[MeDeFe]

If you would bother to actually read and think about what I've been writing you would see that I've been making the same point as Jamie, whom you praised so highly.

As for why a pacts are unethical if they are used to eliminate another player? It's just a game after all!

Yes it is, people (at least most people) play it to have fun, and how much fun do you think it is to have everyone (the 2 other players in your game) gang up on you and kill you off?

You say it was just a NAP, it wasn't, it was a full-fledged alliance to take out another player. And you appear too blind to see it.


Also, when you quote others, please make sure not to paraphrase in such a way as to change the meaning of it. You've written a few essays in this thread, so that really shouldn't be beyond your abilities.

[tahitiwahini]

MeDeFe,

It amazes me you keep coming back here to post. I only responded to you because at the start of the thread you were the only person to respond to. Now, that other players have responded to the thread and I can engage in meaningful conversations with them, I no longer have the patience to deal with your incoherence.

I've tried reading and thinking about what you've written, but I've come to the conclusion it's a waste of time and brain cells. Your lack of intelligence on the subject is more than made up for by the vehemence with which you advance your illogical opinions.

Finally, it's simply not possible to paraphrase with a quotation. I leave it to you to look up those words in a dictionary. They don't mean what you appear to think they mean.

Readers of this thread will come to their own conclusion. It's not so much that you're wrong, but it's not even possible to have an intelligent argument with you.

I'll leave you with the last word because I suspect that if I don't I'll never hear the end of you. I won't be responding to your further as I think my time can be better spent talking with others.

You can always start your own thread...

[viking thunder]

having looked over the game, and the standings and cards when you wrote the message about the alliance, I would have to agree with red, you were the strongest player in the game.

Experience will show you asia is just about impossible to hold, and considering how litttle of it red had, there was no way he could have taken it and also had enough men to fortify it. you on the other hand had two continents, and so did your partner in the alliance.

From my point of view you were the strongest person in the game, and your alliance gave the others no fighting chance to win. I do not know whether you were pushed to your conclusion because of a fear of the high number on siam, his rank, or some combination therof. or perhaps your understanding of the subtle power shifts inside the game has not yet been developed.

Had I been in red's position, I would also have complained, and would have given you a neutral feedback. because I feel it wrong to start an alliance when you are the stronger player.


Always remember, feedback is feedback, it has to do with how other people feel about your gameplay. it does not have anything to do with the rules. a neutral feedback is just that, neutral. not bad or good, just there. Most people will not write you poor or neutral feedback for having an alliance, unless they feel you were using the alliance to gain an unfair advantage.

In most cases in a three player game alliances are not needed, just mentioning red is getting big in the chat will do the trick. the other player can evaluate the situation, and if they agree they will attack red, not because you have an alliance, but because it is in both of your best interest to do so.

I very rarely see a good alliance or NAP in a three man game. most all of them ultimately lead to a specific person winning, because the player of middle strength emerges as the strongest after the Nap is finished, and becomes unstoppable.

Also, if you play with good players they are not needed, because good players evaluate the map before each turn and were a NAP needed would autopmaticaly not attack their because it was not in their best interest.

[tahitiwahini]

From my point of view you were the strongest person in the game, and your alliance gave the others no fighting chance to win. I do not know whether you were pushed to your conclusion because of a fear of the high number on siam, his rank, or some combination therof. or perhaps your understanding of the subtle power shifts inside the game has not yet been developed.

Had I been in red's position, I would also have complained, and would have given you a neutral feedback. because I feel it wrong to start an alliance when you are the stronger player.

Probably a bit of each of those three things led me to assess the state of the game as I did in the game chat.

Red had established his control over Australia, and controlled nearly all of Asia (did not fully understand at that time how difficult it is to hold onto Asia). Austrialia was protected with a 21 army contingent on Siam. Meanwhile, Birch and I were constantly attacking each other over the Iceland - Greenland border, as the following game log excerpts show:

2007-01-31 10:03:50 - tahitiwahini attacked Iceland from Greenland and conquered it from Birch
2007-01-31 12:08:57 - Birch attacked Iceland from Scandinavia and conquered it from tahitiwahini
2007-01-31 12:18:01 - Birch attacked Greenland from Iceland and conquered it from tahitiwahini
2007-01-31 12:49:05 - tahitiwahini attacked Greenland from Quebec and conquered it from Birch
2007-01-31 12:49:31 - tahitiwahini attacked Iceland from Greenland and conquered it from Birch
2007-01-31 16:20:09 - Birch attacked Iceland from Scandinavia and conquered it from tahitiwahini
2007-01-31 16:20:27 - Birch attacked Greenland from Iceland and conquered it from tahitiwahini
2007-01-31 17:23:25 - tahitiwahini attacked Greenland from Northwest Territory and conquered it from Birch

Neither of us was at that time receiveing a continent bonus for Europe or North America and Red appeared extremely strong.

The game state seemed to me exactly how I described it in the game chat. At the time it was my 11th game. The player I proposed the NAP to was playing his first game (I don't even think he was routinely looking at the game chat yet). My assessment of the game state may not have been accurate, but it was my honest assessment at the time. And yes, I was tired of being beaten by more experienced players so I went for the NAP.

I didn't (and don't) regard the NAP as an alliance, but I'm willing to concede that others might see it that way. Some would even go so far as to say a NAP in a 3 player game equals an alliance. Birch and I were out to even the playing field with a vastly more experienced player who held what I considered to be at the time a dominant position. Meanwhile, Birch and I were continually attacking each other and denying either of us our continent bonuses for Europe and North America.

My choice of a NAP terminating condition, the elmination of Red was perhaps extreme. But as this was my first NAP, I didnt' know how else to terminate the pact. In my mind this was always a limited NAP rather than an all-out alliance. I can understand how Red would view it differently. I still believe it was the right thing to do, but I may have come up with a different terminating condition (perhaps just requiring notice of termination before attacking Iceland or Greenland).

Finally, I don't dispute Red's right to leave neutral feedback. I was just displeased that I couldn't respond to neutral feedback. If I knew that was the case I would have prefered that he left negative feedback, so that at least I would be afforded the chance to respond.

[Nous-irons]

what is an NAP??

A higher ranked player has no better chance of winning than a lower. Yes, if you look at their profile and they have played 90 games and are still a private, you might not worry about them, but if they have played 50 games and are a Lt, or major, they are no less a threat than a higher ranked player. new people join all the time, rank is no estimate of skill.

and in addition, just because someone plays alot of double's games does not mean they are trolling for noobs!!! I play doubles game with a friend, we start games and wait for them to fill, we are not trolling for noobs, we are starting games the only way the site allows. we prefer if good people show up, if I lose to a noob I lose forty points or something!

I'll quote this in addition to responding to Jamie: it's not just about "fear of higher-ranked players", but the reward of having more points. It's especially pertinent in a terminator game, where one may decide to carve up two high-rank players between an alliance consisting of other lower-ranked players.

Also, it's the phenomenon of "why should the higher-ranked player win? They have enough points" - better for the other team to win than for them to win once again.

Goal? Gain points and rank.
Strategy: Ally with lower-ranked players to take out the higher-ranked players.

What is dishonourable about this?

[DublinDoogey]

After skimming through this, it seems like theres a misunderstanding about the terms of the NAP in question, or, most-likely, my understanding of it.

It seems to me that the NAP was that they wouldn't attack through that border until the third player died.

The goal was to maintain one peaceful border, not to take out the player. Sure, there are all kinds of unsaid things that go into it, but I think that that is what it is supposed to boil down to, elimination as a time, not a term, of agreement.

It'd be cool if the OP could clarify this, as that would help clear up thoughts about NAPs and their different goals.

[tahitiwahini]

After skimming through this, it seems like theres a misunderstanding about the terms of the NAP in question, or, most-likely, my understanding of it.

It seems to me that the NAP was that they wouldn't attack through that border until the third player died.

The goal was to maintain one peaceful border, not to take out the player. Sure, there are all kinds of unsaid things that go into it, but I think that that is what it is supposed to boil down to, elimination as a time, not a term, of agreement.

It'd be cool if the OP could clarify this, as that would help clear up thoughts about NAPs and their different goals.

Yes, that's it exactly, that was the substance of the NAP. The elimination of the player not party to the NAP was the termination condition for the NAP. After which attacks could (and did) occur across the border defined by the NAP.

I chose the termination condition that occurred to me. This was the first time I used a NAP. Had I been aware of other possible termination conditions (notice to the other NAP party before his turn starts, strength of non-NAP party not greater than either NAP party, number of turns, etc.) I may have chosen a different termination condition.

Now, from the non-NAP party's perspective this was effectively a death warrent and I understand that. The alternative was continual bleeding between the weaker players who eventually would be taken out one-by-one, by the stronger player.

In the absence of any rules to the contrary it still seems justified to me. There has been some question raised about how dominant the non-NAP's position really was, but at the time it honestly seemed very dominant to me and the other NAP party. Given the non-NAP party's substantially higher rating and level of experience I still think it was a prudent thing to have done.

I started this thread to get other people's opinions about this and to find out if there are any generally accepted standards for the use of NAP's.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any. Which is not to say that some people don't think there are some, just that they don't seem to be universally accepted.

I would do the same thing again in similar circumstances, but pehaps would pick a less draconian termination condition. It seems to me that notice before the start of the NAP party's turn that the pact was terminated would probably be sufficent and most flexible. This gives the NAP party a chance to deploy forces to defend and attack at the border region which was the subject territory of the NAP.

It should also be said that in games with more experienced players a formal NAP may not be necessary since the players know enough not to to bother a weaker opponent while letting the dominant player pull away with the game. Also, the circumstances in which a NAP makes sense may not arise in every game. In the right circumstances, it's often the only way to avoid defeat in my opinion.

[flashleg8]

After skimming through this, it seems like theres a misunderstanding about the terms of the NAP in question, or, most-likely, my understanding of it.

It seems to me that the NAP was that they wouldn't attack through that border until the third player died.

The goal was to maintain one peaceful border, not to take out the player. Sure, there are all kinds of unsaid things that go into it, but I think that that is what it is supposed to boil down to, elimination as a time, not a term, of agreement.

It'd be cool if the OP could clarify this, as that would help clear up thoughts about NAPs and their different goals.

Yes, that's it exactly, that was the substance of the NAP. The elimination of the player not party to the NAP was the termination condition for the NAP. After which attacks could (and did) occur across the border defined by the NAP.

I think this is completely legitimate termination condition. It also has a historical president. Almost like the Russian pact with Japan in WWII. No attacks over the Mongolian border, and the pact expired when Germany was defeated (although in that case Germany was Japan's ally). I'm all for making the game as realistic as possible.

In the right circumstances, it's often the only way to avoid defeat in my opinion.

Once again a valid point

[SirSebstar]

I think this is completely legitimate termination condition. It also has a historical president. Almost like the Russian pact with Japan in WWII. No attacks over the Mongolian border, and the pact expired when Germany was defeated (although in that case Germany was Japan's ally). I'm all for making the game as realistic as possible.

who the f*ck did you have as a history teacher.

well okay, so i started googling. found some stuff on the wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_August_Storm (and others)

the pact was NOT designed to terminate at the death of germany,but instead was terminated (quote at the Yalta Conference, it(edit russia) had agreed to Allied pleas to terminate the neutrality pact with Japan and enter the Second World War's Pacific Theater within three months after the end of the war in Europe.)

this invalidates your point.

basicly NAP's should end after an amount of turns, not upon the acomplishment of a goal. The latter being an alliance.

alliances in 3 player games are frowned upon, and are considered unfair.

[tahitiwahini]

who the f*ck did you have as a history teacher.

You know when someone starts out making an argument with bombastic bluster, it causes me to become immediately suspicious of the strength of his argument, which is probably the opposite of your intention.

While wikipedia is a fine resource, it's hardly the last word; you should have dug deeper. The original documents are perhaps a better source than a summary in wikipedia. For example, the Avalon Project at Yale Law School has the relevant documents, including the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact (signed April 13, 1941) here:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/s1.htm


Further take a look at the Soviet Denunciation of the Pact with Japan (dated April 5, 1945) here:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/s3.htm

And finally, take a look at the Soviet Declaration of War on Japan (dated August, 8, 1945) here:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/s4.htm

I think if you bother to read these documents and consider them in the context of your general knowledge of WWII you will come to the conclusion that it was in fact Germany's defeat that was the proximate cause of the Soviet termination of the NAP with Japan, of which Germany was of course not a party.

So, to the contrary, I think flashleg8's point is quite valid.

basicly NAP's should end after an amount of turns, not upon the acomplishment of a goal. The latter being an alliance.

alliances in 3 player games are frowned upon, and are considered unfair.

That's a valid opinion, I think it contributes a lot to the discussion. I don't happen to agree that alliances are NAP's that are based upon the accomplishment of a goal. I think there are other considerations required to turn a NAP into an alliance. For example, coordination on a shared strategy for one thing. But I think your position is defensible.

Alliances in 3 player games may be frowned upon, but I dare say Napoleon, Alexander the Great, and Chingis Khan, were pretty used to being frowned upon in their day. The game in question here is Risk, not cricket.

Would you care to elaborate on why you think alliances (as you define them: a NAP that terminates upon completion of a goal) are unfair in three player games? Whereas, you presumably feel they are smiled upon and fair in games involving more than three.

Thanks for the post.

[SirSebstar]

...edited...Further take a look at the Soviet Denunciation of the Pact with Japan (dated April 5, 1945) here:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/s3.htm

.......

I think if you bother to read these documents and consider them in the context of your general knowledge of WWII you will come to the conclusion that it was in fact Germany's defeat that was the proximate cause of the Soviet termination of the NAP with Japan, of which Germany was of course not a party.

basicly i see a term, 5 years as well the option to un 'nap' incorporated into the treaty. but you might consider that it was not meant to be everlasting, which again invalidated your point.

namely that germany was defeated is therefor not an(nor the) condition to terminate the treaty, where time (aka turns) WERE imposed in the treaty.

I would think this basicly means nothing in the game of risk, least of all an excuse to ally yourself in a 3 player game

So, to the contrary, I think flashleg8's point isnot valid.

and as to why i think alliances (as you define them: a NAP that terminates upon completion of a goal) are unfair in three player games?

well i dont partculary like alliances, but i will engage in one if i see pressing need. In a 3 player game alliances are playing havoc with gamebalance. There is almost no way for the other player to have any real fighting chance. In that aspect alone you deny the posibility for fun that is inherant to risk, since the other 2 games are risking, well not much... dispite the fact that this is a game, it is also a gaming community, hence there is a certain amount of etiquette to ensure some form of balance. i am not saying you should never ever nap/ally, just use caution and wisdom. If you ally against a twice as strong player, well who can blame you since its about staying alive in the game, but if you deny others a victory they deserved, well thats stealing the glory and possible the fun as well.

but i will allow you to answer the question yourself. How would you feel upon entering 50 3-player games, where in every single game the other 2 players are allied/nap'd. Do you still think this is the highest for of fun?

[Adran]

Agreements in 3 player are very differntly viewed to agreements in 4 player.
If you have an agreement in three player, the person not in the agreement is facing two opponents with no respite. This is what happened in the game in question. You did nothing illegal, so you weren't given negative feedback, but following the agreement the two of you both turned straight on red and he was soon finished.

In a four player game, then there will be two people not in the agreement. Whilst those in the alliance are probably at a slight advantage, they are not both against one foe (If they are, the forth player is probably due an easy win). The game is still open and availible for any of the players to win. by ending this pact when it went down to three players, the game was still an option for all.

I was recently in a 6 player game where the strongest player formed an agreement with another. Since this wouls grant the two players an advantage over the other four, they gangeg up on the two allies until the alliance was broken. This quickly ended up with the distruction of the player that had previously been the strongest.
This level of control for other players exists as long as not more than half the people in the game are in the alliance. as soon as a majority are in the alliance, then the chances of the non allied is almost none.

From looking at the game log and reading the chat, red was no where near the strongest in the game. It was open for any of you to win it seemed, until you two changed plans and focused all your attacks against red. At that point red suddenly had no effect on the game. Whilst what you asked for was a none aggresion pact on one border, what occured was a mutual attempt to anhilate red

Can you see how what you did is quite different to the example you drew upon of MeDeFe demonstarting his "hipocracy"?

Phil

[tahitiwahini]

basicly i see a term, 5 years as well the option to un 'nap' incorporated into the treaty. but you might consider that it was not meant to be everlasting, which again invalidated your point.

namely that germany was defeated is therefor not an(nor the) condition to terminate the treaty, where time (aka turns) WERE imposed in the treaty.

I would think this basicly means nothing in the game of risk, least of all an excuse to ally yourself in a 3 player game

So, to the contrary, I think flashleg8's point isnot valid.

I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. The defeat of Germany, a non-NAP party, was the triggering event that caused the Soviets to exercise their termination of the NAP. I think that was flashleg8's point which remains valid. It was an imperfect real world example of the use of a NAP which terminated with the elimination of a non-NAP party. I think you need to be more discriminating in your use of the terms NAP and alliance which are not the same thing. Conflating them simply makes the issue harder to understand.

Well, I don't like alliances either, what I like is winning the game. I would much rather always apply the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force, it's just not possible to do so in all cases. If I need to form an alliance to win (more likely just an NAP, again this is a reason not to conflate the two), then I will do so irrespective of whether it's a three- or more than three-player game.

In a 3 player game alliances are playing havoc with gamebalance. There is almost no way for the other player to have any real fighting chance.

I think NAP's are quite proper in a 3-player game, under suitable circumstances. Remember, alliances are almost never required except in the most dire circumstances; NAP's are sufficient in most cases. But, I'll move on to your formulation of the question regarding alliances.

Here's what I don't understand about the "fairness" argument. If it's perfectly "fair" to attack an opponent with 20 armies when he's down to a single army on a single country, then why don't some feel it is fair to form an alliance against a player who is in a much stronger position (remember it's his strong position that even raises the issue of needing a NAP), and who had the same ability to form a NAP if he so desired. I'm assuming we're not talking about secret alliances here, wherein the players are teammates before the game starts (which I understand and I think is universally accepted to be illegal -- running afaul of the no secret alliances rule). So we wipe out the player with a single army on a single country and feel not a twinge of unfairness -- for instance, we don't refrain from attacking and say: "Hey I'll wait for you to fortify your armies until you have 20 and then I'll attack, because if I were to do otherwise I would destablize the game balance."

If you deny others a victory they deserved, well thats stealing the glory and possible the fun as well.

Here's the crux of the fairness doctrine that I really can't comprehend. In the case of a weak opponent who we eliminate from the game it's a cause for celebration. But, if we take down the dominant player because he failed to form his own NAP, or failed to disguise his strength and argue persuasively that he was in fact not the dominant player, or because he chose to participate in a 3-player game (rather than a more than 3 player game), somehow we are being unfair and are "denying them a victory they deserved." I have the same reaction to that argument as I have to the player who declares that because his 5 to 2 attack on an opponent failed it was unfair. It's the nature of the game, or put another way, the game lacks an inherent notion of what fairness is.

How would you feel upon entering 50 3-player games, where in every single game the other 2 players are allied/nap'd.

I guess I would feel like maybe I should try something other than a 3-player game -- maybe a more than 3-player game in which the effect of a NAP would be diminished. I just don't see how the fact that a player has acheived a dominant position in a game confers upon him a right (or more accurately an expectaion) that he "deserves" to win the game, and any other result is ipso facto "unfair."

In any case, I enjoyed talking with you. Thanks for the post.

[tahitiwahini]

Agreements in 3 player are very differntly viewed to agreements in 4 player.

.... (edited) ...

Can you see how what you did is quite different to the example you drew upon of MeDeFe demonstarting his "hipocracy"?

Phil

I can certainly understand the argument better (than I could when MeDeFe explained it -- maybe it's just a difference in style), so thank you for that. But I guess I still disagree that the cases are different, let alone quite different. The only difference I see is that one was a three player game and one was a four (or perhaps more) player game. Every participant in both games chose to participate in the game knowing the number of players in the game. And presumably knowing how the number of players in a game affects the play of the game. Given that, I simply can't accept that in one case the NAP was not just poor sportsmanship, but "extremely poor sportsmanship," and in the other case it was a very clever strategic technique. Hence the hypocracy.

In other words, even when someone comes along and presents the argument quite clearly, I stil find that I'm unpersuaded.

It may come down to satisfying some psychological need wherein because someone was in a dominant position in a game that somehow for the good of the game that player must win and any other outcome is immediately suspect.

My characterization of Red's dominance in the game has come under question from a number of people (some with much more experiene than me), so perhaps I should concede that I may not have diagnosed the state of the game as well as I should have. Nonetheless, all that was required as far as I'm concerned was that I honestly believed at the time that Red was in a very threatening position (Austrailia + all but one country in Asia). I was able to convince, based on the evidence I presented in game chat, that this was true to the other (non Red) player. Given these circumstances I don't see any "poor sportsmanship," let alone any "extremely poor sportsmanship," on my part.

Please see my response to SirSebstar for more of my thoughts about this.

Thanks for the post.

[The1exile]

Tahitiwahini,

I would tend to agree with you that NAP's and alliances can and should be used to your advantge, since risk is about diplomacy as much as strategy, but I understand that will provoke a lot of heated debate (particularly from more experienced players) to the contrary, which I wish to avoid.

However, to retrun to the original point of the thread, I think it would be a good idea to be able to repsond to neutral feedback - but often it is used to say "this player makes alliances/NAP's" which is a fair comment, if you do. I wouldn't suspect any malice on the part of the player that left you it. If you do have an issue with it, it should be possible to contact the player in question.

[tahitiwahini]

However, to retrun to the original point of the thread, I think it would be a good idea to be able to repsond to neutral feedback - but often it is used to say "this player makes alliances/NAP's" which is a fair comment, if you do. I wouldn't suspect any malice on the part of the player that left you it. If you do have an issue with it, it should be possible to contact the player in question.

I agree with everything you said. I no longer think that the player in question was malicious in leaving the neutral comment, since as you say it seems to be an accepted practice to do so, and I don't have any argument with the comment as far as it goes. I just wish we could respond to it. But we currently cannot.

The player in question and I have corresponded and we each understand the other's position. I think we parted on good terms. I look forward to playing with and/or against him in the future. Hopefully, it will be in a more than 3-player game and then this issue will most likely not arise again. Of the thirteen games I have completed so far, the opportunity to employ an NEP has only occurred once. It happened that it occurred in a 3 player game. I hope I never need to employ the tactic again, I would much rather be the dominant player in the game.

[Captain Crash]

I've been reading this forum and as it has moved away from the original topic of neutral comments onto NAPs/Alliances, I'll through in my 2 cents worth.

Alliances/NAPs fair in a 3 player game? Of course they are...just read the home page of CC:

Risk all your armies on a daring continent grab. Use diplomacy to coordinate a group assault on the game leader.

To say a diplomatic agreement is acceptable in one state of play but not in another is, as tahiti says, hypocracy.

The dominate player 'deserves to win'? Well I ask:
When do you measure dominance?
Round 1,2...13...?
Better to say the dominate player deserved to win
Dominance comes ONLY at the end of the game, if 2 agree to attack a third, then the third needs to use their diplomatic skills to divert attention away from themselves. Else we might as well all go back to just playing against AIs.

As I said...my 2 cents.

[flashleg8]

I think this is completely legitimate termination condition. It also has a historical president. Almost like the Russian pact with Japan in WWII. No attacks over the Mongolian border, and the pact expired when Germany was defeated (although in that case Germany was Japan's ally). I'm all for making the game as realistic as possible.

who the f*ck did you have as a history teacher.

well okay, so i started googling. found some stuff on the wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_August_Storm (and others)

the pact was NOT designed to terminate at the death of germany,but instead was terminated (quote at the Yalta Conference, it(edit russia) had agreed to Allied pleas to terminate the neutrality pact with Japan and enter the Second World War's Pacific Theater within three months after the end of the war in Europe.)

this invalidates your point.

Ehh, no. I think you'll find I said "...the pact expired when Germany was defeated", not "the pact was [...] designed to terminate at the death of Germany". The pact was in effect while Germany was fighting the war (i.e. in game terms still in the game) and became obsolete when the force that necessitated the pact was removed from the equation (again in game terms the player being eliminated). Whether on not the real life pact stated this explicitly or not is really not relevant. Both sides would know that if the conditions of the war changed (i.e. an Allied victory in Europe or the Pacific or visa versa) this pact would cease to be relevant.

P.S. You ask who my history teacher was? University of Glasgow, yours appears to be Google.

Edit: sorry, just read some of the preceding posts and this has been argued more eloquently by others (tahitiwahini)