What would you do?

[Zaphod]

We had reached an impasse between 4 of us in a World 2.0 game. I own North America and South America (except for NE Brazil). Player 2 owns Africa and is my opponent in NE Brazil. Players 3 and 4 hold most of Asia and Oceania, respectively.

Player 2 offers a Non-Aggression pact in Brazil in exchange we'd combine our forces and attack Player 3.

Before Player 2's turn, Player 4 is able to gain a foothold in Africa - denying Player 2 important armies. Player 2 could easily regain Africa and start on our quest.

BUT------

He announces, then proceeds to screw up and place all his armies in the wrong location, where he can't regain Africa or pretty much do any attacking.

I see this, know it is probably a mistake, but I agree. I seriously considered hanging him out to dry.

What would you have done??????

[Zaphod]

The Yes vote is what I did. In one round I have officially been skewered by the other two players.

[GrazingCattle]

Did you agree to the NAP?

[tahitiwahini]

The Yes vote is what I did. In one round I have officially been skewered by the other two players.

Wow, the game chat is a hard to follow, you're all a talkative bunch. It's hard to tell what is serious and what is nonsense. If I understand your summary:

1. Player 2 offers a NAP.
2. You accept the offer.
3. Player 2 makes the announcement in game chat.
4. Player 2 makes a bonehead play causing you to get cold feet about the NAP.
5. Player 2 doesn't materially violate any of the terms of the NAP (that is, he doesn't attack you)
6. You're asking if you can repudiate the NAP because due to Player 2's mistake the NAP isn't as valuable as it once was?

I don't see how you could do that, unless you can make the argument that Player 2 violated the terms of the NAP, but I don't hear you making that argument.

I think you are stuck.

Apparently you were negotiating this NAP outside of game chat. Personally I think all that stuff should be done in game chat. Also, it wouldn't hurt to have a little formality in the agreement. It's my policy to announce all terms of the treaty in game chat. That way everyone knows where they stand. For instance, I have no idea about the duration of this NAP. When does it terminate? Do you have to give a one-turn notice of intent to terminate? Who knows?

[DiM]

you can:
1. stick to the nap
2. break the nap and get a negative comment.

[GrazingCattle]

I agree you need to announce the terms in game chat, that way you can be sure that all know its terms and can hold everyone to them. If you think that you can win the game by nulling the NAP, then do it.

BUT, if you can't directly win from breaking the pact then it is best to let it be and take your lumps.

NEVER break a treaty, truce, or NAP without a GREAT reason. It looks terrible on neg FB if someone is so inclined.

[Zaphod]

I agree you need to announce the terms in game chat, that way you can be sure that all know its terms and can hold everyone to them. If you think that you can win the game by nulling the NAP, then do it.

BUT, if you can't directly win from breaking the pact then it is best to let it be and take your lumps.

NEVER break a treaty, truce, or NAP without a GREAT reason. It looks terrible on neg FB if someone is so inclined.

That's why I decided to stick with it. I didn't want to backstab the guy.

As for the NAP - it was meant until we destroyed the other 2. Now it looks like they will destroy us and then fight it out for the winner.