IronE.GLE wrote:As far as I'm concerned, any negotiation of a NAP or alliance can only be done effectively via PM. Once you come to terms, then an announcement should be made in game chat in a language that everyone understands. Once the announcement has been made, any strategic planning should be done via PM as well. Otherwise what would be the point of an alliance if the whole board knows your next move?
Interesting point. I may have to think about it further.
Let me give you an example of what I had in mind:
Players Red and Green are roughly equal in strength while Yellow is the clearly dominant player (having more armies than Red and Green combined).
Game Chat:
Red: hey green, at this rate it's only a matter of time before yellow takes one of us out and then it's curtains for the one remaining.
Red: we've got to stop killing each other over the Europe/Africa border.
Red: how about a Europe/Africa truce?
Green: hmmm, for how long?
Red: two turns
Green: how about indefinite, one turn notice?
Red: OK
Red: red and green have a Europe/Africa NAP that can be terminated by either party with one turn's notice, agree?
Green: yes
It's true what you say, everyone now knows what Red and Green have agreed to. But I'm not sure how much of a limitation this is. It seems to me the NAP is still very useful to the parites. They won't bleed each other over that border. Because of the one turn notice termination clause they can leave the border between Europe/Africa largely undefended, allowing them to attack and defend elsewhere with more of their available strength.
The benefits of having all the terms disclosed is that it's clear to everyone in the game what's going on. Maybe it even acts as a deterrent to breaching the terms of the agreement, because the breach would be obvious to all the players in the game.
Now, I'm trying to thnk what the alternative would be. Maybe something like this:
Game Chat:
Red: red and green have entered into a Africa/Europe NAP pact
Green: that's right.
I guess that satisfies the strict requirements of the "no secret alliance" rule. But as it doesn't specify the termination condition, that part of the agreement remains secret. I guess the question is: how much about the alliance agreement may remain secret before the essentially the agreement is a "secret alliance" and would run afoul of the rule?
Another alternative:
Red: red and green have a truce
Green: yup
In this case basically nothing about the terms of the alliance is disclosed. Does it mean the parties can attack each other some places, but not in others. For how long will the truce remain in effect? Basically, nothing of much substance has been disclosed at all.
Does this pass the scrutiny of the "no secret alliance" rule. Well, the alliance was announced, but basically no terms were disclosed. Is this announcement of much benefit to the other players in the game? If it's not of much benefit, yet it satisfies the "no secret alliance" rule, can the rule be said to have any useful purpose. I mean: why bother to make players disclose an alliance if all you're saying when you do so is that an alliance exists? If this satisfies the rule, then it raises questions about why we even need the rule.
by disclosing all the terms of the alliance (including the negotiations before the alliance has been accepted) in public game chat I guess I'm taking an extreme interpretation of the "no secret alliance" rule. But I think that's what I'm comfortable doing until someone can convince me that alliances don't have to be announced in that way.
