Children of the Fatherland: MP conversion game

King of Men said:

Ah, so you're actually bragging about your ability to backstab your allies

Click to expand...

I reject absolutely and utterly this statement. At no point have I sold out an ally. I managed to get agreement on the lands I wanted and then the discussion changed to Croatias demands, at that time I got realm duress and my vassals went ape. Realizing my inability to conduct warfare and bribe vassals at the same time I offered Croatia gold to swiftly sign a peace. They agreed of their own free will.

Yoshi said:

I'm beholden to arguably the world's most hated nation.

Click to expand...

Surely the Empire of Love could not be so hated? It's got Love in the name!

Kinda hard to read the text in the first four panels. But the last panel is good.

No finland

FrozenWall said:

So allow me to break it down then

1) You sign a treaty promising there will be no war between us.
This is a promise.

2) You then say you will ignore the treaty if a war I'm in isn't going like you want it to.
You are saying you will arbitrarily break your promise whenever it suits you.

Conclusion: Your promise carries no weight when it actually matters.


I am a lawstudent. Pacta sunt servanda is a quite deeply ingrained principle to me.

Click to expand...

I am not a lawstudent. And as a hack, what I mean is not worth much . But (from Wiki "The only limit to pacta sunt servanda are the peremptory norms of general international law, called jus cogens (compelling law). The legal principle clausula rebus sic stantibus, part of customary international law, also allows for treaty obligations to be unfulfilled due to a compelling change in circumstances". Since this is a game, couldn't international law in this case be argued as "game balance"-something?
I mean, it's not that I don't applaud what you are doing, and have been doing,to win the game..I just don't see that ANY agreement should be kept, if it meant loosing the game (to a great likelihood..), IF by NOT keeping faith you have a greater chance of not loosing the game..hmm. My argument sounds a bit fishy, even to me . The penalty clause should still be invoked, IF somebody were to breach contract..I think "the Neutrals" are more arguing for "compelling change of circumstance"..

Ahh, yes.. Maybe he was just notifying you, that the demands, as they stood, would cause a "compelling chance of circumstance" and as such, might/would cause the NAP to be void..

..well, anyhow, as I hear it, there was a lot of saber-rattling, but no actual breachs of NAP's...

Everybody was doing it!

KoM said:

[comic]

Click to expand...

I presume I should be offended, but I can't quite make it out.

King of Men said:

Now I admit that 'backstab' was hyperbole, but it does seem to me that you are, at any rate, bragging about your ability to bribe, bully, and otherwise manage your allies for your own maximum convenience.

Click to expand...

Calling it a bribe is hyperbole, yes. In the internal discussion between me and my allies I said my goals were fulfilled, and that I would accept peace at this time, and compensate them if they did the same. That is an offer, to be accepted or rejected on its merits. Croatia found my offer to be acceptable, had it not been we would have fought on. In the internal discussion there was previous to that also the question of what demands to make, Russia chose to support mine instead making much of his own. My allies were not bamboozled, they made their own strategic decisions that happened to benefit me.

I was not bragging of my ability to bluff my enemies or somehow "manage" my allies, as if they could not think for themselves. I was responding to the insinuation that I did not know how to negotiate (granted my experience comes mostly from Turks and Polaks, wherein armflailing is considered negotiations).

I am not a lawstudent. "The only limit to pacta sunt servanda are the peremptory norms of general international law, called jus cogens (compelling law). The legal principle clausula rebus sic stantibus, part of customary international law, also allows for treaty obligations to be unfulfilled due to a compelling change in circumstances"

Click to expand...

clausula rebus sic stantibus= significant changes in circumstance making the fulfillment of a contract no possible. Unilateral denunciation of a treaty based on this clause is prohibited


jus cogens= fundamental breaches of international law that cannot be accepted, state piracy, slavery, wars of aggression, territorial aggrandizement, torture, genocide. Luckily this is a 20th century idea that came into being with the jurisdiction of the UN and international courts, and has no bearing on our game (or every last treaty we signed would be void, who doesn't use torture in this day and age? )

FrozenWall said:

..I was not bragging of my ability to bluff my enemies or somehow "manage" my allies, as if they could not think for themselves. I was responding to the insinuation that I did not know how to negotiate (granted my experience comes mostly from Turks and Polaks, wherein armflailing is considered negotiations).

Click to expand...

I guess that was from real life experience .. ?

BlitzMartinDK said:

bla bla

Click to expand...

How would the "neutrals" lose the game if East Rome and Persia lose more territory? The rest of the world would still field more regiments than Egypt and Russia combined, if you mean that. And the two would have no reason to stay allied if the threat in the middle east was gone.

Apart from that, "trust" is the only currency we keep during all 4 parts of this campaign. Inflating it by such actions in the first part is not a wise decision.

King of Men said:

With all these comics about, I thought I'd try it myself, for a change. First page:

Click to expand...

I'll sue!!!

Sid Meier said:

I'll sue!!!

Click to expand...

You'll lose. It appears CotF has a real lawyer on its staff.

OrangeYoshi said:

You'll lose. It appears CotF has a real lawyer on its staff.

Click to expand...

I think the fact that the defendant in question is also the judge and jury may prove to be the larger obstacle to his complaint...

FrozenWall said:

clausula rebus sic stantibus= significant changes in circumstance making the fulfillment of a contract no possible. Unilateral denunciation of a treaty based on this clause is prohibited

Click to expand...

Maybe on this ground, but the contract itself allows for its own breaking. By specifically stipulating the penalty for breaking the treaty, in this case excommunication, the party member who no longer wishes to find himself bound by the treaty can if he so chooses, unilaterally break the contract. I'm not sure what the problem is then.

carillon said:

By specifically stipulating the penalty for breaking the treaty, in this case excommunication, the party member who no longer wishes to find himself bound by the treaty can if he so chooses, unilaterally break the contract. I'm not sure what the problem is then.

Click to expand...

So, seeing as how the law against murder stipulates a penalty, if a person unilaterally does not wish to be bound by the law murders someone you do not see the problem?

The problem is that you cannot break the law, the fact that the law contains punishment for its breach does not imply acceptability of the deed! Exactly the same with a treaty between sovereigns.

FrozenWall said:

So, seeing as how the law against murder stipulates a penalty, if a person unilaterally does not wish to be bound by the law murders someone you do not see the problem?

The problem is that you cannot break the law, the fact that the law contains punishment for its breach does not imply acceptability of the deed! Exactly the same with a treaty between sovereigns.

Click to expand...

Woah, woah.

Those are two entirely different cases.

The law as you describe is not a meeting of equals, contracts are. It is incorrect to compare the two.

carillon said:

Woah, woah.

Those are two entirely different cases.

The law as you describe is not a meeting of equals, contracts are.

Click to expand...

All people, whether victim or perpetrator, are not equal under the law?

OrangeYoshi said:

All people, whether victim or perpetrator, are not equal under the law?

Click to expand...

Hmm? The two parties would be the perpetrator and the state, the victim doesn't enter into it.

So by breaking the law you are breaking your compact with the state. But the state isn't your equal. The compact that you have with the state is backed up by its monopoly of force.

Here with out contracts between separate parties, the is an equivalence that isn't found in the law. There isn't a monopoly of force that one party has over the other. That's why comparing breaking the law to breaking a contract in this game is incorrect.