Children of the Fatherland: MP conversion game

[BlitzMartinDK]

This is so entertaining! On one hand we have the roleplaying element, and then on the other the Real-politik..And behind it all, the jostling to position oneself for the next game, and the next after that..wich ultimately will lead to the positions in the final hoi-something game in two? years time..

Russia hasn't needed to attack anyone, their position is just fine for most of the games until HOI..same with Caliphate..Denmark should be ok too, but the rest of the powers could all use several of the following :

more space,
prettier borders with less enemies on them ,
and better access to the New World and/or Asia.

What could be good would be some kind of point system, whereby you score VP's at the end of each individual game of the great campaign..I just have no idea how that could work...

 

[FrozenWall]

just as we were about to sing Kumbaya!

I'm just worried an enraged Grizzly will break into our campsite because somebody tried to steal his honey

 

[Foelsgaard]

This is so entertaining! On one hand we have the roleplaying element, and then on the other the Real-politik..And behind it all, the jostling to position oneself for the next game, and the next after that..wich ultimately will lead to the positions in the final hoi-something game in two? years time..

Realpolitik? Nah we don't practice that! We're... :twitch: friends!

 

[Jakalo]

Now, saying "My word cannot be trusted" to the face of your largest neighbor (from whom you have taken land) is not usually considered good foreign policy. You and Denmark could have weaseled your way out of the NAPs by deciding to follow the text of the treaty and not the spirit, then Denmark could have attacked me/oddman and you OY/vR without technically breaking your word. Instead you declare your oaths null and void the second it becomes inopportune to keep them. How am I supposed to treat such a neighbor but assume his every word is a lie? You are working quite hard at unnecessarily escalating a peaceful coexistence into a relation where both sides feel pressured to launch preemptive strikes because of lack of trust.



Realpolitik is one thing, lying as instituted state policy quite another. The Byzantine Emperor is a notorious backstabber and circumventer of treaties, but his word can be trusted. Mistaking subterfuge and oathbreaking for each other is a swift road to a nations demise.

I would like you not spreading blatant lies and misinformation about me, thank you. Also making quotes about what I have supposedly said is quite a bad style.

Statement : ''why would I tell you I if was going to attack '' was just a rhetorics, if the word ''why'' in the begginning doesnt give you the hint. And I thought I made it quite clear afterwards anyway.
When we decided to intervee we said it plain and clear - we are going to attack you if these demands doesnt change.
I am sorry, maybe my English is too bad to understand.

I never have lied to you, never. So please, do not spread misinformation.

Regarding our intervence I said:

I assume you and Croatia/Russia all in one alliance so attacking one would essentially mean attack on all. But it is all semantics

(Oh wait, where did you get that brilliant idea about circumventing nap) So yes, we could have weaseled our way out and not ''break our word'' but I decided to treat treaty by spirit not words, partly because I knew we wouldnt have to break NAP anyway, partly because I do think our cause was just and demanded intervention despite NAP.

I`ll elaborate - NAPs (as almost all treaties) affects only perceived righteousness of its participants (there is exommunication effect but I suppose it there to simulate in non-existant dissent of digital people), Two superpowers and two/three small powers demanding huge swaths of land from two medium powers to nerf them into submission was a cause moral enough to intervee. (Please dont start about them being agressors, yes we all know they are the bad guys, but its not like you didnt get your revenge, it just wasnt big enough for you)

I think the fact that ALL neutral powers decided to participate (all by themselves, mind you) is telling enough for you or anyone. You may disagree but your opinion of that fact is undoubtedly influenced by the fact you didnt get all what you wanted.

And to add, it would have been more profitable for me to stand aside and watch the fun.

No? Compensating myself for Sicily with Baghdad means I am giving up Sicily, isn't that what you want?

Now, saying "You are a liar" to the face of your largest neighboris not usually considered good foreign policy. Is it?

edit: In short saying ''why would you think you can trust me'' does not mean - you can not trust me.

 

[Irsh Faq]

Pigs can fly! Tune in at 11 for details.

I don't know about you, but I trust Frosty's word on this just as much as I always have on anything else. There is no reason at all to think he is being even the slightest bit deceptive about the friendship in the ME that he promises and certainly no reason to say he is spouting outlandish lies at the level of flying pigs. Frosty's word on this is as good as received truth, for me.

Also nothing I say carries any moral weight

 

[Foelsgaard]

Way to misquote my stout and honorable neighbor!

 

[FrozenWall]

We're... :twitch: friends!

Hopefully it'll grow on us

I would like you not spreading blatant lies and misinformation about me, thank you.

I am not spreading misinformation, I am not trying to propagandize against you, I am stating fact and wondering how I will be able to keep safe if by your own admision you do not consider your own word completely binding.

cause moral enough

See, here is the heart of the problem. You take the right to suspend prior agreements whenever you feel like it. While this in your mind is moral and justified, to me (lacking experience playing with you) it is arbitrary. I don't know when you will decide it is "moral" to backstab me. Last time I thought my back secure, and then all of a sudden you were threatening to militarily support taking from me an entire Kingdom of Jerusalem. I don't know where you will draw your lines for ignoring your word, and therefor I cannot feel entirely safe in trusting it.

In short saying ''why would you think you can trust me'' does not mean - you can not trust me.

Honestly? I don't know if I can trust you, I've never played with you before. But the fact that you yourself question why I would think I can trust does cast some serious doubt.

 

[Irsh Faq]

Sorry Foels. I couldn't resist.

To be more serious though, if Russia is threatening its neighbors into signing treaties that go against their national interests, it does not seem that outlandish that they would value such treaties less highly than those entered into out of free will.

 

[Foelsgaard]

Sorry Foels. I couldn't resist.

Now get back to work making me that fiendish army of zombies! And this time, don't make it an obvious exploit!

 

[OrangeYoshi]

Sorry Foels. I couldn't resist.

To be more serious though, if Russia is threatening its neighbors into signing treaties that go against their national interests, it is not that outlandish that they would value such treaties less highly than those entered into out of free will.

Whether it was a nice thing to do or not, I don't think Russia taking revenge on Michael's help of the ARA during Denmark's own civil war would've been in Michael's best national interests.

Now, saying "You are a liar" to the face of your largest neighboris not usually considered good foreign policy. Is it?

edit: In short saying ''why would you think you can trust me'' does not mean - you can not trust me.

Sorry Jakalo, but here's an English lesson: Putting a "why" at the beginning of a sentence like that denotes sarcasm, and it does mean that you are saying you can't be trusted. Just like saying "why would I tell you the truth" means you are admitting you have no reason to tell the truth and would gladly lie to get what you want. It seems everyone understood what you actually said but you.

 

[FrozenWall]

Putting a "why" at the beginning of a sentence like that denotes sarcasm, and it does mean that you are saying you can't be trusted. It seems everyone understood what you actually said but you.

If this trouble is based on faulty grammar, this would be a good time to clarify.

To be more serious though, if Russia is threatening its neighbors into signing treaties that go against their national interests, it does not seem that outlandish that they would value such treaties less highly than those entered into out of free will.

But if his word cannot be trusted, how will Russia act next time Denmark has realm duress? Your word is a comodity that can easily loose it's worth, and in a 900 year mp campaign it is one of the most valuable things you own.

 

[Jakalo]

Whether it was a nice thing to do or not, I don't think Russia taking revenge on Michael's help of the ARA during Denmark's own civil war would've been in Michael's best national interests.

Sorry Jakalo, but here's an English lesson: Putting a "why" at the beginning of a sentence like that denotes sarcasm, and it does mean that you are saying you can't be trusted. Just like saying "why would I tell you the truth" means you are admitting you have no reason to tell the truth and would gladly lie to get what you want. It seems everyone understood what you actually said but you.

It does not allways means so. Sarcasm is not so easily transferable over written conversation, at best it is debatable and Frosty could err on cautios side instead of saying you said your word is void. Also note the bolded part.

Thanks for English lesson by the way.

Statement : ''why would I tell you I if was going to attack '' was just a rhetorics, if the word ''why'' in the begginning doesnt give you the hint. And I thought I made it quite clear afterwards anyway.

Here is full citation

So, on the presumption that KoM & Foels are fishing around for interventionists to come help them in the war they've started, I ask for reassurance you do not intend to attack OY or anything like that, and your stance on their war overall.

I think your demands are overblown and I do not like your rhetorics about Sicily so I am unwilling to allow you completely smashing OA as I suspect you`ll move against me in turn. Clear enough for you?
But no, noone has approached me.

Also why would I tell you the truth?

Frosty comes asking whether I am gonna attack. I was quite surprised he asks me question like that so I answer bluntly (and honestly).Also I am surprised he hopes that someone plotting to make a sneak attack against him will tell him if asked nicely so I ask him about that.

After that I get this.

Now, saying "My word cannot be trusted"

Realpolitik is one thing, lying as instituted state policy quite another. The Byzantine Emperor is a notorious backstabber and circumventer of treaties, but his word can be trusted. Mistaking subterfuge and oathbreaking for each other is a swift road to a nations demise.

No, he tells me straight up he will lie to me!

Sooo, yea. "You can totalt trust me when I tell you we are friends. Unless I intend to attack you, in which case I will actively decieve you into thinking you are my friend. Also nothing I say carries any moral weight".

Well that is immaterial, isn't it? The question is wether ones word can be trusted or not when it matters, ie when you don't feel like holding it. He could have threatened me, and W.Rome threatened Rus/Croatia, and no word would technically have been broken.

Then there is that matter of my and Denmarks NAPs, you can say that was immoral to say we will break them to save Byzantine and Persia, but then again you are not quite uninvolved in the whole situation.
The whole uninvolved part of the player roster a.k.a. neutrals supported that decision.

Its not like we gained anything from it, is it?
Its not like I lied to him even once, is it?

 

[FrozenWall]

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.

 

[King of Men]

Ah, the classic case of contract law versus implied morality! We have treaties that are enforced by an ingame sanction, namely excommunicating a ruler in breach. Now the question is, should this be taken as a plain contract, "I promise to get excommed if I do X", or should it be taken as a given word, "I promise not to do X", with the excomming only a partial compensation? We see something similar in the mortgage crisis in the US. You hear in some quarters that underwater houseowners should just move out, cease making payments, and send the keys back to the bank; because the house is security for the loan, we are told, this is not immoral - it's just what the contract says. On the other hand, there is a strong implicit presumption that, having taken a mortgage, you will do your best to pay it off. And that implicit presumption is the reason mortgage terms are so generous. If you think they are not generous, have a look at the sort of loan banks offer to corporations, that is to say, soulless entities who will break the contract the instant their gain from doing so is three cents more than their gain from making the payments. Those contracts have penalty and enforcement clauses beside which moving out of the house your family has lived in for ten years looks like a slap on the wrist.

Now in the case of mortgages, banks have options for the future; if the custom changes so that private borrowers expect they can just give back the house if they ever find it difficult to make payments, the banks can turn around and say, "Ok, fine, from now on we'll only offer loans with these extra penalty clauses. Oh, and 33% down payments. Now let's see you mail us the keys, you bastards." In the case of CK treaties, that's not an option, because the enforcement mechanism is not under the control of the signatories. Of course we could all agree to edit in Kinslayer+Heretic+Excomm, or something; but that's not an option you can put in any particular contract - you can't say "I refuse to do business with you unless you agree to these additional penalty clauses".

Crusider Kings: Contract Law Conundrum Edition!

 

[Jakalo]

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.

Would you feel better if I would have said ''Noo Ill not attack you, instead I attack Russia, your ally and Denmark, he will attack you, but not Russia?

Or would you prefer we allow far superior alliance destroy two player nations so that they are not threat to you combined and while you are in a realm duress, wait till NAP ends and then correct injustice?

You talk about morality, preventing war or revanchist sentiments is a moral thing to do.

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. No war is declared.
Promise not broken. XD

 

[Irsh Faq]

Your word is a comodity that can easily loose it's worth, and in a 900 year mp campaign it is one of the most valuable things you own.

Quite so. However it seems to me that if the biggest power in the game is holding a grudge against you, and is about to take his pound of flesh from his only other major land neighbors (to the expressed aim of crippling them such that they can't fight another war against it), it is a matter of vital national interest to stop them. Such strong interest that might justify eating excomms to do so. Given that when the peace deal was reduced to a level that Jakalo and Denmark did not feel so strongly threatened by it, they did not in fact break their treaties, you seem to have an easy solution to the trust dilemma; don't make your peace-deals so harsh that nations with whom you have treaties will feel obligated to intervene to stop you anyway.

 

[Xrybnix]

You´re making the matter overly complicated Frosty. Germany and Denmark haven´t broken any of their NAPs, thus far the facts.
The incident that following your initial two peaceoffers all neutral countries were on the verge of intervention despite two of them being bound by NAPs just shows how outrageous your demands were and nothing else.
As soon as reasonable demands were put on the table everyone was quite happy to be able not to breach any treaties.
Would we really have wanted to break the NAPs like you try to make it sound we would just have attacked anyway.

Also I loled at your comic.

 

[OrangeYoshi]

You´re making the matter overly complicated Frosty. Germany and Denmark haven´t broken any of their NAPs, thus far the facts.

Now we're getting into "who were the aggressors in the war" again.

 

[FrozenWall]

Crusider Kings: Contract Law Conundrum Edition!

Pacta. Sunt. Servanda. There are no scales of gray in this, whether or not there are penal clauses is not of interest to this principle.

Would you feel better if bla

Not really, but at least I could trust your word.

You talk about morality, preventing war or revanchist sentiments is a moral thing to do.

Nope, I'm talking about whether or not your word carries any weight

No war is declared.
Promise not broken. XD

But if you did not intend to break the NAP, then your threats were lies. And yet again the weight of your word falls into question.

just shows how outrageous your demands were and nothing else.

I started ridiculously high so I could barter it down from there? Gasp!

Would we really have wanted to break the NAPs like you try to make it sound we would just have attacked anyway.

The question is not if you wanted to attack in this particular instance, but the fact that you will break your word if at any point you do feel like it. This does not inspire confidence.

 

[Xrybnix]

The question is not if you wanted to attack in this particular instance, but the fact that you will break your word if at any point you do feel like it is absolutely necessary.

Corrections in red.

I started ridiculously high so I could barter it down from there? Gasp!

In that case congratulations to pissing of the entire world with something as harmless as bartering. Not many of history´s worst diplomats can claim such an "achievement".