Issues of Honor

[Octavian X]

Guess what? Another foreign policy discussion!

This is a more long-term issue. In our future dealings, will we honor deals that we make with foreign powers for the sake of our reputation, or will we backstab as needed?

Please, discuss.

 

[Zarn]

I'm more of an honor guy, but you knew that. I think people would more likely believe us with treaties, if we did it the honor way.

 

[GenMarshall]

We should honor all treaties.

 

[Cheetah]

Yes, honor is the best way.

Though right now we are breaking a treaty with GCA...

 

[Bootstoots]

I think we should be generally honorable, but we should break treaties if needed.

Also, I know a way to get around our treaty with GCA. If they get on to us about breaking our treaty, all we have to say is that it wasn't ratified and as such was never official. In that way, we can essentially throw it out the window.

 

[Goonie]

I don't think we can say until we are actually faced with a situation.

But generally speaking we should be fairly honourable.

 

[Zarn]

Originally posted by Bootstoots
I think we should be generally honorable, but we should break treaties if needed.

Also, I know a way to get around our treaty with GCA. If they get on to us about breaking our treaty, all we have to say is that it wasn't ratified and as such was never official. In that way, we can essentially throw it out the window.

Or, we can just declare war...

That would discard the treaty, even if the citizens approved it.

 

[Goonie]

Do not say that! It sets a very ugly precedent! If we say our treaty wasn't ratified other nations will never trust our treaty signing process again. But if we tell the world that it was revenge for ravaging our homeland, they will understand.

 

[Ankka]

Honor. It's the best way to get a good reputation and hold peace...

 

[FortyJ]

There can be no standard for a topic like this.

All of us would likely agree that persistent back-stabbing would earn us a short list of friends, and unless we own 50+% of the world, we're going to need friends. Similarly, I imagine that all of us would be quite willing to break any treaty if doing so would assure us of victory.

In short, a standard rule on such a critical topic like this would make us predictable and severely limit our options in the game. If we adopt any such policy, regardless of whether it's an "Honor all treaties" or a "Break any treaty" policy, our enemies can use that policy against us.

We should be honorable in our dealings, but not the slightest bit reluctant to ignore any treaty if the benefits of such action outweigh the benefits of honoring it.

 

[Cheetah]

Well, I guess this may be in relevance to our discussion:

[21:12] <CivGeneral> I am reciving some messages from GC
[21:14] <Octavian_X> ?
[21:14] <CivGeneral> [15:10] <@Lucky>
[21:14] <CivGeneral> [15:11] <anarchy> hola
[21:14] <CivGeneral> [15:11] <anarchy> So CFC are lying scumbags and I've been wasting my time this weekend?
[21:14] <CivGeneral> [15:11] <@spy>
[21:14] <CivGeneral> [15:11] <@spy>
[21:14] <CivGeneral> [15:11] <@Lucky> seems so
[21:14] <CivGeneral> [15:11] <@spy> cfc ****s
[21:14] <CivGeneral> [15:11] <@Lucky> we could ask them personally, I´m sure they have SOME excuse
[21:14] <CivGeneral> [15:12] <anarchy> either they are liard
[21:14] <CivGeneral> [15:12] <anarchy> *liars
[21:14] <CivGeneral> [15:12] <anarchy> or the left hand doesnt know what the right hand is doing
[21:14] <CivGeneral> [15:12] <anarchy> Since it seems cfc has a "first come first play" system
[21:14] <CivGeneral> [15:13] <@Lucky> hehe
[21:14] <CivGeneral> [15:14] <@Lucky> but they wouldn´t have built what they did with not that what we think in mind
[21:15] <CivGeneral> [15:14] <@Lucky> if you know what I mean
[21:15] <CivGeneral> [15:14] <anarchy> i think so
[21:16] <Octavian_X> I said to issue the declaation of war, but no one every listens to me...
[21:17] <CivGeneral> There is more
[21:17] <CivGeneral> 15:16] <@spy>
[21:17] <CivGeneral> [15:16] <@Lucky> if you meet them in CFC chat, you can ask them why they are violating our border treaty
[21:17] <CivGeneral> [15:16] <@spy> suspicousness Lo
[21:17] <CivGeneral> [15:17] <@Lucky> right when we are having peace talks :s
[21:17] <CivGeneral> [15:17] <@spy> isnt it obvious?

 

[FortyJ]

They should talk about deceptive play.

They razed our city in a sneak attack. In the same turn, they offer peace, knowing that we won't be able to explore the map before accepting or declining. Then they send an e-mail explaining (read: lying) that their peace offer is simply a gesture to reaffirm our friendly status.

Forum rules prohibit me from typing what I really feel about their opinion of us. Let them die and I will smile and have a drink in their dishonor when they are finally eliminated from this contest.

 

[FortyJ]

My previous comments still hold true, but I've thought a little more about this and I can't help but wonder why would GCA send this transcript to us.... :hmm

Could it be that they want us to think they're going to war with us again? But why announce it like this before doing something? As my previous post illustrates, this is not their typical modus operandi.

This could be nothing more than a bluff. Of course, we'll soon see, but I wouldn't worry about this too much. We are fairly certain that the bulk of their troops are in the east dealing with the most pressing threat to their survival (Poly), and we are in a position to strike hard at their previously safe source of iron.

If they want war, then we should be honor-bound to oblige them. So, cry havoc, and let loose the dogs boys.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I always try to take the honor-bound route in games against the AI, but we are dealing with quite a different animal here. In fact, have there been any military gains by anyone in this game so far that haven't been accomplished through some means of deception?

I say that we should try to stay honorable whenever possible, but must be ready to offset any acts of debauchery with some of our own. If that means breaking a treaty, so be it. If that means acting on a perceived threat by one of our "friendly" neighbors while we are at peace, let it be done.

Soon GCA will be gone and we will be considered by most as the "next to go." Don't think for a minute that we will be left in peace. We must be ready to match wits with the three remaining nations if we are to see the dawn of the Industrial Age.

 

[Hygro]

FortyJ and Goonie spelled it out well.

This is not something we should make an official inside policy about.

 

[Gingerbread Man]

Technically the treaty we signed is voided as soon as war is declared. Therefore, we declared honorably, since we didn't unfairly terminate the treaty.