Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

I think all of this also goes with the requests that keep popping up to "add diplomacy to the game". Adding diplomacy options to a menu would place game-restrictions on the actions. Such as game-managed NAPs.

The way it is now we have ultimate diplomacy and unlimited options. Very real world but that isnt always what all gamers would prefer. They want an impartial referee. I can see the advantage to both sides of the discussion and Im not sure which one would be best. Best for game play? probably continue with it unmoderated by forum or game menus. Best for sales? possibly a menu-managed diplomacy feature would be good but I dont see Johan working on anything that major anytime soon.

Besides, this would be another of those "there are plenty of THOSE games already out there so lets not change one of the things that makes us nicely unique".

(of course since I mostly play solo I wouldnt mind abit more recognition by the AIs of my gifts)

Gandalf Parker
-- To some people, unlimited options seems to them to be zero options.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

I agree players should be allowed to violate NAPs or even quit playing when they don't like the way the game is proceeding. However, all this information should be logged on a website for others to review. If one player has a long-term history of always quitting after turn30 a history of the behavior should be recorded. By recording the behaviors of others the host and players of a game will be more knowledgeable for what can be expected. For most individuals which are common backstabbers or game droppers they will disagree and most individuals which are honorable with treaties will approve.
The current environment provides a disadvantage to those willing to be honorable for treaties made during a game. Providing all the treaty information to be publicly known on a website will still allow players to backstab on a treaty. There's no reason new players have to suffer months of hurtful gaming experiences to learn which individuals are the backstabbers and/or game droppers.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

NT--

I completely disagree with almost everything you have said. However, we do agree on two very important points:

1) Those who "trust" will always be at a disadvantage (potentially) in WAR.

2) "There can be only one" (unless he/she allows a weaker ally, a respected/feared opponent, or an obedient lackey to survive).

I think both new and old players should keep these things in mind, and defend themselves accordingly, or be prepared to suffer a "hurtful" experience.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

Your post is quite amusing, in an ignorant sort of way.

I considered our NAP broken when your army stealthed south through my lands and destroyed one of my armies that was trying to take an independant province.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

Secret alliances? Didn't you learn anything from the history of World War I? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Seriously though, this kind of thing is why no-holds-barred diplomacy is just more fun (IMO).

I think it is a good idea for anyone who wants to regard treaties as binding to state so up front before the game begins. I won't be joining such a game, but some people might want to.

Binding treaties are a house rule though, not something enforced by the game or intended by Illwinter, and I think everyone should be aware of that and not expect them to be in effect unless they have been specifically agreed to before the game. And carrying a grudge outside the game for treachery in a game where treachery is legal is just poor sportsmanship.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

Raise your hand if you've had a hurtful, suffering experience playing Dominions.

If you have, you're taking the game too seriously. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

Considering that AreWeInsaneYet hasn't posted since his cheap shot, I'd say he was just getting out some aggression. I'll play with you anytime, Tibbs. Hugs for all!

Also: I don't make "formal" NAPs because I'd have to, you know... take notes or something. I don't need more paperwork, especially with four games running.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

On the counter side to my 'Las Vegas' game (WWI, secret pacts), it may be interesting to have a public diplomacy game, where everyone agrees to conduct diplomacy by forum, and consider the results binding. This way, the politicin could get pretty fierce as everybody negotiates- kind of like the scramble to get mercs, except you see the other' bids.

Include in each contract several 'breach' and termination clauses. The common termination would be three turns warning, psssibly shortened to one with a cancellation fee. the 'breach' would fall under accidental and intentional penalties, with varying degrees of repercussion. They might be levied a fine, or excluded from all further political discussions, treated as a rogue.

The idea is that diplomatic alliances can be publicly bought. If someone knows about your public treaty, then they can negotiate with a third party to get that party to declare the three turn warning and shift sides. This whole system of public negotiations removes most of the misunderstandings, gives a record, and etc. etc.
Completely public negotiations may be problematic- so maybe limit it only to the binding agreement made public. An agreement will not be valid until it posted and signed by both parties. Before then, it is as nonexistent, and useless.

Of course, there's also the game style with no diplomacy whatsoever- or just trade. Continuing with orwell, I'd call that game the ministry of peace.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

If Parcelt and Tibbs had been cheating (breaking game rules) I too would have been angry. But apparently this didn't happen. They just broke an in-game mutual agreement called "NAP" by some people. Not covered by any rules, not default ones or rules tied to just this game, agreed upon by every participant before the game started.
So end of story.

Everything could have been all different of course. But it wasn't... so no need point fingers on anyone or start constructing "top-ten-wanted-dishonest-people-who-played-fair-by-the rules-but-cheated-me-anyways-somehow" lists. That is just playing silly, not Dominions.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

If we're going to draw parallels from history, nations have had peace followed by war followed by peace, even when individuals such as kings and queens are involved. Or three years between every battle.

You could interpret pretenders as either closely involved with their people (Fertility god), or rather careless (God of Death)- an assault against your nation isn't always an assault against your pretender, personally, though sometimes it may be. One could argue that a pretender would be more likely to view their people as 'chess pieces', disposable when its to their advantage.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

I would argue that a callus pretender who sees their people as "chess pieces" would more likely view those people as the source of their power. Therefore, any attack on those people (or the precious land they occupy)would be considered to be a direct threat to his/her power base.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

My point was there's no need for NEW players to go thru the hassles of learning who can be trusted and who cannot be trusted. And gamers new with hosting a new game shouldn't have the pains of learning which gamers are known for dropping out early.

Tibbs, I didn't mean "emotionally" hurtful... I meant "game time lost" hurtful as it could take months to identify the known backstabbers compared to those known to be honorable to the treaties.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

I'm kinda surprised that so many people are so quick to ignore a NAP, and deride those who honor them as playing at a disadvantage. I see it the other way, knowing full well that I'll likely be playing future games with the same people I think wantonly backstabbing other players puts you at a pretty severe disadvantage. It's not about carrying grudges from game to game, it's just human nature that players who you backstabbed will (rightly so) be very slow to trust you, even in another game. You can talk about roleplaying all you want, but I know that if a player backstabbed me before there is a non-negligble chance it'll happen again, whereas there are other players are a much better risk investment to build friendly relations with.

The very notion of a non-binding NAP is an oxymoron, if the assumption is that you'll be attacked whenever it's in the attacker's advantage why bother saying anything? Someone who has shown me that this is their view of NAP has shown me that they don't think NAP exist at all, and thus will never have a NAP with me in any other game. Consequently they'll be high on my list of targets to attack sooner rather than later, assuming I can secure NAPs with my other neighbors. Again, not about a grudge, it's simple pragmaticisim to not ignore a de-facto threatening neighbor who I've always got to worry about an imminent attack from. I have to assume many players feel the same way, even if they don't rationalize it consciously, so the more you backstab people, the more you get screwed. Particularly since the people you're most likely see in multiple games are also generally going to be the most dangerous players.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

Well said, Baatz. Those who've broken NAPs with me in the past are on a personal list of mine - and they will lose the chance in the future. Probably to my quick demise, but oh well. There's no ire or hatred or anything. And sharing this info with friends, perhaps, is fine. And they can make their own decisions. But on the public forum - that's rather inappropriate.

That list of game 'rules' is bogus, however. If I'm not entitled to have my personal list *based upon previous experience* with a player from a past game, as that would break some sort of arbitrary rule-set, please don't allow me to join your game(s). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

I also agree with Baalz

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

I gotta agree with Baalz as well.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

If the game doesn't specify anything, I'm all for keeping your standards- it's one reason why I haven't broken a pact yet. Keep your private lists - I don't intend to get on them, and I can't stop you from making them if I wanted to.

However, occasionally I do want to be treacherous. So, I will have a game with that arbitrary rule-set, and you won't be invited. No ill-feelings, I'll still be okay playing with you in a regular game- but I will maintain the right to an 'evil-backstabbing game' rule-set, just like 'king of the hill', or any other arbitary rule-set.

For me, NAPs do exist, and that's why I haven't blighted your capital yet.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

Quitting the game because you're losing is just being a bad sport, or impolite. Again though it depends, if the player gives advance warning or otherwise states that they're going to leave fair enough. Sometimes RL does get in the way, sometimes you'd rather bow out gracefully than see things through to the bitter end.
As for diplomacy, would it not in fact be easier for people to simply state, when getting the game together, what kind of diplomacy they want. Whether they want a political type game or if NAP's should be inviolate, or even if anyone forming an agreement has to wear their pants on their head for the duration. That way people know from the outset how they're expected to behave. If they get kicked out of the game for breaking a NAP they can't complain if the host stated NAPS were inviolate, similarly if someone gets backstabbed and the host mentioned the game was going to be an experiment in machevellian politics there's no grounds to complain about someone being dishonest.

To weigh in on the opinionated side of the debate, I actually wouldn't play a multiplayer game if diplomatic moves were expected to be binding. I play multiplayer for the political aspect, backstabbing, manipulation and sabotage are all par for the course. Without that aspect, I'd have no reason not to stick to singleplayer.

As far as the phrasing of a NAP goes, if someone does send me a "NAP for 3 turns" message I usually need to hold back from sending a four letter reply. If one is going to use diplomacy in the game, you should at least do it properly. In character posts are nice, as is giving me a reason not to crush you like an ant http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif In most games I play, diplomacy is used as simply another tool - form an alliance or NAP with two fighting players, equip both sides (but not too much) then crush the victor when they least expect it? I think so.

@ Gandalf - the reason I'd like to see a menu driven/hard coded diplomacy is not so much to have it enforced by the game, but more to have it recognised by the game. It would give more options if you could move your troops through allied territory for example (one of which being nullifying your alliance and siezing any provinces your army was currently 'aiding the defence' in http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif )

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

Guys....

I have to say I am terribly disappointed with you all...

Here I see this thread title and I expect to see a massive flame war! But instead it was just logical conversations. Come on guys - this was supposed to be my entertainment for the afternoon!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Hehehehe.

But seriously I am glad to see that people are discussing things so reasonably tho. I agree with the general sentiment that violating NAPs should only be treated on a game-by-game basis. IMO, there really isnt a need for a blacklist or honor-ranking system in dom because there just isnt enough treaty breaking to warrant it. Most experienced players know that thier reputation has value and won't risk it just for a slight advantage in one game.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

It is one of the advantages of having the gaming community tied so directly into the forum. You forum ID is your reputation.

And by the way, its not as easy to change as someone might think. These boards do not allow multiple IDs and they report multiple logins on the same IP to the moderators. Yes, of course you can change IPs also but its not like you can easily do it anytime you get a black mark on your login here.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

I partly agree with Baalz, but I don't think treaties are worthless simply because they are sometimes broken and I don't think it's worth attacking someone based on the idea that since there's no possibility of a NAP they should be your #1 target. If they haven't made a threatening move towards you (they lack a huge army hovering on the border) and they say they don't have any intention of attacking you and on top of that you have other 'friendly' diplomatic relations such as trade, sharing of information or dividing of indy provinces to avoid conflict, then you haven't got much cause to believe they're going to attack you. Perhaps it's a cunning ploy on their part and they're hiding troops, but that sounds like a legitimate strat they're using, so fair play to them. I know I'd be less trusting of glamoured or stealthy nations and be sure to keep a reserve ready to deal with them.

Of course it would be silly to assume they'll never attack you, or they'll announce it before doing so, unless it's been clearly stated that you have a NAP and it cannot be broken, with the punishment being that they'll be kicked, or you'll refuse to play with them ever again.

I think there's plenty of room for meaningful diplomacy where treaties are still broken. You can also add house rules on top if you'd like.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

I agree, yet currently all NEW players are stuck playing as blind pigeons for months until they learn the good and bad reputation of others. A website tracking the information would remove this disadvantage for new players.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

If you want to do a website then go for it. That would seem to solve most of the problems. It would be off of Shrapnel, not directly supported by them or Illwinter. That is after all, the answer for anything that isnt supported by the forum.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

I recently had to drop out of 2 MP games abruptly because it was either that or have severe personal consequences, and I felt bad about it, because I'd intended to play the games to their conclusion, but the way the game hosts was a major inconvenience that ultimately-and quickly-proved insurmountable.

I made sure to post on that game's thread so that everyone concerned would be very clear that I was quitting the game, though, and why.

To just up and quit a game without even telling anybody, that's just bad behavior.

It would be equally bad, to my way of thinking, to quit one game and continue the other, if you've made an equal commitment to both, and their weren't any other factors, such as one having a replacement standing by.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

My .02...

I have no problems with NAPs. Especially in the early going, there is typically no benefit to going to war with someone early while Indies are still available (unless of course you are playing a rush nation).

That said, I think NAPs can be broken. If you don't have forces on the border and I have a fair amount on mine, I might consider moving in, especially if it is something that will hurt you severely.

However, the worst thing a player in any diplomatic game came do is make a move that only benefits him in the short term. If I take province X, and break a NAP, and that does not impact you severely, I am a moron.

Maybe it was my years of playing Diplomacy, but there comes a point in every game in which you need to make a play for the win. If the #1 and #3 players are allied against #2, it might be worth it for #3 to go ahead and stab #1. Why? If their relative strengths do not change, #3 will finish #2 after #2 is knocked off. But, if he stabes #1, he will probably benefit more from an alliance with #2 at that point, etc.

The game itself provides its own penalties and rewards for NAPs and alliances. I have not broken one to date, but I am do not want to be held bound to something that is going to doom me to future defeat. Let's say that in game X, I make a NAP with Caelum. It is for 24 turns, and over the span of those 24 turns, both Caelum and I expand. Eventually my only border is that with Caelum. I still have 10 turns left on my NAP, am I supposed to just sit and wait for the dang thing to expire while he is out expanding elsewhere? (Not withstanding my allowing this situation to develop)

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

Actually those who frequently do hosting of games should vote for an individual to manage the information on a website.
In my multiplayer opinion the website would become quite popular as players from existing games would want to review past treaties from other games regarding current opponents. Also the gamers which host games would be able to organize groups of players together... such as a backstabber game, an honorable treaty game and/or a reliable player game where no one drops out from bad starts/events.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

But who's opinion do you base the list on?You can put up a list, but how can you guarantee it's accuracy? There are always two sides to every story.

Take for example myself, the original person accused. He said I broke the NAP, yet he stealthed his army(whose capital is north of me) through my territories and suddenly started taking independant territories south of me and thus causing the collision and annihilation of one of my armies.

In my view, an army of another nation sneaking through my lands and then taking lands that border my nation and causing the destruction of my army voids any pact or peace treaty. Those are definitely aggressive actions.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

Well, if you know you're going to lose in one game then there's not really that big a problem to calling it quits, unless you own most of the provinces. If the game is at a point where you have two or three large empires and a bunch of smaller six or seven provinces and one of the smaller players would rather concentrate on another game, fair enough, as long as he tells the other players of his intent to quit.
Admittedly, if I were in that situation I'd also secretly promise the same territories to each of those larger players on my last turn. I won't be around to watch the fur fly, but at least I know I'll be gone with a bang http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

Blaalz, you make some excellent points. To clarify, I was not necessary advocating that NAPs be ignored, nor was there intent to dinegrate those to adhere to them out of their own personal sense of honor (or sheer pragmatism). To further clarify my own position, I will personally avoid entering into NAPs unless I have some confidence they will be upheld by the other player(s), and then (most likely) only for a finite period of time. Why? Because I intend to honor my agreements, but do not wish to limit my future flexibility. That said, am I saying I will absolutely never break an agreement? Probaly not, but under the right set of circumstances, who knows...

Finally, I absolutely concur with your observation that you will carry YOUR past experiences from game to game. On a human plane, this is to be expected to some degree. What I sharply object to is the notion that there should be some sort of "master list" of "violators" presumably to help other (new) players. It would be just as silly to suggest that there be a list of names of those who commonly ally with each other (secretly or not) so the rest of us know who to watch out for.

After all, I'm sure there are many "positive" experiences that are carried over from game as well, yes? Over time, these experiences lead to greater confidence and an increased likelihood of a future alliance, yes? It could be argured that this puts the other players without this benefit at somewhat of a disadvantge, yes? And all the while everyone feels "honorable" about keeping their agreement. So, you protect your backside so as to concentrate your attention on a foe who may not enjoy a simular advantage. Where's the honor in that?

This is a war game premised on world domination. Should there be temporary alliances? Sure, but the concept of a "binding" and permanent NAP seems quite incongruent to me, and keeping some type of global list based on this premise would (further) imbalance play.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

Anonymous attack spells make the idea of a database of trustworthy players pointless. What happens when one player casts a misleading anonymous ritual to dupe another player into attacking a third party? Both dupes will accuse the other of violating their NAP, and to an extent, both will be right.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

Ideally the original treaty should be created, sent and signed on the website where only those individuals involved have access until the game has been finished. Each individual should be allowed an optional brief comment. The games current method of communication has no way to review messages, treaties or trades.
Any individual which is part of the treaty can mark the treaty as being violated or honored then the host of the game should be allowed to vote an opinion as well.



NAP's should be updated to include "NO SNEAKING ARMIES or SCOUTS without PERMISSION on specified provinces" otherwise the sneaking army could be caught by local milita and/or patrollers thus being a violation. I'd definitely recommend everyone including this for future NAPs otherwise face the possible consequences of a loophole.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

Anonymous attack spells cannot be proven without hacking into the turn log. These cannot be made as part of any NAP for this reason.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

I'm failing to understand a lot of the angst here with non-violate NAPs. Usually its just a delay as you dissolve the nap, wait 3 (or however many) and then attack.

That sneak thing with Tibbs I wouldn't consider a breach of NAP. Everyone has to expand, running into someone elses army and getting annihilated sucks but its not like he purposefully attacked you. IMO the better thing for him to do would have been to apologize and possibly reimburse you for some of your troop costs, or give up the province, or share the revenue of the province for x turns. If he didn't offer I would ask, if he says no and it really annoyed me I'd dissolve the NAP and then attack.

Now, if it was a blocking move and it would hem you in, that's a different story. I'd just assume he was being a jerk and dissolve the NAP. Leave it to him to convince you otherwise.

Now my question is, what really consitutes a NAP if every little thing isn't laid out.
- obviously direct military contact
- map spells? I would assume so, but I know others differ
- preaching?
- Aggressively (subjective) spreading dominion?
- Instigating others to map bomb you? Probably, but i'm guilty of this one once. (Didn't break the letter of the law, but bent the heart a bit) The other party didn't believe me ,were goaded into attacking me and losing.
- Targeting for someone else's map spells?
- Giving away priveleged info?
- Troop buildups?
- Border fortresses?
- Forum badmouthing?
- Anything else?

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

That's all fine... sounds good.


The purpose of the list is to simply record the events and treaties of each game. Historical information which can be used by new players helping remove one of their MANY disadvantages.

Correct... yet the new players should have as many disadvantages removed as possible for better game balance.

As I have previously been saying, "Players can break NAPs without warning or blindly drop games". The only individuals not wanting to record the historic events of a game are those wanting to keep the joy of taking advantage of new players to the gaming community.

I agree there should not be any "binding" and/or permanent NAP. If there was a record of the treaties from each game which became available for view by everyone once the game was finished then you can bet veterans and new players would be visiting this website. The information would only display what veteran players already know and what should be known by new players thus bringing a closer game balance. Otherwise the new players will continue to be the blind pigeons.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

It goes both ways.

There are advantages to taking risks in general - so if you sign NAPs with people, and gamble that they'll keep them (which is generally what I do), you're going to be in better shape in those games where it pays off.

OTOH, if you have a reputation for *rarely* breaking NAPs, this may be to your advantage since suspicious neighbors will waste troops guarding their borders with you. If you break them a lot, obviously they won't sign NAPs with you at all.

One of the enjoyable things about MP dom3 is the great diversity in strategy and approach. Any effort to "enforce" honorable play risks jeopordizing that.

As for lamers, I'd support a list of quitters 100%. All's fair in love and war, but if you quit too much (which is obviously open to interpretation), I'd like to know.

But I think any such list is invariably going to devolve into a recrimination-filled flamewar; this discussion has been very civil so far because the one person who's name-was-named happened to have a good sense of humor about it.

As for anonymous attack spells - if someone casts an anonymous attack spell at me, and I know it was them, I attack them. Likewise if someone starts walking void spectres through my territory. I strongly oppose "legalism" in dominions3 - the ingame communications aren't stored, and I'm not going to go over my ingame diplomacy with my lawyer. I'd much rather deal with someone who occasionally breaks their treaties than someone who tries to weasel around with what they do and don't mean.

Finally, as an American, I reserve the right to attack anyone who has both the intent and ability to acquire anonymous attack spells which they might cast against me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

Anybody worth keeping a NAP with would be willing to discuss, or inform you if direct military conflict is/may become a problem. I feel you get out of NAP what you put in- though it may be less than an alliance.

I'm less annoyed with the person I signed a NAP, left them alone a year, and then they surpise attack me than I am with a person I've been sharing non-critical information/trades, or communicating with every turn - who then backstabs me. If they break an alliance without warning, then I'm going to have issues. But the less involved, the less I care.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

I previously discussed this issue with Gandalf, basically the list would contain just facts as listed below.
Name/Contacts of Individual:
Game Turn when player dropped:
Number of remaining provinces owned by the individual when the player was dropped:
Name/Date of the game:


Obviously one bad game drop wouldn't ruin a reputation, yet a dozen will make any game host frown at having that flaky/lamer player participate.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

NT--

Either I'm getting tired, or you're wearing me down...I think we agree more than we disagree, and I'm totally with you on the list of players who "drop out" as long as we recognize that none of us are immue to circumstances beyond our control. So, we'll all need some "grace" from time to time.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

This thread and a website based on this concept are very very bad ideas.

The potential for witch-hunt is enormous plus you immediately run into the problem of who polices the police. There are more reasons why this is bad, very bad but those are sufficient imho.

Take a step back, put on your common sense goggles and stare at this again.

Rathar

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

It wouldn't necessarily restrict actions. In Master of Orion 2 you could establish an alliance, or a non-aggression pact. You could break either in a violent manner, there was nothing hardcoded that prevent you from doing so. However, the AI (and this tended to have a galaxy-wide effect) becomes very unpleasant towards a nation that repeatedly breaks treaties. If you are at war you could also declare a peace treaty that had a set number of turns in which you wouldn't attack one another. You could violate that, too, and if you did the diplomatic hit you took across the game was pretty significant.

Basically in MOO2 diplomacy just made the overall single player game more interesting, you could completely ignore it if you want, you could also, of course, use it to your advantage (make peace with strong neighbors while you work against weak neighbors and et cetera.) In multiplayer it was just a convenience factor, in that it let your diplomatic relations be expressed in an easy to see panel, without restricting any specific type of action.

Not that I want Dom3 to be MOO2, they are both great games and there's no reason to try to make one more like the other. It's just the first example that came to mind when thinking about diplomacy as it has been implemented in other turn based games. Thematically the lack of diplomacy may make sense, in MOO2 while one goal was galactic domination, there were multiple ways to win the game. In Dominions, you're a pretender god fighting against other pretenders to become the sole god, "there can be only one" so the story itself kind of makes diplomacy meaningless.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

Aggresive action. Invading, instilling unrest, spellbombing, sending in assasians, the guys with the plague charms, that sort of thing.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

Okay, so in MP games I run from now on I will specify the diplomacy rules. Either binding NAPs or what LazyPerfectionist called Vegas rules (and I might call Machiavellian). That should clear up any confusion.

Of course even in the case of binding NAPs they may sometimes be broken due to a misunderstanding or forgetfulness. I'll make sure players are clear that it doesn't go beyond that game (apart from in their own heads of course).

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

I will settle one thing now. I dont plan to be the one to decide what is or isnt a breach of agreement. Not here. And not with a webpage.

The question of who referees is a valid one.
I dont remember seeing ANY "broken NAP" that wasnt argued.

Gandalf Parker

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

I have a partial solution-to follow what I think Gandalf has in mind.

Why not, with nation creation, and hard coded into the game, establish a diplomatic reaction table that- independent of what a player does-keeps track of how the AI playing one nation, reacts to another nation?

If you blood-harvest or summon undead or maenads or demons, indeps should attack you, because you'd be viewed as a threat, and AI nations should have a tendancy to ally against you.

If you have a large, disciplined standing army, that should make indeps wary of you, and build up their defenses, but if you give them gifts and don't step on their feet, they should look favorably on you, and be willing to help you, let down their guard, or even open trade relations and alliance options. It would also furth distinctify nations from one another.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

I'm not certain its necessary to specify the diplomacy- though in newbie games, it certainly wouldn't hurt to outlaw backstabbery. I was quite happy with the middleground that was standard before this discussion, though I would find special cases interesting. I think some plaeyrs already got involved in the nothing but war games.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

Sigh...LB, I really don't like the direction this is taking. Frankly, I'm a lot more concerned about NAPs resulting in a single nation be ganged up on, but it seems I'm in the minority?

Anyway, if you really feel the need to proceed along this course, you might want to consider some type of "cap" on the number of turns a "unbreakable" NAP can cover. After that, it's month-to-month...

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

To be honest I think that we all are taking this a bit too seriously for our own good. Maybe if we relaxed some we would actually enjoy the fine nature of this game; which actually happens to be (amongst other things) backstabbing and treachery.

If it happens in the game! Let it stay - in the game.

To elaborate:
A game is an alternative world with its own rules and morals. We shouldn't be playing ourselves, taking everything personally. Instead we should take this opportunity to pretend to be someone or something else. It is a kind of freedom.

And finally:
Have we all forgot to relax and just play along? Yes I'm asking you.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

I think everyone knows this sort of list is DOA.

I agree with Baalz - NAPs are a part of MP Dom3 whether you like it or not. Part of the strategy is the diplomacy of working within that artificial limit to get the best deal.

If a nation won't form a NAP with me I assume we are at war and act accordingly.

However - there can only be one winner. I do think that people that honor NAPs to the point of denying themselves the win are silly. If breaking a NAP gives me a reasonably good shot at completely clinching the win, I'll probably do it. Otherwise, with your reputation on the line, it's almost never worth it.

I will admit enjoying reading about the fallout in games were a "secure" pact is broken. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

Okay then, following objections I will not specify diplomacy in future games and I'll leave it in it's current slightly ambiguous state, which mostly works pretty well.

I do think a no-holds-barred 'Vegas' game sometime would be good for a change though.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

I do agree with Dedas and Velusion. This works for me.