Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Sombre, invoking Godwin's Law is not a good thing.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Typical nazi.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

I guess I have a different outlook on diplomacy in this and other games. Using Chess, Go, Checkers, or any number of games that pit you agianst another person from the start as an example, there isn't any sort of diplomacy other than you won't cheat in the game.

Even in Poker where there are thousands of dollars at stake there IS diplomacy. Its called 'playing soft' on another player (you just check it down once there are only the 2 of you etc).

From the first day I decided to play Dom 3 MP, I decided to be Honorable to a fault. This has hindered me and helped me in games, but for the most part it has made it an enjoyable experiance for me.

I will ALWAYS keep my word, Naps, or any promises I make in the game. I have also broken Naps and gone to war (after all there can be only one), but I have always given notice etc.

Because of this I have made a number of GOOD friends and can usually expect a fairly easy early expansion period.

I have had a few people who act (in MY eyes) dishonorable and I actually keep a list of them. You can talk about leaving it in the game all you want, but if you where sneak attacted by a player, you won't forget them.
You may not go out of your way to attack them in another game, but you won't forget them...OR trust them.

It is no different than playing sports. If you get a cheap shot from another player you remember them. And if you get a chance to step on their ankle/hand/arm or just blindside them, you will, it's human nature.

By keeping this list I can chose to not play with an individual, warn others that are my friends about them, or get even.

People have long memories and you can quote Sun Tzu, or any number of philosophers to justify your actions.

Me...I like Michael Corleone, "Revenge is best when its cold".

THAT is just the way I am.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Wait, was IRC just given a short-form post-modernist criticism?

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

May I have your list, GrudgeBringer?

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

The list is private for many reasons.

1. MY definitions of dishonorable may not be any one Else's.

2. I don't want to slight anyone (they may have ONLY done it to me).

3. I am not the Dom sheriff or have the last and only say in this game.

4. You need to have your own list of things that YOU feel are not honorable.

However, IF I was in a game with you and we where allies, I might warn you to look out for someone.

I think your wise to find out as much info as you can, but just by reading this thread you can see that there are MANY definitions and views on this subject. AND it can be one of the most inflammatory subjects on here, so be careful when calling someone out in public.:up:

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Curiously enough, in PBM Diplomacy this sort of behaviour led to various rules to prevent such "Carebear alliances" to rule the ladder... Then again, PBM Diplomacy in the 80's saw a couple thousands people on the ladder, so many more people than I suspect play regularily Dominions 3 MP which are organised on these forums; thus I believe the risk for such "carebears" to have an equally devastating effect on Dominions 3 MP is not that high. Besides, I think it is good there are games where diplomatic agreements are binding, as that hopefully means the "carebear attitude" doesn't spread to *all* games :)

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Maybe its a basic difference in the games. One is called Diplomacy and the other called Dominion. By definition it would seem that those should treat the subject of alliances differently.

-- MY NAME IS JUAN!
There can only be Juan. All Hail Juan.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Keeping one's word is different from being a carebear. In Diplomacy, there is no research, no recruiting, no site-searching, and thus no reason to turtle; furthermore, there is no randomness or scripting in combat, so the only way to get a combat advantage is through surprise. In Dominions, you can spend long periods of time fighting no one, then declare war on someone and win. In Diplomacy, that would never happen.

Nevertheless, in Diplomacy there is still value to keeping one's word most of the time. Someone who regularly broke agreements in Diplomacy without any real benefit to them would swiftly develop a bad reputation. "Why did you stab me? You didn't get any useful benefit from it" is a valid reason to dislike someone, even when "Why did you stab me? We had an agreement" is not.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Why would you bother making an agreement with anyone then?

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

I think my point was missed. Partly because I wasn't too clear about pointing out :)

Like GrudgeBringer above sayss to militarist, you either are "in the loop", or you are not. You know the people you trust to always to stick to their agreement, they know you. If you are in the loop, then you can count on the other players in there to cover your back. Wether you stick to agreements or not has no meaning, because those in the loop will kick out those not in.

It is the metagaming that can potentially kill the game, just as nearly happened to PBM Diplomacy in the 80's. Just as GrudgeBringer above says, he has a list of people he counts from game to game to cover his behind. If you are not on his list, there is nothing you can do; you will be on his target-list (because if you are not on the "trusted people who I count on to save my butt and who I thus don't attack what ever happens" -list, then you are automatically on that other list, as he has to attack *somebody* at some point :) ).

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Because if you never make agreements you will be very dead very soon. Agreements are done (or so I suppose) when two (or more) people can assume to have something to win from the agreement. Agreements are thus by definition *good* things. However, if the agreement turns out to be bad for you (or too good for the other partner), then the smart thing to do would be to break the agreement.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

But the agreement will be broken the second it is not in the interests of the other party. Since you can count on them to follow their interests anyway, what's the point of having an agreement? I mean I see why you'd communicate and say 'I am attacking this guy' if you thought that would encourage other people to attack him. But there's no point in saying 'we won't attack each other until this guy is dealt with' because it adds nothing to 'I am attacking this guy'. In fact I see no reason why they'd believe you are actually attacking the guy unless they can see it for themselves, in which case there's no point in you telling them.

Obviously I'm not being serious. Humans don't work that way. But logically if agreements aren't binding and there's no difference between telling the truth or lying (because all is fair), they're pointless. I just find it strange that people would bother with them when there's no penalty for breaking them.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

That's the point. Humans don't work that way.

There is an advantage in being regarded as trustworthy. There is an advantage in being untrustworthy. The key is to balance the two.

In the metagame, it would also make sense for the untrustworthy to convince others to disregard evidence that they are untrustworthy.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

If you and I make an agreement, and you leave your behind your backside open while you go on a rampage through something else, you can bet I would be itching to do something about the matter. It is not my advantage to have you get into winning position, so why should I sit on my thumbs and watch you win the game?

However, if you guard your behind well, and we both reap in rewards from the agreement, you can be pretty sure I will stick to the letter of the agreement. Why would I want to make you an enemy (who I apparently wouldn't potentially be able knock out fast enough to avoid your wrath) when we both benefit from the agreement?

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Precisely. In order to defend against an ally stabbing you, you only have to have the resources to make it costly for them. To defend against an enemy or neutral, you need to be able to actually defeat their armies. So you and your ally attack someone together while keeping a bit in the backfield, and you can trust your ally because if they stabbed you they'd start losing to your mutual enemy -and- they'd face a hard fight against you. Eventually, as your mutual enemy is weakened, you find another mutual enemy or prepare for the possibility of your ally directing their whole forces against you. Thus the game becomes a set of cycling alliances.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

I would submit that the relevant aspect of diplomacy is not what is promised, but what actions are taken by the other party afterwards. Diplomacy is a method of manipulating other players into doing what you want.

Diplomacy does not just involve negotiations and deals, it can involve threats, blackmail, bribery, etc... The fact that these more aggressive aspects don't see much apparent use in the game is strange. Just talking to other players can manipulate their behavior, even if your discussion reaches no particular conclusion. Consider the impact of selectively sharing intelligence, for example.

When it comes to a deal, the best ones are obviously those with immediate consequences. Ie, arranging with another player who is attacking where so that your armies don't clash. Sure, there is the possibility that they will stab you and attack where you're attacking, but you can defend against that (send enough strength to make it painful and don't reveal how much you plan on sending). And the benefit is immediate, ie, next turn, so the scope for betrayal is small, and this kind of deal potentially benefits both sides. (Either side could lose a substantial force or take large casualties if they don't talk about it). Because both sides benefit, both sides can be expected to follow through most of the time.

So why form non-aggression pacts? I mean, in a machiavellian world, any termination conditions aren't worth the paper they're printed on, right? I would argue that the actual language of your agreement is not the point of the agreement.

First, the point of a non-aggression pact is not to secure a peaceful border until someone announces NAP end. Its to de-militarize the border *now* so you can use your army elsewhere. Similarly, it allows your ally to do the same, so its also to his advantage. Anyone who signs NAPs and doesn't demilitarize the border is, I would argue, a worse violater than someone who breaks NAPs without following the agreed to terms for ending it, and I would consider them to have broken the NAP in spirit if they keep a nominally peaceful border heavily garrisoned. (if they demilitarize it, but later start to garrison it, then its arms race time. But you already got the period of demilitarization at the start as the benefit of the agreement.)

Second, no one is saying there is no cost to stabbing someone. If you break a treaty with someone, even if we believe games are a microcosm from which no metagame emerges, then your ability to negotiate *in that game* in the future suffers. If nothing else, the person you stabbed will be more wary of dealing with you, and others might as well. Consider honorably ending a NAP, starting a war with your former NAP-mate, and then getting stabbed or attacked by someone else. It might be possible to end the war to refocus on the new front. But if you broke the NAP to do it then your new enemy is much less likely to trust you to be willing to agree to peace with you.

Third, maintaining a positive relationship once you've formed one has additional benefits beyond the continuance of the agreement. You're likely to find a more willing trade partner for exchanging gems and forged gear, you have a ready-made military ally, and you have someone you can plausibly rely on to cast remote spells at targets you designate. You give all that up the moment you break the agreement.

Basically, there is a definite cost to breaking deals. This is why a stab has to be worthwhile - you have to have made quite significant gains to offset this cost in order for the stab to be beneficial. The more communication and aid two allies render each other, the higher the cost to one of them stabbing the other.

So in a machiavellian world the best diplomacy is active. No NAP-3 and don't talk to the other guy for 20 turns. Get him involved in your wars, ask to get involved in his, or at least provide strategic support. Make trades that might only be net neutral for yourself occasionally. Be a *good* ally and you won't get stabbed very often. (And be capable of defending yourself if you do get stabbed!)

Basically, diplomacy is far more important in a machiavellian world, because you have to prove that you're worth more as an ally than as a potential conquest.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Even with binding diplomacy active diplomacy is best, and proving prove that you're worth more as an ally than as a potential conquest is important.

All binding diplomacy does is ensure that you get some warning before you become a potential conquest. Your most honest neighbor who has the most unabrogratable NAP-3 with you will retire it and attack you in 3 turns if he likes his other neighbors better. All unbreakable diplomacy does is give you 3 turns' warning (but he probably decided to fight you several turns before breaking the NAP, so he would be hard to dissuade).

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

That is the whole point, isn't it? The whole concept of strategical suprise is gone. Will you ever attack an opponent who is stronger than you if you have to tell him many turns before that you are going to attack? No you won't, it would be suicide. In a game with binding diplomacy, when you notice somebody is heading for victory the game is already over, there is nothing you can do.

Based on my limited experience with binding diplo games, the games are *very* boring. To me they feel like playing single-player game, except some nations are scripted to be unable to attack or harm you in any way. I will rather watch paint dry than join a game with binding diplo ever again :)

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

3 turns is not sufficient to prepare against an opponent who has spent several turns preparing before retiring the NAP. It's sufficient warning to get -something- up, but a good player won't retire a NAP without having spent several turns getting ready. So the attacker is doing his final tuneup while the defender is still recruiting/repositioning a main force, unless the defender was prepared through scouting and other means. Signing a NAP and then treating the other player as unable to attack you is never wise.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

That also neglects the other aspect of diplomacy: other people. Most of the time, if you notice someone heading for victory, you can round up other people to help attack him. Since you'll likely want to do this even in a non-binding diplomacy game and "I'm going to break my word to him, but you can trust me" isn't a very good argument, it may still be worth giving warning, so your allies will trust you.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

I think Jarko misunderstood me. You aren't one one list or the other, cut and dried. I keep a list of those that only I feel acted dishonorably. And that could well be towards another player and not me.

Just because your not on that list doesn't make you my pal by any means. Lets just say I will give you some trust and we will build trust in each other over that and other games.

One time Executor and I where allies and where on our way to winning the game when I ran hard into a nation and the fighting got pretty hard and heavy. I inadvertently cut Executor off form expansion and after a while he actually came to me and apologized but said that he had to expand and that I was the weakest link because of my war and that he had to attack me.

All my troops where south and he started across the north and started taking province after province...I couldn't stop him so I just continued my war in the south until he finally came down and took me out and took over my war. He won the game.

I do NOT consider that dishonorable and it was my fault I didn't protect myself.

What I am saying is, while I have a list of those I don't trust, doesn't mean they can't be trusted. Just as those I have good relations with sometimes we just have to fight it out.

But sometimes I can breathe a sigh of relief when I find a certain player is next to me.

I guess for me its a community game first and a war game second...not a win at all cost game. You will never see me in the hall of fame (except on a team game). And I DO respect others to have the right to be Chaotic Evil.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

This is completely untrue. I never broke a NAP, but was still able to exercise many successful surprise attacks. You don't have to surround yourself with NAPs, make only those that are necessary/benefactory; end them when they are no longer needed, not necessarily attacking immediately. When attacking a stronger opponent, find an ally or end your NAP in a bad moment for the stronger player, for example as soon as he starts a war with someone. If you notice that someone is heading for victory three turns before he wins, there is little you can do anyways. Keep an eye on the game and you will be able to end your NAP in a timely manner.

I find it pretty stupid that all new games starting these days advertise diplomacy rules - either as machiavellian or binding. I would never join any of those games. Leave it to each player to play the way that suits him.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Declaring in the OP that a game has Machavellian rules just gets rid of the drama in the (actually rare, even in a Machavellian rules game) cases that someone does decide to attack prior to a NAP expiring.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

It seems to me that there should be 3 sets of rules:
Binding: Actual penalties for breaking agreements
Default: Reputation only
Treachery Encouraged: Whatever you like, as nasty as you want. Dirty trick encouraged. Behavior here shouldn't be considered in other games.

I'm not sure which of those last two would be considered "Machavellian". I suspect different people might have different answers.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

IMO "Machavellian" is the last one. But even in a game like that, you still start off with a default "good" reputation. That's what I've seen in the games like that which I set up or joined, anyhow.

There is still very little backstabbing, because:

- Your ability to make future diplomatic agreements in that game will suffer
- You'd better be sure that your backstabbing will quickly kill your foe, because his nation should rightly strike back. With great vengeance and furious anger!

So what's the point? Less OOC drama and whining in the forums, for one. And you reset to a "good" reputation in the next game.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

I really don't think it makes that much of a difference. A well-timed announcement that a NAP-3 will be retired can be as devastating as a full-on sneak attack, especially if you've been talking all friendly-like, discussing alliance possibilities, and the other guy was -absolutely- convinced he could declare war on another of his neighbors.

In other words, binding diplomacy does not mean no deceit and scrupulous honesty. It means you have to be just a little bit more subtle if you want to catch someone out.

(Also, I will very rarely make a formal agreement to not fight until 'x' turn, or to not make peace with 'x' nation, etc. 'I will not do 'y' unless I give you 'x' turns warning' is very different from either of those)

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I have a hard time letting a back stabber live long in the next game I play with them.

A guy broke a NAP with me once, and we met again the very next game I joined with me playing Pangaea and him playing Agartha. We bumped into each other around turn 6 both going for the same independent province. It was an accidental slaughter, but it led to me systematically following his province trail back to his capital and putting him out shortly after.

So I broke the sacred rule of what happens in a game stays in a game. The guy begged for peace and he was met with silence and destruction! I wonder how many other players do the same.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Really? Sounds just like a good strategic decision to me. If you had been Agartha and the other guy had been Pan, it probably would have gone the other way. :)

By "broke a NAP", you mean "violated", not "cancelled", right?

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Correct. I was at war with another player and he attacked me despite the NAP. Given the situation, I may have pushed him anyway, but knowing who he was made it a no brainer. What I am getting at is his actions in the first game had an influence on the second game even though we are supposed to give people a clean slate from game to game. I don't think I am capable of that!

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

I think Machiavellian just means 'caveat emptor', which would be the 'by reputation' option.

Treachery encouraged is certainly permissive of machiavellian play, but there are fewer consequences, so a stab doesn't even need to pay off by as much to be worthwhile. Basically, you're altering the penalty and reward metric, not the nature of the decision making.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

"By reputation" would definitely be the default option of diplomacy. Machiavellian games came into popularity recently and encouraged treacherous play which should not affect reputation.

Altering the penalty and reward metric directly alters the nature of the decision making. It would be sub-optimal not to backstab someone you have an opportunity to do given it would provide you benefit. In a normal game you would think twice before doing it. Machiavellian makes the decision a no-brainer. NAPs don't really have any meaning. If you guard your border closely another player will probably pick another target regardless whether you have a NAP with them or not.

Another thing - why does everyone thinks drama is inherently a bad thing and should be removed? It adds to the experience. We are all human beings with emotions after all. And please don't give me "it's just a game" answer.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Psycho: the nature of the decision making is cost-benefit analysis. Its the same in either case. Its just the costs are different, so the results don't agree, ie the output can be different given the same benefits.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

You know because of that reason I'm afraid of people who I backstabbed in another game, and make naps with everyone else so I can focus on the guy who must be coming after me now, and then when I find out he isn't and my ally is becoming to strong I have to backstab him. It's a vicious circle.

As a side note while I do not like artificially enforced diplomacy I'd love if there where some games that enforce some cooler diplo then trying to fight on the most uneven terms.
In reality alliances would not be completely random, but determined by economic and social facts. Like a power would automatically have an interest to protect a military weak country it is trading with or Christians will stick together (to some extent) against Muslims and vice versa.
But since all your income is just transfered to your treasury and equally and randomly dispersed and everyone is a heretic...

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Good drama is in character, and I appreciate it greatly. For example, posts like this:

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showt...738#post725738

Bad drama is getting pissed off because you were backstabbed, and insulting other players out of character. For example:

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showt...701#post720701

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

I knew what example you were going to bring up. You can't expect everyone to react the way you like. You can't expect everyone to be a good sport or to take losing well. It's part of the human nature. We are all different, and take this game more or less seriously. It's all part of the game.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

I don't see the point you are trying to make here.

I think I'll add that to the OP of games I start. "I expect everyone to be a good sport and to take losing well." Seriously. If someone can't, because they're still 9 years old or something, well, they should get off the computer and go play outside or something.

Okay, now it sounds like you are trolling. If we are all different, then we don't all take this game seriously.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

I don't take this game any more seriously than I take a Rugby game, once I walk off the field and the score is posted.

I won't have a 'dustup' with the guy that gave me a cheap shot, but I will dang sure watch for him the next game.

What does your comment about being "nine years old" have to do with taking the game more or less seriously?

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Sure you can. That's totally reasonable to expect of people playing dom3.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

This commend wasn't about taking the game seriously, it was in response to Psycho's comment: "You can't expect everyone to be a good sport or to take losing well."

I've got a kid who's 6. He's a pretty good kid, but if he plays a game and loses, sometimes he gets upset and cries. He hasn't learned to be a good sport yet. I don't expect that he should be a good sport about losing at only 6 years old, and I think a few more more years will pass before he has gradually learned to be a gracious loser (and winner).

I'd expect anyone old enough to be playing dominions would be mature enough to be a good sport.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Yes Sir, that I agree with completely!!!:up:

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

I for one base my diplomacy on roleplay. If I am playing a sneaky backstabbing bastard, then I'll stick to that. If I'm playing a honourable divine prescence, I'll stick to that.

I would also value a diplomatic relation much higher if good roleplay has been exchanged in the process. While I wouldn't care nearly as much if the only communication had been for example: "NAP3?" answered by "Ok"

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

By "being a good sport" I meant something different than understood. It was not a synonym for being a gratuitous loser, but rather meant ingame sportsmanlike behavior such as not making cheap shots, not using exploits, not throwing game, etc. I can perfectly understand someone getting upset about unsportsmanlike behavior and letting off the vent in the forums, thus creating drama. Ideally you would have neither drama, nor cause for it. Don't get me wrong here, obviously the part with calling names and insulting is too much. But, I can understand someone getting pissed for being backstabbed in certain situations (Setsumi one included). It's easy to be a gratuitous loser when you lost a fair fight and that is not what I had in mind. How about losing a five to one dogpile or because another player gave away his VPs? It would be reasonable to expect certain things from players, but as the practice proves, you really cannot.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Thanks for clarifying! I think I understand what you are saying now. Just personally:

- I like in-character drama, but I don't like venting out-of-character,
- I don't mind 'exploits' so much, as long as they make some kind of sense in-game,
- 'Throwing' games is even acceptable to me if there is an in-character reason for it.

But you are right, it would be unreasonable for me to expect everyone to have the same opinions as me. My new modified OP request will be "I expect everyone to be a good sport. If you do need to vent, please try to keep it in character".