Re: Diplomacy
 

Posted by Kel:-

"That said, I think it *is* fair to say that people who want other people to NOT be able to make joint victories are trying to get them to play the game according to their 'vision' of how it should be played. That is, while they may feel they are trying to give themselves more options, regardless, they are clearly trying to take away options from the people who want to ally."

I would say it is the alliance players who are being unfair. The game Dominion allows only a single victor. If you play a game of dominiom you are expecting to have to defeat everyone - anything else is not the same game and it is unfair to spring this on someone.


Kel

"In summary, alliances have an implicit impact on your strategies while banning alliances explicitly limits those who want them."

Alliances are OK joint wins are verboten.

Kel
"Dominions uniqueness does not boil down to it's diplomatic/political system. I enjoy the game, whether I form an alliance or not in that particular game. If your enjoyment of the game really all comes down to whether or not two people can permanently ally, you always have the option of making house rules for new games. That might actually prove to be a good way to avoid artificially limiting the games options as only people who want to play that way, will join that game."

Allowing a joint win is a house rule.

I am arguing more logic than sentiment here too - as I have said I would love a team Version & in practice would be happy with emergent, rather than (secretly) prearranged alliance wins.


Pickles

[ July 01, 2004, 10:38: Message edited by: Pickles ]

Re: Diplomacy
 

"1) Most importantly, diplomacy becomes *the single* most important factor in the game once initial expansion is over. It doesn't really matter how well you manage your empire, or how well your armies fight. It only matters who is allied with who. Effectively, diplomacy becomes the game and the entire game becomes micromanagement overhead."

I have made this point myself, in conversation, but was countered, a lot, it is the most important factor but not the only one.

I agree with Norfleets rebuttal of the rest though, with the added point that it does not seem not that easy to specialise as part of an ad hoc team in this game as you cannot share knowledge or search provinces for one another or coperate militarily etc. Pre arranged teams are different.

Pickles

Re: Diplomacy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If people are making alliances in the game, I would say this is apparently untrue.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Spring this on someone ? You make it sound like noone ever has diplomacy at all and it's a shock if you find out that two people are communicating. If you go into the game, assuming there will be no alliances, no NAPs and no ganging up, you should probably avoid any game with more than 2 people, or find a way to disable the communication that is already built into the game. The idea of the alliance Lasting beyond killing one nation has no effect on you. Really, as far as a dual win goes, unless someone tells you about it, you really don't even have a way of knowing whether they are going to fight it out when there are only two people left, anyway.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, no, it isn't really (or at least I have never seen it put that way). I have never heard anyone say that one of the rules or etiquette of the game is to not have alliances that Last until the end of the game. Clearly, if this is a concern, it is not that uncommon to form alliances already. You, or some others, may want it that way but let's face it, the game is played by people the way they want to play it, within the bounds of those rules and etiquette hopefully, and it ends when noone wants to play anymore.

If Joe and Jack are the Last two people standing and you have been wiped out, do you really have any say in what happens to the game after that ? Of course not. Thus, anyone can joint win if they want. Heck, if 2 people who were *never* allied get bored with the game and they both want to end it, why should an eliminated player have a say in whether they keep going ?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think a team Version that allowed you to be a cohesive team would be fine, as an option, but there is no point in having a dual win toggle for the reasons I have already stated. Once you are eliminated from the game, you should have no say or concern over what transpires anyway.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I have never played a game where I felt *anyone* was allied prior to the game, secretly or otherwise. If it ever happens, I would just avoid those people or make games that explicitly stated that it was undesirable.

- Kel

Re: Diplomacy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If people are making alliances in the game, I would say this is apparently untrue.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, this remains true even if people are making alliances. Even if people are allying, it is still ultimately up to you to KILL THEM ALL....or die gloriously in the attempt! What manipulations you wish to perform to facilitate this is a personal problem: YOU are still going to expect to kill them all.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I've played in games where I'm predisposed to be peaceful towards certain players and tend to be inclined to agree to at least a "kill you Last" state of affairs. Eventually it transpires that one of us becomes the dominant power, all other opposition having been eliminated or botted, and as a result it is often seen as mostly a formality if an actual final battle were to be fought at all. So the game is just declared over with at that point: it's gone past the point of entertaining. Etiquette dictates that one does not claim an outright win in such a case, so the result is an implicit victory for "our side", a draw between the two remaining players.

Re: Diplomacy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's pretty much what I was saying, actually.

- Kel

Re: Diplomacy
 

I do not think we are very far apart on this.

Kel says
"Really, as far as a dual win goes, unless someone tells you about it, you really don't even have a way of knowing whether they are going to fight it out when there are only two people left, anyway."

Except here - if you are expecting to play to the Last man and others are going to wimp out with a 3 way tie then you are disadvantaged throughout the game. What they do after you stop will have impacted on the way they behaved before. Someone else (Zapmeister?) made the same point earlier in the thread.

Alliances are supposed to be temporary in the game as there can be only one.

As you say it is not a problem in practice I will concede it is not worth discussing more

Pickles

Re: Diplomacy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This can be true sometimes but I also find that alliance can work against you just as much as for you. As you have seen in Norfleets past Posts he states that alot of the time he makes no binding agreements and keeps a supicious eye on everyone. While this is a type of diplomacy in itself it can be a very succesful strategy. In my first multiplayer game I was double teamed by two players with an alliance. While they battered against me I pratically begged Norfleet for an alliance. Instead he helped me quitely and built up to a point where he was unbeatable. By the time the other two players realized this it was over and Norfleet ran over all of us. So in the end alliances hurt more than helped. This is but just one example.

The fact is that humans are social animals and one way or another they will interact.(Diplomacy)
Not using diplomacy is a type of diplomacy in itself.

Re: Diplomacy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Everything is ultimately diplomacy. War is simply a continuation of diplomacy by other means. Even if you attack everyone you meet on sight, this is, in and of itself, a diplomatic policy. One that is not terribly friendly, but it's a clear policy of interaction with others.

Even the most hostile and aggressive player, however, cannot afford to attack everyone at once from the very beginning, and would welcome any gesture which allows him to focus on his current victim.

Re: Diplomacy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Given that we already know that some people will go for a dual win, they don't really have a right to expect this. If someone does, they can't really blame anyone else for their folly.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">First off, if you didn't want to be a part of it, you don't have to, you can choose to fight instead. I would never suggest that alliances ought to be mandatory, or even 'expected'. I just don't think that because some people don't believe in them, for themselves, they should disallow it for everyone else.

Second, calling it 'wimping out' is just plain inflammatory. For me, at least, Dom2 is a strategy game, not a rite of manhood.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">As I pointed out, you have the advantage of surprise and initiative when you backstab someone. The idea of it having a disadvantage as well only makes it a more strategic tool, not to be employed arbitrarily and carelessly.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You don't know if there alliance is permanent or not, really they don't even know for sure...since it is trust based and not enforced by game rules.

If dual wins *are* allowed, they may or may not be allied until they kill you. If dual wins *are not* allowed, they still may or may not be allied until they kill you.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Supposed to be ? See, this bothers me...as I said before, the game is played the way people want to play the game, whatever anyone's personal perception of how the game "ought" to be played notwithstanding, within the confines of commonly accepted etiquette.

- Kel

Re: Diplomacy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is actually where role playing can come in handy. If you still act as the same player as you did before there would certainly be a great deal of wariness and mistrust. But, if you change your persona through the tone and kind of your Messages, it helps ameliorate the sense of anxiety and lets you have a clean slate. This is actually one reason why i started role-playing pretty heavily in most of the games im in right now.

I've also found role playing is a giant help in forming relationships in game with ppl you don't know. Sort of an ice-breaker. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I go by what I've seen from previous games... it don't matter if xyz person says he's playing a trustworthy priest personality or not.

My own personal code I follow during games is simple. As far as diplomacy I follow a paladin honor system until they break a treaty. Every treaty made afterwards is weak and almost ignored even for future games. I set all my treaties with a time limit of days. If they break a treaty... then from any game in the future I will go so far as to even kick them when they're down.
As long as they always remain honorable to the treaties until the set expiration time those players could leave neighboring provinces completely empty. Even at the cost of losing the game I won't break my treaty unless they have been untrustworthy in the past turns or past games.
To me this is more important then winning... because there will always be new games to play and knowing trustworthy and honorable players will be more valuable in the long term.