Diplomacy
 

Just a thought or rant depending on your point of view.

To me this game feels a lot like the AH game "Diplomacy". I mean there can only be one winner. There are no points for coming in second. Letting any one country get to big because you stuck to some agreement is the same thing a conseeding defeat. The big boy on the block expects to be takin down. You can honor your agreements with the weak.

I am all for honor and my word, hell I went to USNA. But when you play theses games that is how they are played, double dealing, double crossing, who to trust, when will you be backstabbed.

There can be only one in the end.

Anyone else have a thought.

Re: Diplomacy
 

Well this is true to an extent. Obviously I don't expect any sort of treaty I reach with someone to Last forever. But the community of players is fairly small, and if you engage in outright backstabbing all the time word will get around. People will know they can't trust you, so if they find that you're near them in a game they'll probably just make an agreement with someone they do trust to team up and wipe you out. Heck, even within a single game if you get a reputation as a jerk its possible the other players may gang up on you.

So there are definite incentives to "bad" behavior, but there are some disincentives also.

Re: Diplomacy
 

To be quite honest diplomacy to me is one of the most exciting and fun parts of the game. It gives it personality. Some you can blindly trust and some you have to watch with one eye open while you sleep. I actually before I start a multiplyer game decide either I will play like a white hat (honest and trustworthy) or black hat (decide only on what helps your agenda). It is part of the role playing aspect.

Re: Diplomacy
 

I tend to either not make any agreements, and simply stonewall if badgered about one until I feel I can make an agreement I'd actually keep, or make one that I more or less intend to keep until the implied expiration point at the endgame.

Of course, I have no illusions that my opponent will do the same. An ancient Arab proverb states, "Trust in Allah, but tie your camel."

To this end I tend not to agree to anything more binding than a border agreement, and then spend the rest of the game watching that border like a hawk, just waiting for the first sign of trouble. But I always let him make the first move, and make sure that this move will be a mistake. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

After that, we move to the next phase of relations, otherwise known as "Total War To The Death". Forgiveness may be divine, but divinity comes after you WIN the game, not before.

[ June 30, 2004, 01:47: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

Re: Diplomacy
 

I keep all my agreements. Most of them tend to be easy in that respect since they take the form of NAP's. A Non-Aggression Pact with an agreement such as a turn limit or maybe a 3 turns notify before breaking it. Other agreements are might be full alliances where if the alliance is standing at the end we either declare the game done, or fight it out for fun. One of the complaints since the early days of Dom1 is that the community is too tight. Games are arranged between known logins here or in newsGroups. Too many games were won by alliances. My reputation might be virtual but its important to me.

This is something the game developers didnt really have in mind. The game was designed to be cut-throat. But until the player base gets larger, or some web-site offers anonymous games, the cut-throat games might not be all that common.

[ June 30, 2004, 02:06: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Re: Diplomacy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is how it should be, IMHO. Unfortunately, there are some players out there willing to agree to joint victory which is (again, IMHO) contrary to the spirit of one-god ascension and unfair to the opponents that want to stay true to that spirit. People that know me from Dom1 will know I can get quite hysterical on this topic. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think there's a lot more to diplomacy than double-dealing and back-stabbing. You've described the real polit, in which everyone understands that ultimately, everyone else is out to kill them. But it's still possible to be honourable. For example, many people agree to giving one or more turn's notice for the cancellation of alliances and NAPs. If you stick to your promises, you can keep your honour and still win the game.

Re: Diplomacy
 

The Diplomacy of Dominions 2 is all on the ability of the player and the inherent weaknesses of those you are playing with. If you play with alot of defensive, 'try to build up', nonaggressive, people you have two options, go with their Alliance/NAP then kill them later when they may/maynot be more of a threat/asset. Or kill them immediately and find the key superpowers of the game.

Often Diplomacy is a result of Battlefield prowess, too much staring at the Score Graphs, or simple human characteristics.

IMO exactly what it should be.

Re: Diplomacy
 

A key point in the diplomacy of Dominions II, is that you should read about the results of certain unnamed parties to ascertain exactly what you should NOT be doing. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Diplomacy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is how it should be, IMHO. Unfortunately, there are some players out there willing to agree to joint victory which is (again, IMHO) contrary to the spirit of one-god ascension and unfair to the opponents that want to stay true to that spirit. People that know me from Dom1 will know I can get quite hysterical on this topic. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I suppose mentioning ancient pantheons would only serve to incite mass hysteria then... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Diplomacy
 

It should be pointed out that few games actually proceed to their gory conclusion of the "A true god has ascended" message. I find the large bulk of games come to an end when the only a single un-botted human player remains, the remaining 2 or 3 Last standing powers deciding to bot out and concede after the going has become ugly.

Re: Diplomacy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Generally speaking, there aren't any points for coming in first either http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

One thing about breaking alliances in the end game...since there is no judge, no points and, often, no actual finish to the game, it is kind of pointless to break an alliance with two people left. There is no game implementation of a group win so they can just shrug and say "Well, we agreed to a dual win, two of us are left, so the game is over, we win, catch you next time".

Personally, I am pretty staunch about adhering to my treaties. The game is like Diplomacy if you want it to play that way but I don't see any evidence that it was meant to be like that or has to be played like that. Diplomacy encourages it by making it difficult, even impossible, to progress without alliances (by having no random factors and armies all just bounce off of each other without support from other players).

If you think the game should be played like Diplomacy, I think that is more a reflection of how you want to play than how the game was designed. Not that there is anything wrong with that but lets not deny the personal choices involved http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

- Kel

Oh, Last note...I played Diplomacy once a week for some time with the same group of people. It actually made it more fun that it was always the same people. You couldn't just randomly backstab people, knowing there were no consequences. It was even more important to be able to do it subtly or justifiably, rather than just screaming out Mwahaha at the top of your lungs http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Diplomacy
 

Zapmeister commenting how he does not understand people who are "willing to agree to joint victory" in a game where the objective is becoming the one and only god.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Like Greece one, where all the gods (I think, at least most of them) are descendants of an ancient being of tremenduous strength, Kronos the Titan. Kronos was slayed by his son, Zeus. Zeus the Titan and his two brothers Hades the Prince of Death and Poseidon the Sea King divided the world between them. They didn't, howerver, first have to conquer it. Their father did his best to be the only major power in the whole world. Quite understandable, when we remember what happened to him.

The lesser deities had powers that they obtained from magical items like Boots of Flying. They are hardly the gods we are talking about. Then there were the ones married to the existing gods and their children.

edit: The only god stays god only as long as he is the one and only.

[ June 30, 2004, 07:09: Message edited by: Endoperez ]

Re: Diplomacy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It's not a question of not understanding. I refer you to rule 1.9 from the rulebook:

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If some players play with the intention of achieving this criteria, while others agree to win in partnership, then the people playing by the rules are at a disadvantage. That's all. The existence of pantheons in ancient mythology has nothing to do with it.

Re: Diplomacy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You're forgetting one detail: Assuming that you decide to go for total victory, I.E., being the only human player who has not yet conceded defeat, should somebody choose to call the game a draw between the remaining players, of which YOU ARE NOT ONE OF, it is completely irrelevant! You are *DEAD*. For you, who wins is now a moot point, because it's not going to be you.

So why is this a problem?

Re: Diplomacy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It's a problem if it becomes the norm, because it means that you must either join an alliance, or be eliminated. Sole victory, the only kind of victory sanctioned in the rules, has ceased to be a realistic objective.

This is exactly what happened in the Dom1 days. People's ability to play Dominions ceased to be as relevant as their diplomatic reputation and willingness to join an alliance. Games were polarized into blocs, then one bloc won and declared joint victory among it's members. I was in one game with 11 starters where 6 of them declared themselves joint winners.

Not being a member of a bloc was suicide, of course. I didn't enjoy playing in this environment, so I quit the game altogether. After Dom2 was published I returned, and was pleasantly surprised to find that the sole victory culture that the original poster described and supported has largely returned.

Re: Diplomacy
 

I don't think I'm familiar with what you describe, but maybe that's due to the much smaller and more insular community of Dom 1. I'm more used to "everyone hates me and tries to kill me, except maybe one tiny little empire I saved sometime midgame through my intervention and now they are my loyal lackey".

In which case the game, at best, comes to my winning, alongside my lackey, although clearly the win is mine, as he exists only because I let him. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It's not quite the "bloc" you describe, though. If anything, Dom2 seems to discourage this because if you form a big alliance where all of your neighbors are offlimits, what you have is your "teammates" doing redundant research, which is inefficient and wasteful: It's more efficient for the nations in question to devour each other and become a much larger nation.

Re: Diplomacy
 

I agree with the oiginal poster that this game reminds me of nothing more than diplomacy, a game I grew to hate! It is an irony of diplomacy that it was specifically designed to be a cuthtroat game played to one winner but in practice most games are negotiated joint wins.

I have not played games like this for years and I am not sure if my dislike for free for alls will overcome my attraction to the intricate fantasy game. My "most wanted" feature would be a "pantheon" setting for team play - pre set teams of course.

I have really only finished one game, & that is technically still going on but my diplomatic rustiness (ok ineptitude) has probably had more influence that my greeness with the detail of the game. Lack of strategic focus may also have been a factor - I am not so much a backstabber are a blunderer.


Pickles

Re: Diplomacy
 

This is the natural outcome of playing a game with a bunch of weenies who can't stand a little blood.

But not me....I WILL KILL YOU! Or die gloriously in the attempt! Huzzah!

Re: Diplomacy
 

To me, there are 3 kinds of players in Dominions:

The Faithful: they stick to their word, and won't never break an agreement, even if it means putting themselves in jeopardy. I know such players exist, but I always assume they don't http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .

The Defectors: these don't hesitate to break treaties or swindle their trade partners at the first opportunity, if they see an immediate benefit when doing so - even if the said benefit is negligible. These players don't annoy me much - their behavior may net them a small advantage in 1 or 2 games, but in the end they work against themselves. I hate to carry my own perception of a player's personality from one game to another, anyway you can't expect from someone to trust a guy who was 'reliably unreliable' in the past 5 games.

The Wise: these usually stick to their word, and can be relied on when trading. However they won't hesitate to backstab you when they think that'll give them a substantial advantage - typically shifting the balance of power enough so they increase their own chances to win manyfold. I think that in Dominions, nothing comes closest to an oeuvre d'art than a skillfully planned and carried out backstab. So I tend to respect this sort of players immensely. Even if I'm at the receiving end of their treachery http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif .

Re: Diplomacy
 

Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:
[QB] To me, there are 3 kinds of players in Dominions:

[/QB

Sounds like the game theory sheep, wolves and "do unto others ers". But actually it is sheep, wolves and "wolves in sheeps clothing".

People who renege on deals gain momentary advantage but in the long term repeated good or even marginal, trading will beat a few swindles.

Pickles

Re: Diplomacy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Damn! Could it be that Zapmeister is actually Steve A.?

[Edit: Seems so. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ]

[ June 30, 2004, 13:24: Message edited by: Nagot Gick Fel ]

Re: Diplomacy
 

The complaint amoung the Dom1 gamers was that reputations went from game to game. Even before this thread, if a game started and the logins represented in this conversation were the players, I would already have had an idea to what level I could trust my borders to treatys that were made.

If a game were played totally anonymously then it would play very differently. Hmmm well actually, I guess it wouldnt for those who play cut-thoat anyway. But it would for the loyalists. Or maybe this falls back on those who play the game spread-sheet strategy vs those who play it with abit of RPG.

In any case, I know that I personally would appreciate some totally anonymous games where I could play as Murgatroid instead of Gandalf Parker. I WOULD use the chance to play very differently.

[ June 30, 2004, 14:02: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Re: Diplomacy
 

I find Zapmiester's position on diplomacy quite amuzing. I will not go into details since it will ruin a game we are playing but he seems quite adept at diplomacy. I think he does not even know he is doing it which is really amuzing.
Even if your end strategy is to be the Last man standing (as it should) Helping attack other nations, border agreements, and trying to entice nations to attack other nations IS diplomacy at the highest level!

The one point I do agree with is that I hope social Groups do not effect gameplay. Where players team up all the time with players they know.

[ June 30, 2004, 14:15: Message edited by: Pirateiam ]

Re: Diplomacy
 

I wrote this post because of what several people have pointed out here. If you play a game like Diplomacy or DOM II by its implied objective, that is one winner, then the game plays out fun for everyone, and no hard feelings in the end. (Having trouble thinking of the right way to express that, you would have to have played Diplomacy to understand) But when people consistently make teams and just don’t tell you the game gets old fast. I am all for team games and would happily play a DOM II Team game but I would know it in the beginning.

That is where I have a problem with people who say they keep all agreements always. I would much rather play in a game where everyone is trying to win and keep the big boy down.

Oh and Zapmiester, does diplomacy and so do I, and how I act in one game is completely different from how I will act in the other. I keep 95% of my agreements that are not with the big boy. He should always be watching his back. But I don’t form teams and the leader should expect to be attached by everyone until he is not the leader anymore.

Re: Diplomacy
 

The problem with Dominions, Diplomacy or playing sports for fun is that on the one hand extremely competitive people can be unplaasant to interact with, while on the other deliberately uncompetitive behaviour tends to subvert the whole purpose of the game. Both tend to increase the frustration and reduce the fun for the rest of us.

Sand-boxers may disagree, but it's not like we're talking about simDomII here; the central assumption of the game is one of conflict.

I don't think alliance "victories" are necessarily wrong. Often alliance are result of in-game events and built up around developing relationships. Maintaining an alliance amongst competitive players takes effort and skill, and there's nothing wrong in rewarding that by allowing joint "victories". I can see however that if alliances seem more-or-less pre-ordained by pre-game relationships, or if a large number of players in a game just weren't interested in competing with each other, that I too would get frustrated.

I used to see a lot of joint victories in Diplomacy when I played, and never objected to them because the games were always competitive, even though technically those results went against the intention of the game design. On the other hand, sand-boxers wouldn't be playing Diplomacy in the first place.

Re: Diplomacy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Playing with uncompetitive people can sometimes be annoying for an entirely different reason: Some of them have the unpleasant habit of whining obnoxiously when they lose.

Re: Diplomacy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think you've misunderstood my position. I'm all for diplomacy, and I agree that the things you've listed constitute diplomacy. The axe that I'm grinding here is that I see the concept of joint victory as the root of much evil.

Re: Diplomacy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Damn! Could it be that Zapmeister is actually Steve A.?

[Edit: Seems so. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ] </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hi Jacques http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Diplomacy
 

I think people should just play how they want to play and deal with the consequences http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

If you get a bad rep and no-one trusts you, the counter side to that is that your being cutthroat probably gave you a lot of advantage over someone who was more long-sighted about his alliances.

There is an advantage and a disadvantage to being cutthroat. I think that works out just fine, instead of trying to make everyone play the same way.

- Kel

Re: Diplomacy
 

Hmmm I think most of the Paladin players always knew that it wasnt what the game was all about so they never seemed to gipe about the bad position they know it puts them in. And most of the assassin players seem to accept the consequences of their actions. The only ones I remember having a problem were the ones who wanted to go back and forth. They wanted the slate to be wiped clean between games. Hey Im real sorry about that but if Wikd allies with me and then majorly uses it to trash me, its alittle hard for me play the next game with Wikd and enter into an alliance on a clean slate. Even if I did think it was a good idea for things to be that way, it just isnt something thats likely to happen.

Re: Diplomacy
 

Me, I start out with an implicit state of leery distrust. It can be downgraded by a backstabbing attempt into a state of open distrust, or upgraded through a history of reliability to reserved suspicion. I don't really think that trust really has a place in a game played to the death, though.

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.

Re: Diplomacy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Kel, I think it's unfair to imply or state that I am trying to mold the playing community into playing the way I want. If you've been reading my Posts, you should be able see that IMHO it's the game-long alliance makers that are limiting the options of the sole victory players, not vice versa.

But the most important point, as I said before, is: <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Dominions is a distinctive and interesting game in its own right, but if joint victories are the norm, then its individuality is lost and it becomes just another strategy game where biggest bloc wins.

I don't think I'm being manipulative in trying to point that out.

[ July 01, 2004, 01:24: Message edited by: Zapmeister ]

Re: Diplomacy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">LMAO Oh Norfleet say it isn't so...you mistrusting??? I thought you were our community flower child! Peace and Love....
I just thought that statement was so obvious it was funy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Diplomacy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Kel, I think it's unfair to imply or state that I am trying to mold the playing community into playing the way I want.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It honestly wasn't aimed at anyone in particular, please don't take it personally. There are two sides to the question with people on both sides, no doubt.

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.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I understand that is your position. I just don't agree with your conclusion. Let's take it to an extreme and say that every single person in the game makes a permanent alliance with one other person, except you. You will be at a disadvantage and it will be a serious challenge but you can still play the game, and win, playing the game the way you want. If you say that noone can make alliances, than you are denying them the chance to win the way they want to, completely and explicitly, whatever your feelings towards them. You are clearly limiting their options more than they are yours.

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">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.

Anonymous games are another way, though you learn in the first 30 minutes you ever spent on the net that anonymity brings out the worst in people http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

- Kel

PS, on second thought, anonmyity will let you act without consequence but I suppose it won't stop people from making alliances before the game, which is the more heinous aspect of alliances I think you are most opposed to.

Re: Diplomacy
 

What would be nice would be if there was joint / allied victories within the game, and then, by an option, you could disable this.

One problem I've seen, especially with VP games, is that alliances are ... illusionary. When one person gets the required number of Victory Points, game over - no mention of allies. This makes it harder to hew to honorable alliances, even if it is promised that "you'll share the world" by your partner.

Having them in the game would add a lot, imo. Then, people who wanted allied victories could play them out that way. And games wherein it was stated, via the game engine, that there was no allied victories, would exist as well for people who prefer to play that way, or merely desire a change of pace.

Perhaps the game could even enforce this : If the Last remaining players didn't take their turns, "A Pretender, having gathered her strength in the worlds beyond, has returned to claim her world." IE - one of the deceased players was declared victor. Maybe at random, maybe the one who had at one time been most advanced, or the Last to be extinguished.

Or the other pretenders were brought back at random, each with an equal percentage of the remaining nations provinces, thus setting the lands to war once more.

Thing is - some people really enjoy the allied play. Some people hate it. Myself, I don't like to enter into true, long term alliances in the game, but sometimes do. And when I do, I hate / loath / despise to break them.

I also keep track, on a long term basis, of who honored their treaties. Trooper, for instance, wiped me out in a Cradle map game. I didn't mind - we had a treaty which we hadn't thought to specify terms on, not an alliance. When the time came, we agreed on what would be a fair and honorable notice - 3 turns / months, I believe. Two months later, my Machaka was given notice, and I was ground into Vanheim's blood and dust.

But he behaved honorably - I remember that. I remember other players who were honorable, and I feel that's a reasonable part of the game. After all - each Pretender could be considered, a la M. Moorcock, an echo of the being behind the pretender. Pretenders all sprouting from some ... more grand divine energy.

If diplomacy, alliances, was built into the game, people could have it both ways, in different games. As is, too many people are less than happy. Ah well. Rome wasn't burned in a day. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Diplomacy
 

In my small gaming group we have thus far played without any diplomacy at all (this is not popular with all the players). However I feel that playing without diplomacy improves the game considerably for the following reasons.

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.

In a group of people that know each other, I find that once everyone has met up and borders been established, I can pretty much predict the way the entire rest of the game will play out. When you play without diplomacy, you never know what the other players will do.

2) Diplomacy is a force multiplier and exaggerates the differences between strong (or lucky) players and weak players. Without diplomacy, everyone must defend all their borders and distrust all their neighbors. With diplomacy, empires that have treaties can pull forces off their borders to go fight other enemies. Strong empires which have more troops can better afford to defend all their borders but gain more from not having to do it. Similarly this allows harder pushes into research, and generally eliminates "drag" on an empire that can further expose any hidden balance issues.

3) Trading encourages specialization and specialization disrupts game balance. Allowing empires to focus on one particular thing gives them more of an opportunity to exploit any design flaws or imbalances that may be present. Usually games are designed and tested in single player mode where such things are hidden. Also, some races/empires/nations/whatever gain more from specialization than others do. (This isn't as much a problem with DOM2 as with some other games). An extension of this is people forging alliances before the game even starts, and designing their empire to suit.

4) Diplomacy causes hard feelings which can often spill over out of the game, or Last into future games.

5) Some people invariably know each other better than others and have an advantage forging alliances with each other (and have an advantage in predicting how the other person will play). Even if they don't go into the game with this intent, these people have a natural advantage which has nothing to do with how well they play or even how well they conduct diplomacy.

5a) Some people do not have the time, or are located in different time zones, and cannot chat in IRC all day or answer e-mails promptly. These people are disadvantaged.

Frankly, other than the nagging feeling that "I ought to be able to do this," I don't feel that diplomacy adds anything to the game whatsoever. It just creates problems.

Re: Diplomacy
 

That was very well argued, Sheap, and you've influenced my thinking on this. Points 1, 4 and 5a are particularly well taken. Thanks for that.

Re: Diplomacy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">How do you go about ruling out diplomacy through posture, though? There are postures of force one can take which can very clearly indicate a lack of desire to attack: If the other player then reciprocates, what you have is essentially a de-facto peace. After all, it's just not feasible to attack everyone at once, and under the assumption that everyone is a potential enemy, you take what you can get.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The above behavior is even more magnified when the players know each other. For instance, in our clan matches, there's little to no overt diplomacy. However, the fact that we know each other well, means that it is very easy for us to read postures, and players tend to keep to their tendencies on the grounds of an "implicit" reputation: A player who regularly attacks another player is viewed with suspicion by that player, whereas a player who regularly maintains a peaceful posture towards another player with consistency is thus regarded as "friendly".

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Diplomacy is also the counterbalance of weaker players against a stronger player: Even a stronger player may not wish to be drawn into a war on two fronts against two people at once, and may thus restrain his belligerence as a result. On the flipside, an alliance between two strong players more or less just brings the game to its inevitable conclusion that much faster.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Assuming that players deal predominantly in good faith, and backstabbing is relatively rare due to the damage it inflicts upon one's reputation for future games, this still does not address the fundamental issue of implicit posturing: If a player begins to pull forces off the border, not enough so that the border is weakened to the point of indefensibility, and the other party, finding that he is in little danger of being attacked as a result, reciprocates, having better use for his troops than to station an overly large garrison at a neighbor who is clearly uninterested in conflict, may too elect to pull his forces elsewhere: Pretty soon you have a general reduction of force levels on the border, and the exact same effect implicitly.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You may have a point: This is clearly apparent in the fact that an explicitly declared team game players to an entirely different strategy - no longer is it optimal for both players to pursue advancement of their own nation in all fields, and instead specialization becomes optimal - one player may research and focus on forging, while the other harvests the resources, and remits these resources to the other player. However, if the idea that ultimately, there can only be one real winner, is retained, then there's a counterbalance to this tendency - if at the end, all players, regardless of any alliances, are required to either fight or concede to a single player, then this is moot.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Depending on how you define "hard feelings", this may or may not be a problem. If players hold personal grudges against other players for diplomacy performed in game, this is childish. If players maintain a certain level of wary distrust after a particularly sneaky backstab, this is only to be expected. Unavoidable implicit diplomacy can present the same effect: Even winning or losing a game in a particularly noteworthy manner can have this effect.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Knowledge of another player's psychology is already a strong advantage in both making war against, and seeking peace with, that player: If anything, psychoanalysis is even more important when explicit diplomacy is forbidden, since then all that you have is the implicit posturing of the other player - failure to correctly read your opponent's posture results in being unpleasantly surprised, or wasting resources defending against an attack which will not come.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is a case for a ban on external diplomacy, certainly. Some games are played by the rule that diplomacy can only be conducted via in-game Messages, which puts everyone on an equal footing. There is, however, no guarantee that the player simply speaking to each other, does not already color relationships. Even if no attempt is made to actually diplomacize, merely talking about the game may be enough to influence one's course of action.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ironically, the human desire to seek peace proves as much a problem in a game about war as the human tendency to fight is an obstacle to world peace.

Re: Diplomacy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Jeff Tang, where arth thou? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I did enjoy a lot those anonymous blitz games with no diplomacy that JT organized like a year ago. The map was kind of biased towards a certain strategy (Amphibious pretender, full economy pics & hyperexpansion), but having a close neighbour on each side & little control over what happened at the other side of the world did indeed keep the players on their toes...very intense.

No need to invest time in diplo was also refreshing for those of us time handicapped.

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.