MP Etiquette
 

I've just started playing MP in Dominions. In general, it seems people just play however they feel like. Everybody I've interacted with has been pretty honorable but in different ways. I'd like to know if there are some unwritten rules for how to conduct yourself when playing MP Dominions 2.

Some situations I am unclear about,

1. Emails. As far as I know, it's okay to contact and discuss things through emails even though there is no ingame mechanic to allow it. Is this true for all games?

2. Non-Aggression Pacts. When someone says "NAP" I know it means a non-aggression pact but does it also imply a 3-turn warning to break? Or does that have to be explicitly stated? Also, what happens if someone breaks the treaty without the 3-turn warning. Does this ever happen?

3. Alliances. If you ally someone, is it your responsibility to announce it? If you want to prevent yourself or your ally from getting attacked, I would think you would want to announce it as a deterrent.

4. War. Is it okay to attack someone without warning if there had been no previous agreements? Or should you give them at least a 1 turn warning?

5. How common is it to gang up on the "supposed" leader?

6. Do people carry grudges over from one game to the next?

7. Trading. Is there a universal guide as to how much items and gems are worth in trades? Like how much a gem would cost in gold? Or does this differ in every game?

8. If two of your neighbors start exchanging blows do you:
a) Help the person losing
b) Help the person winning
c) Don't do anything and let it resolve

9. At what point, in your opinion, is it okay to go AI.

10. Mutual victories. How common is it for an alliance to just be declared the winner and the game ends like that?

Thanks for any answers.

Re: MP Etiquette
 

Here's another newbie's take on some answers. I'm an extremely relevant newbie, though... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

2) making a non-aggression pact is mostly meaningless unless you also agree to some minimum length, whether that be "until turn 25" or "until I give 3 turns' notice" or whatever. It should be explicitly stated, if the pact is important to you. I bet they do get broken, but I bet it doesn't happen all that often, and (touching on 6) when it does happen the rat-bastard loses a lot of trustworthiness in the eyes of anyone who's paying attention.
3) I don't see why it would be a responsibility
4) Sure it is. It's not very polite, but it's not dishonorable.
6) If someone backstabs you, it's fair to regard the person with a healthy amount of distrust. If someone plays a country that has a big nasty war with you, there's no reason to hold a grudge, as that's what the game's about, in the end.
7) Ah, the free-market economy...
8) Depends a whole heck of a lot on the situation
9) The later the better, up until the point where you clearly can't put up any effective resistance at all (at which point, especially if the game's on quickhost, there's only academic interest and pride to keep you in)
10) I dunno, but I hope it's not too common... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

In general, I think people expect others to behave decently and honorably and honestly and friendlyly interpersonally, but not necessarily in-game. If I make a deal with you, I'm bound to follow through, and expect you to do the same. Of course, I'm probably planning to scorch your lands and sacrifice your virgins in-game, but I have to do that without violating any of the standards that we as humans have when dealing with each other.

Cheers!

Re: MP Etiquette
 

Some people don't like out of game diplomacy. Most engage in it constantly.

[quote[2. Non-Aggression Pacts. When someone says "NAP" I know it means a non-aggression pact but does it also imply a 3-turn warning to break? Or does that have to be explicitly stated? Also, what happens if someone breaks the treaty without the 3-turn warning. Does this ever happen?

[/quote]

If you don't agree on a warning time, then assume that it can be broken at any time. The person probably should warn you the turn before, but they won't necessarily do so.

No, in fact, it's often a good strategy to ally with everyone, including people that are fighting massive wars with each other.

That depends on whether you want the other power bloc to know who to go for first.

Feel free to attack anybody that you aren't at peace with at any point.

It's very common.

Some do, some don't.

Trades are worth whatever you can get for them.

I very rarely go AI, as the turns get quicker and quicker as you start to lose.

Re: MP Etiquette
 

Hi Bleach! I'm a newbie too!

The only reason that you wouldn't be able to do this is because at the beginning of the game there is a house rule limiting it (Use only in game Messages), as if to impose a sort of "Pony Express" delay. The messaging system is cumbersome and mostly a hinderance so most games that limit this are pure RP style.

This is limited by the people you play with and of course crazy "House Rules" or what people feel is fair/how they play. I would never assume there is any delay on any sort of treaty, even if they say one ("I'll give you X turns before after I break this NAP") mostly because Diplomacy is filled with treachery. As for the Last two, if someone breaks it without 3 turn warning, well, I guess they felt the need too, shame on you for not being ready http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif and shame on them for breaking their word (though you will find it common).

Thus begin the psychological implications of diplomacy. Everything you ever learned about human action/reaction, read about Machiavelli and Sun-Tzu should help you here. Sometimes it can be good to announce such things, depends on who you are playing and how you want to use your Alliance.

War is war, everything is okay in war. If you want to lose a part of your advantage in order to portray a certain type of personality/function you could give people a warning, but why would you want to give people a chance to be ready to defend unless you want them to defend places they think you will attack?

Enough, it's not uncommon for people to try to blind others to their own ambitions by giving reasons for 'ganging up' on supposed game dominators.

The Meta-game. Some do, some don't. Depends on who you play with and how badly you have made their grudge. Hate everyone equally I say!

This differs based on need, if you can convince your trading partner that there is a standard, maybe he won't know how much you need that particular item and how much you'd be willing to pay for it. Cheap as you can get it, would be my suggestion.

Lots of factors to this, but some factors could be:

How much will Player X pay me for help?
How much territory can I take from Player X if I don't help?
How much territory will I lose if I help Player X?
What is the perception of X Players if I help Player X?
What is the perception of X Players if I don't help Player X?
What is the total benefit of helping or not helping Player X?
What will be my current position if I take territory from Player X?
Will I be able to defend newly aqquired territory from Player X within X # of turns?
How will this impact other bordering nations if I withdraw troops to either border?
How sneaky can I be and help both while gaining from both?

Misdirection!

The point you feel you cannot add to the game and going AI will not serve as a detrement to the game while meeting your RL responsibilities. More often or not this question should be asked after you ask yourself "Can I find a Replacement?"

Often, as most players (new mostly) don't know the scope of the end game or plan for it by placing Victory Conditions that will allow for a 'winner' without going through the drudgery of a slugfest ending.

Re: MP Etiquette
 

Good post - I was thinking of posting something similar, myself (though I'd doubt I'dve done as good a job http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)

Well, as we both know, this does happen since I did it to you in Live & Learn. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

To put this into context, I come from a background of Diplomacy, where the backstab is an essential part of the game. In that game, a NAP is very much a buyer beware proposition, and everybody knows it going into the game. There is no enforcement of NAPs, and it is quite commonplace to violate NAPs or any other agreement with a surprise attack. With good players, NAPs and/or alliances are always positionally driven, and a good player can detect an incoming backstab by noticing when it is in another players interest to shift alliances (much like in the real world - this was Henry Kissinger's favorite game for good reason).

Of course, it is very critical in this ruthless sort of game that players not take grudges from game to game, and having mature players is absolutely essential in order to enjoy the game (and when you do, the game is truly awesome).

I have the strong impression that the prevaling trend in Dominions is quite unlike Diplomacy, and that there are unstated conventions, and like yourself I would like to hear what experienced players have to say on the question.

While still pretty much a newbie, I have hosted most of the games I'm in, and I do have an opinion on this (well, and truth be told on most other topics, tho often I manage to keep my mouth shut http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif).

It's always desireable to fight to the bitter end, and I think much of the time, it doesn't need to be time consuming to do so. While my position was competitive in L&L, I put in as much as an hour per turn. But now that it is not I do them much quicker (say 20 minutes). Of course some of that time reduction is due to reduced complexity, but most is just less attention to detail. But despite the reduced time, I'm sure that I'm playing much better than an AI. Also, despite taking 1/3rd the amount of time, I'm sure my 20 min plans are more than 1/3d as good my 1hr plans, as turn planning is a case of diminishing returns. Also, I've found when you're truly at your Last stand, turns are very easy to process, so I think it's just as easy to never go AI.

One big exception that I've seen is the case where a player is down to one province or two, and for whatever reason, the original attacking player(s) decide not to finish the player off. That's a decent reason to go AI.

OTOH, often I think it's not that big a deal to go AI, especially if RL obligations are kicking in. I guess I'd say it's really bad to go AI when you own a large number of provinces. For example, right now in L&L, its obvious I don't have the resources or the skills to defeat your devil armies. Although it's a forgone conclusion how this will end, I owe it to the players you're still competing with to put up a fight. Still having 19 provinces, I think it would fairly rotten to go AI. If I were down to 4-5 provinces, it would be much less of a problem (and also, at that point, it becomes much easier to submit the turns anyhow).

Re: MP Etiquette
 

Hey Zen,

Since you just registered yesterday you must not know anything about the game and must be making all this stuff up. Therefore, I will not listen to your garbage.

Just kidding! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Thanks for the responses everyone. I certainly have to change my trading tactics!

Re: MP Etiquette
 

Thufir,

I'm very familiar with Diplomacy. I've played it many times and while it's a great game, it always leaves a sour taste in my mouth, especially if I win. Breaking treaties in Diplomacy isn't just commonplace, it's practically a requirement! After playing Diplomacy, Dominions feels like playing Candyland with your little sister.

Concerning L&L, you've been a great sport thus far. I'm sure fighting a losing war is very disheartening. I've debated asking for a cease-fire as I'm not sure how cleanly I can finish you off or if I even can. There are bigger concerns looming on the horizon that has got me really worried. Maybe we should take this to PMs. hehe

Re: MP Etiquette
 

Unless otherwise stated by the host, yes. There's no way to enforce no-comm rules. Anyway I've seen "no email, ingame Messages only" and "no communications at all" games.

It should always be stated.

I guess someone else will feel pissed off. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Sometimes. Although most often, devious players will try to use some sort of 'magical time compression' to argue they didn't violate the NAP warning. Consider this: A and B agreed on a NAP with a 3-turn escape clause. Turn 39, A (who used only email so far) sends an ingame message to B to notify him he wants to cancel the NAP. Turn 40 A issues his armies orders to invade B's provinces. Turn 41, A's orders are effectively carried on. A will argue that the 3 turns-delay was respected (39-40-41, implying he sent his notice at the beginning of turn 39, and his armies invaded at the end of turn 41), while from B's viewpoint, only 1 turn passed since he received the message in turn 40 and was invaded in turn 41. Or even zero if he considers that the attack was actually initiated in turn 40. Sounds silly? Yet I've seen that happen, exactly as described.

Whatever suits you.

Whatever suits you. Remember, you're a pretender god at war with every other pretender god, so by default your neighbours are your enemies, and enemies don't need warnings. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Fairly common.

Some don't, some do.

No universal guide, although most assume 1 gem ~ 10 gold. I you trade items for gold or gems, expect to pay an extra for the mage(s) who spent a turn to forge each of these items, and don't expect to get a discount because of a forge bonus.

Whatever I think will benefit me the most, in term of relative power to these neighbors.

(1) Both arms broken, and can't find a sub (and you tried hard).

(2) You just realized your opponent in this game is Norfleet in disguise.

Not uncommon, if the host allows shared victories.

Re: MP Etiquette
 

Heh, that would be a classical example of "why the exact wording of your requests matter". Along the same lines, there would be quite a different between "I won't attack your province" and "I won't attack your provinces", or even "I won't attack provinces" (this one would be only for pacifists). And the same reasoning would go for requests such as "do not give away some information to Pythium"; though you would likely violate the spirit of the agreement when giving someone else this information, to be then transmitted to Pythium.

Re: MP Etiquette
 

[snip examples]

Exactly. Reminds me about the heated debate about the wording of UN resolution 242. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: MP Etiquette
 

Great questions! And excellent answers too. I agree with most of them, but will add my newbie two Eurocents here:

- As I. Kant correctly noted, you can't really want to exist in a world in which *lying* was systematically present (in other words, you have to want to live in a world in which there is some form of valence system), IF you want your words to mean anything in a pragmatic context. Thus, NAP's as speech-acts (that is, NAP's that are not exactly complete hot air) must be filled with content, and that means they cannot be broken continually. My view of "etiquette" is based on this; an NAP which can and will be broken at any time is not a true NAP, there must be entry and exit rules. Thus I treat those people who break NAPs as system-breakers and try to defame them in-game and take an aggressive stance against them asap. Of course, this must be contextualized: I only do this for NAPs with me (since I have no idea of how others go about with each other), and since this is a WAR game, I know someone will HAVE to attack me sooner or later, and so if this someone had an NAP with me and basically indicates that it is time to go to war, this is completely acceptable. I try to do the same, for the above-mentioned reasons. That being said, Backstabbing is an important part of the game, but I do tend to try to remember who backstabs when, so I can trust them/not trust them in the future. People *will* remember you as being a trustworthy fellow or a hard-core utilitarian.
- NGF gave the rule-of-thumb that a gem can often be seen for 10 gold -- this will be veeeery different from turn to turn and depending on what you want.
- Keep asking. In an MP game I am currently hosting, I was unsure of the E-mail rule myself, so I asked everyone whether they would accept "magical insta-communication" (I got the basic answer: "yes"). I dont know how new you are, but you may or may not know who the character referred to as "Norfleet" is. In any case, to make the matter very short, Norfleet is no longer here because he got caught hacking the game to cheat, but before that, there was some thread in which he was accussed of cheating by exploiting out-of-game information. I personally did not see that as a "cheat", but others disagree: some want to keep the information flow as in-game as possible.
I think some of these questions and some of these answers should go to Liga's excellent archive.

Re: MP Etiquette
 

Interesting story... I was always assuming that 3-turn notice means that if the messenger is sent on turn 39, the armies can be sent on turn 42. Thus the messenger arrives on turn 40 and invading armies on turn 43, which seem to respect the pact conditions. For this reason I usually duplicate the termination notice in-game and in email.

Re: MP Etiquette
 

I guess that's what most players would assume too, anyway you'll eventually find someone someday to 'interpret' that in the most favourable way (for him) if you just 'assume' things without being more explicit.

Someone should define (with surgical precision) the terms NAP, escape clause, etc. in a 'Diplomacy in Dominions' article, so we could refer to it without having to repeat the tedious stuff everytime we try to achieve a deal with another nation. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Re: MP Etiquette
 

Great post, I too thought about making a similar post when I started, but as Thufir said, I don't think I could have done it as well.

Diplomacy in this game is interesting to me because the fact that an enemy in one game may be an ally in another, or maybe an enemy forever. The fact of the matter is, you will see each other again, either in-game, forums, etc.

I think it is probably healthy not to carry grudges out of game.

Krool

Re: MP Etiquette
 

I'd like to express my views on the subject, which bleach may care about, as he/she is in a game with me right now. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

I think that trustworthiness and honor are commodities, just as magical gems, troops, and gold are commodities. Both of these have some worth in that, the more a nation has at some point in the game, the more likely someone is to believe what that nation promises later on, and the more likely someone is to make an agreement with that nation. This can often be an advantage for the side in question. Consider the following contrived example:

You are at war with two nations, and you probably can't continue to fight a two front war. Because of other world-wide events, these two nations both propose a peace treaty to you. One has been shown to be untrustworthy, one has been fair and trustworthy in the past. Which are you more likely to make peace with? Chances are, you will make peace with the trustworthy opponent, as that peace means more to you. Thus, the trustworthy nation has gained.

Like all other commodities, there will be times when you absolutely cannot afford to remain faithful to an agreement, but it's good to do so while you can. That is why I gave Jotunheim a 1 turn warning prior to attacking. That is also why I gave Abyssia a 1 turn warning prior to attacking. Both of these decisions were at some cost to me, but I was hoping to show that, while my country certainly has ambitious designs, they wish to carry out those designs while remaining honorable. While I don't expect honor in return, I hope that my actions increase the likelihood of receiving it.

Just my 2 cents.

Re: MP Etiquette
 

Others have already jumped in and I havent read the whole thread but here are some notes from me...

As far as NAPs (non-aggression pacts) with any contract, if its not in the contract then its not in the contract. Some will make allowances for things the other person "thought would be true" but others will split hairs on the wording of the agreement. The phrase "get it in writing" comes to mind.

Grudges: you might want to make a distinction here. I havent seen alot of problem with grudges going from game to game. HOWEVER it should be noted that I have seen alot of REPUTATIONS carrying over from game to game. People who want to back-stab an ally as Ermor in one game, then get mad because their Marignon is not treated as an honorable paladin in the next game, might have a valid point but the reality is that such role-playing doesnt tend to hold up well. No matter who I play its still Gandalf Parker who will be remembered for the actions of that nation. For that reason various methods of doing truly anonymous games have been discussed tho I cant remember any of them being done.

Trading is Supply and Demand. You might figure it on how many gems it cost you to make it. Or you might figure it on how hard it would be for the other guy to get it so early in the game or in such quantity.

On the two neighbors thing you forgot "watch and wait to hit whoever gets weak, maybe both". At a large battle not all of the vultures are animals.

Going AI should be a Last resort. Try for a replacement. I try to sell it as a perfect way for newbies to get a feel for multiplaying since it comes with a ready-made excuse if you do badly.

Re: MP Etiquette
 

I do. Though I wouldn't necessarily mind a game whene noone knew each other and were limited to the ingame system, might be fun.
I don't assume 3 turns and, though that is probably the average, it should be stated. Several of mine in the past have been 2 turn and a couple have been game long.
It depends on the situation but I don't think I would ever announce it to everyone, it would encourage people to ally against you as well.
If it's someone I haven't established any trust/peace with, I wouldn't warn them.
As others have said, it's really common.
Personally, I always try to remember what people are like, whether it's being treacherous, honorable, aggressive, communicative, etc. It's not a grudge, it's just experience with that person.
I usually see items/gems traded for like items on a 1-to-1 basis. One path enhancer for another, 10 of these gems for 10 of these. Gold and blood slaves are the two that vary a bit from person to person.
No etiquette, all depends on your political/tactical situation. It can be an opportunity to make a new friend in that war or just a chance to deal with a problem somewhere else.
The etiquette here varies so wildly, I hesitate to call it etiquette. The nice thing is that you can often make your turns much faster and still be 90% efficient by not micro managing too much. This is usually still way better than going AI or, worse, just not showing up for turns as some people do.
Well, there isn't usually a lot of official declaration in my games. The goal is to make sure that noone is alive to object when you make the declaration http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

- Kel

Re: MP Etiquette
 

Hmm, let's see.

* Standard time measure (known as Nagot time based on the tale of the general who had expected reinforcements to arrive one turn earlier because of a different conception of time; his Last word when he realised his mistake was "Nagot". Modern historians believe he timed his Last words a bit too late, and failed to finish the famous phrase). The standard time measure is based on the viewpoint of the receiver, and all times are based upon this view. For example, a message sent on turn 39 and scheduled to reach the target by turn 40 will belong to turn 40 in the STM system. Likewise, an offensive launched on turn 51 will effectively happen on turn 52 STM. For all other purposes, the standard time is equivalent to the variable time.

* Variable time system. In this system, time is perceived through the viewpoint of the sender. A message sent on turn 39 will take place on turn 39 VMT. A rough conVersion between standard and variable time can be done with the following formula: VTS+1=STM. Note that all times must be given in the same reference medium to avoid creating further confusion; as such, if a message sent on turn 39 standard time warns of an offensive by turn 42, turn 42 will have to be standard time as well.

* Non-Aggression Pact. This treaty means two nations have agreed not to attack each other during its duration (see above for an explanation of the various time systems). None of the involved parties may attack the other, either through mundane or magical means. Likewise, it is forbidden to launch offensives against both the provinces and the armies of the other nation. If a player fears the other nation might attack her army by mistake, it is advised to explicitely tell the other party about moves in provinces belonging to a third party.

* Non-Interference Pact. This treaty encompasses all the provisions of the above, and also prevents the two involved parties from disclosing information with other nations. For all purposes, the two nations are prohibited from meddling in each other's business, and information leak would be regarded as a breach of this treaty.

* Trade Alliance. Under this treaty, the two involved parties agree to gather their economical strength against other nations. As such, the trade allies are to share all information regarding trades with other nations, and any trade can only take place if both nations will it. For example, if Marignon and Man have a trade alliance, they both need to agree to selling weapons of magical destruction to Ermor. This treaty is mostly useful to enforce a trade blockade on another nation.

This was a standard guide for apprentice diplomats within the Celestial Empire. For graduate students, please consult the twenty-seven tomes about "Diplomacy, Furthering the Cause of the Celestial City, and Splitting Hairs".

Did you have something like this in mind Nagot, or was I digressing once more?

Re: MP Etiquette
 

I think that out-of-game communication, via e-mail or whatever, is pretty much essential if you want to have effective diplomacy. Using the in-game system it takes a minimum of two turns to make any sort of agreement, and three turns for the person who initiated the idea to find out that the other player accepted (or declined). It takes even longer to negotiate and carry out a trade. The game just doesn't Last long enough for that to be practical.

Here's a question I have along the same line as bleach. When it comes to trades, do people generally swap things simultaneously or do is it Player A gives something to Player B, who upon receipt gives something back to Player A? And have folks experienced much trouble with people lying in their "trades" and not actually giving what they promised?

Re: MP Etiquette
 

Re: MP Etiquette
 

I've got two interesting MP scenarios (at least interesting to me), that perhaps I will share when I get home from work, as long as I don't reveal too much because they are games in progress, but I think it may reveal another side of the coin.

Krool

Re: MP Etiquette
 

Gosh! I loved playing "Diplomacy" (the board game)!! Problem is that some jerk STOLE my set in high school back in 1985. Sniff sniff. <Reaching for tissue.> I'm ok. I remember his face and his name. I will get that game back, even if I need to get ugly. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/evil.gif <crunching tissue in fist as it slams on the table> http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/evil.gif

Good Posts everyone. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif I was particularly impressed by the citation to Mr. Kant. I'd throw in my 3 cents, but I am too sleepy to write coherently. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/yawn.gif

Re: MP Etiquette
 

Heh, you're a lawyer, so sue to get it back. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: MP Etiquette
 

This is my take on all these. I wish I had seen the thread when it originally started.

1. I always try to use e-mails. I think that I have never been in a game that forbade it.

2. I always specify either a duration, or a warning period, or both. I see absolutely no point to a pact with neither of these. I also sometimes specify conditions that void the pact, for example, attacking a nation I have weakened. I have never broken a pact without a warning, but I have seen them broken.

What I have been experiencing in the Battlefield tournament, lately, is that people attack me as soon as they get my warning, without waiting the three turns... but I am ready for it.

3. I would announce it if the point of the alliance was to keep the peace by intimidating some scary neighbor, but that is not always the case.

4. Absolutely. If there is no agreement, I will never warn the target before the attack unless is late in the game, when the intimidation factor outweigths whatever preparations the enemy may make.

5. Pretty common, although if I think I can catch up with the perceived leader, I usually ally with him.

6. Yes and no. I would not keep a grudge for having been defeated, but I consider people's reputaions...

For example, I know that Cohen will expand agressively, and will piss off everyone in the game, so I always join in when he is attacked, thus, I never make peace with him.

Another example - I know that some people are strong enough, so it is not worth attacking them unless they are weakened by someone else.

7. It all depends. Ten coins for a gem, five for a slave is what I usually go by. Sometimes I take credit, sometimes I give away things for free to someone whose fight benefits me. I play Vanheim, so I seldom take anything but gems as payment.

8. It all depends. Whatever benefits me. If I think I can get away with it, I will steal a few provinces from the weaker player while the stronger one kills him. If I am strong enough, I will sneak attack the one who has the upper hand - more loot.

9. I go AI when it stops being fun, or when real life overwhelms me. It stops being fun when there is a clear winner, and I know I could not even scratch him...

10. That's silly. If an alliance wins, why could not the members find a quick way to fight it out? I think Petar and Norfleet were settling even early disputes by 'whoever owns province X on turn Y'. That is a great way to quickly decide the game if you are unwilling to slug it out.

And frankly, HOW can you slug it out when you are both extremely strong and mobile? I am in a game in which I am one of the top two players, and if I wanted, I am sure I could stall for dozens of turns, easily. We shall decide that one with a big battle in an indy province.

Re: MP Etiquette
 

Well...
Usually I just get drunk and try to @*$# folks up.
-Yc