[SelfishGene]

Originally posted by Cainehill:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SelfishGene:
So if i'm weak and your weak, it doesn't matter what you think about me, we should be allies irregardless of trust if we can assail a mutual neighbor and profit from his loss.

Actually, given the nature of Dominions 2, if you're both weak, and you're neighbors, you may very well be better off finding an opportunity to devour the weak neighbor.

This prevents them from eroding away at your dominion with their Pretender, Prophet, and temples, allowing your dominion's strength to grow more rapidly, or at least be diminished more slowly.

Small fish don't get to be big fish by trying to eat the larger fish in tandem; they get bigger by eating other small fish.

---

Hmm ... you may well be right. In the game where i did backstab, i choose to let a considerably weaker neighbor, whom i thought was quite new and confused, survive in order to attack a stronger - i guess out of pity and that i didn't want to kill him off so early. But i misjudged the situation (i had no scouts at all! in any province, and my nation's default cost 70), sent a battle to fight a war, and the rest is, now, history. I also feared losing troops to his castle more than conventional armies - another misjudgement .

Well, there's a line between what you call as a "metagame", and a desire to be seen as reliable. If you regularly make agreements in poor faith, then people will be less inclined to make agreements with you in the future, given that they do not expect you to actually keep them. I, personally, favor more open-ended agreements, and prefer not to be overtly duplicitous: I won't outright claim to be your ally, and then backstab you shortly afterwards, and any peace agreement I make invariably includes the provision for "the final showdown", to occur when there's nobody else to kill: This is a clearly understood arrangement

Well of course if i ever did backstab someone i would just assume they would never trust me again, and i would adopt with them something of the logic from Crime and Punishment - once you start down the path of lies and violence, neccesity pushes you, and fear of your duplicity being revealed compells you, to just sort of "bury" the problem as quickly as possible - and just hope they're not the chatterbox on allchat or email .

But im talking myself into a corner, and i don't want to become "The Backstabbing Guy" . Every diplomatic strategy should be weighed and its costs compared to its merits. If you are going to backstab someone (as i've found bitterly ^^) it should be seen as a strategic decision. Your reputation will plummet, and many other unpredicable things might go awry, so it had better be worth it. But if your playing to win, and you have good information, it might be a smart move.

All i was really arguing initially is against the idea of never backstabbing under any circumstances because of forfeiting brownie points. I'm not trying to suggest one should *seek* to backstab as it may not be the best hand to play in every game.

[ July 04, 2004, 04:18: Message edited by: SelfishGene ]