Good post - I was thinking of posting something similar, myself (though I'd doubt I'dve done as good a job
)
Quote:
bleach168 said:
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?
|
Well, as we both know, this does happen since I did it to you in Live & Learn.
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.
Quote:
9. At what point, in your opinion, is it okay to go AI.
|
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
).
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).