Quote:
Originally Posted by Sombre
But the agreement will be broken the second it is not in the interests of the other party. Since you can count on them to follow their interests anyway, what's the point of having an agreement? I mean I see why you'd communicate and say 'I am attacking this guy' if you thought that would encourage other people to attack him. But there's no point in saying 'we won't attack each other until this guy is dealt with' because it adds nothing to 'I am attacking this guy'. In fact I see no reason why they'd believe you are actually attacking the guy unless they can see it for themselves, in which case there's no point in you telling them.
Obviously I'm not being serious. Humans don't work that way. But logically if agreements aren't binding and there's no difference between telling the truth or lying (because all is fair), they're pointless. I just find it strange that people would bother with them when there's no penalty for breaking them.
|
I would submit that the relevant aspect of diplomacy is not what is promised, but what actions are taken by the other party afterwards. Diplomacy is a method of manipulating other players into doing what you want.
Diplomacy does not just involve negotiations and deals, it can involve threats, blackmail, bribery, etc... The fact that these more aggressive aspects don't see much apparent use in the game is strange. Just talking to other players can manipulate their behavior, even if your discussion reaches no particular conclusion. Consider the impact of selectively sharing intelligence, for example.
When it comes to a deal, the best ones are obviously those with immediate consequences. Ie, arranging with another player who is attacking where so that your armies don't clash. Sure, there is the possibility that they will stab you and attack where you're attacking, but you can defend against that (send enough strength to make it painful and don't reveal how much you plan on sending). And the benefit is immediate, ie, next turn, so the scope for betrayal is small, and this kind of deal potentially benefits both sides. (Either side could lose a substantial force or take large casualties if they don't talk about it). Because both sides benefit, both sides can be expected to follow through most of the time.
So why form non-aggression pacts? I mean, in a machiavellian world, any termination conditions aren't worth the paper they're printed on, right? I would argue that the actual language of your agreement is not the point of the agreement.
First, the point of a non-aggression pact is not to secure a peaceful border until someone announces NAP end. Its to de-militarize the border *now* so you can use your army elsewhere. Similarly, it allows your ally to do the same, so its also to his advantage. Anyone who signs NAPs and doesn't demilitarize the border is, I would argue, a worse violater than someone who breaks NAPs without following the agreed to terms for ending it, and I would consider them to have broken the NAP in spirit if they keep a nominally peaceful border heavily garrisoned. (if they demilitarize it, but later start to garrison it, then its arms race time. But you already got the period of demilitarization at the start as the benefit of the agreement.)
Second, no one is saying there is no cost to stabbing someone. If you break a treaty with someone, even if we believe games are a microcosm from which no metagame emerges, then your ability to negotiate *in that game* in the future suffers. If nothing else, the person you stabbed will be more wary of dealing with you, and others might as well. Consider honorably ending a NAP, starting a war with your former NAP-mate, and then getting stabbed or attacked by someone else. It might be possible to end the war to refocus on the new front. But if you broke the NAP to do it then your new enemy is much less likely to trust you to be willing to agree to peace with you.
Third, maintaining a positive relationship once you've formed one has additional benefits beyond the continuance of the agreement. You're likely to find a more willing trade partner for exchanging gems and forged gear, you have a ready-made military ally, and you have someone you can plausibly rely on to cast remote spells at targets you designate. You give all that up the moment you break the agreement.
Basically, there is a definite cost to breaking deals. This is why a stab has to be worthwhile - you have to have made quite significant gains to offset this cost in order for the stab to be beneficial. The more communication and aid two allies render each other, the higher the cost to one of them stabbing the other.
So in a machiavellian world the best diplomacy is active. No NAP-3 and don't talk to the other guy for 20 turns. Get him involved in your wars, ask to get involved in his, or at least provide strategic support. Make trades that might only be net neutral for yourself occasionally. Be a *good* ally and you won't get stabbed very often. (And be capable of defending yourself if you do get stabbed!)
Basically, diplomacy is far more important in a machiavellian world, because you have to prove that you're worth more as an ally than as a potential conquest.