Quote:
Originally Posted by SpaceViking21
Quote:
Originally Posted by triqui
Oh, I thought you meant when I was crying for help like a baby. Bassically what Tien Chi is doing now  .
I don't get all the fuss about this  . It's obvious that T'Chi is going to try anything to convince Ulm to attack Man, for the same reasons I tried everything I could to get Man involved in the war too. And Ulm will enter in the war (or not), when he finds it suitable to his own interests, using Tien Chi as an excuse of cassus belli. But the real reason to attack Man (or not doing so) would be his chances to win the game doing so. Exactly like Man did with my ask. Which is exactly what I would had done if I were in Ulm's (or Man's) position. And I suspect Tien Chi (or anyone else) would do the same too. Everything else is hypcr... err... diplomacy I mean. |
Of course, all diplomacy in Dominions 3 is a farce. We're just busting Man because he's only giving the barest lip service to a coherent casus belli and (to me at least) sounds like he's putting lipstick on a landgrab rather than putting together a reasonable foreign policy.
To put it another way, everyone in Dominions 3 is after one thing. To win. Therefore, the worst possible thing you can do is make it look like you're going for the win now. You want to dress up your intentions and slowly work until you can't be stopped any more, rather than put all your chips on the table and make yourself the guy to beat. Had Man stuck to one gun (Limiting me or the stability of Ermor), any diplomacy myself or Tien tried would be our word vs theirs, at least as far as trying to start a bigger war. However, using both makes him seem duplicitous, like he's already decided what he's going to do and now he's just putting a dress on it for a night on the town, especially when the results of both actions are basically the same (taking my land on the island, or taking my land on the island and going further). It's hard to make yourself seem trustworthy when your actions aren't consistent with your words, and are instead consistent with the ultimate goal.
tl;dr version: Diplomacy in this game is ultimately a joke, but not playing the game at all, or playing it badly can be viewed as a threat. |
Well, maybe Man casus belli is doubtious. Fine, I'll accept that. So what? Ulm is not going to attack (or not to attack) Man based on his cassus belli. He is going to attack him if he feels doing so increase his chances to win. If he feels his chances to win are increased by waiting (to get X research, to see if you and Tien Chi attrition Man, or maybe to conquer Pythium first), he will wait. And his own farce of a casus belli is also stupid, in my humble opinion.
When he said "if Man's intentions are to stabilize Ermor we won't intervene", I almost laughed. If he care about Ermor future, he could act himself. He didn't, becouse he couldn't care less. He cares, as everybody does (and as everybody should), about his own goals.
Trying to represent otherwise is part of the farce, which we all play. It's a role we play, in this hypocresy game we call diplomacy. Which is fine, is a nice and fun aspect of the game, which I'm learning and enjoying (my previous MP game, with my friends, have different diplomacy, becouse we know each other, and often we play by groups, in two bands). But sometimes I find a little bit hilarious all this comedy, this talk about friendship, and all of that. Ulm will attack Man when he feels it will work. Be it in three turns, or twenty.
Everybody tries to achieve his goals. Mine is seeing Jotunheim and Tien Chi defeated before Ermor. Tien Chi goal seems to be hurting Man as much as he can. Man and Ulm should go for ultimate victory. And you and Pythium would try to ride the wave and wait for a chance, which currently don't have. Simulating anything else is just part of the show.