playing ANYONE against everyone

[Hellboy]

Gandalf Parker said:
In a game of purely testing strategy, then there usually isnt diplomacy. There doesnt tend to be diplomacy in chess. Also random events, random maps, any kindof luck really.

In a more role-playing game, diplomacy is part of the role playing. So is taking your lumps with random things. Yes, this is my preferred playing style. Im afraid that I got alot of the random stuff added to the game. Try not to hold that agaisnt me.

Dominions tends to be split. There are those who play their god, and there are those who consider their god just another piece in the game. Since there is no easy way to keep diplomacy out of the game, I think this one will have alot of it.

Side Note: I do have a list of hacks I did to try and create a game with no diplomacy. Blind email accounts all off of my server, watching the log and reporting any msgs between players, etc etc. It still ended up short of absolute but I might host a game like that one day down the road.

I just have to say that this notion that diplomacy and/or randomness somehow reduce strategy is really quite simplistic. In both cases there are many, many hard core, intense strategy games replete in both. For example, in the case of diplomacy there is the archtype Avalon Hill boardgame called "Diplomacy" where the whole point of the game is, as its name says, to make (and break) deals. This is a game that has been analyzed and studied extensively. I imagine it is quite amenable to being studied in the light of the mathematics of game theory, and I'd be willing to bet that that has been done.

Equally so with randomness, randomness in no way decreases the amount of strategy/analysis to be applied. Just ask any bridge player. Yes it is true that many classic strategy games are deterministic, but requiring a player to make his/her analyses probabilistic instead can end up with a game just as deep and just as challenging (or more so).

Edit: Hope the above doesn't come off as hostile or insulting, but I have noticed that there is a school of thought on these boards that diplomacy somehow reduces the intellectual quality or depth of the game. Seeing this, I just wanted to raise the counterargument.