Diplomacy

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Kel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pickles:
If you play a game of dominiom you are expecting to have to defeat everyone

If people are making alliances in the game, I would say this is apparently untrue.

---

No, this remains true even if people are making alliances. Even if people are allying, it is still ultimately up to you to KILL THEM ALL....or die gloriously in the attempt! What manipulations you wish to perform to facilitate this is a personal problem: YOU are still going to expect to kill them all.

I have never played a game where I felt *anyone* was allied prior to the game, secretly or otherwise. If it ever happens, I would just avoid those people or make games that explicitly stated that it was undesirable.

I've played in games where I'm predisposed to be peaceful towards certain players and tend to be inclined to agree to at least a "kill you Last" state of affairs. Eventually it transpires that one of us becomes the dominant power, all other opposition having been eliminated or botted, and as a result it is often seen as mostly a formality if an actual final battle were to be fought at all. So the game is just declared over with at that point: it's gone past the point of entertaining. Etiquette dictates that one does not claim an outright win in such a case, so the result is an implicit victory for "our side", a draw between the two remaining players.

[Kel]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
so the result is an implicit victory for "our side", a draw between the two remaining players.

That's pretty much what I was saying, actually.

- Kel

[Pickles]

I do not think we are very far apart on this.

Kel says
"Really, as far as a dual win goes, unless someone tells you about it, you really don't even have a way of knowing whether they are going to fight it out when there are only two people left, anyway."

Except here - if you are expecting to play to the Last man and others are going to wimp out with a 3 way tie then you are disadvantaged throughout the game. What they do after you stop will have impacted on the way they behaved before. Someone else (Zapmeister?) made the same point earlier in the thread.

Alliances are supposed to be temporary in the game as there can be only one.

As you say it is not a problem in practice I will concede it is not worth discussing more

Pickles

[Pirateiam]

1) Most importantly, diplomacy becomes *the single* most important factor in the game once initial expansion is over. It doesn't really matter how well you manage your empire, or how well your armies fight. It only matters who is allied with who. Effectively, diplomacy becomes the game and the entire game becomes micromanagement overhead.

This can be true sometimes but I also find that alliance can work against you just as much as for you. As you have seen in Norfleets past Posts he states that alot of the time he makes no binding agreements and keeps a supicious eye on everyone. While this is a type of diplomacy in itself it can be a very succesful strategy. In my first multiplayer game I was double teamed by two players with an alliance. While they battered against me I pratically begged Norfleet for an alliance. Instead he helped me quitely and built up to a point where he was unbeatable. By the time the other two players realized this it was over and Norfleet ran over all of us. So in the end alliances hurt more than helped. This is but just one example.

The fact is that humans are social animals and one way or another they will interact.(Diplomacy)
Not using diplomacy is a type of diplomacy in itself.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Pirateiam:
The fact is that humans are social animals and one way or another they will interact.(Diplomacy)
Not using diplomacy is a type of diplomacy in itself.

Everything is ultimately diplomacy. War is simply a continuation of diplomacy by other means. Even if you attack everyone you meet on sight, this is, in and of itself, a diplomatic policy. One that is not terribly friendly, but it's a clear policy of interaction with others.

Even the most hostile and aggressive player, however, cannot afford to attack everyone at once from the very beginning, and would welcome any gesture which allows him to focus on his current victim.

[Kel]

Except here - if you are expecting to play to the Last man

Given that we already know that some people will go for a dual win, they don't really have a right to expect this. If someone does, they can't really blame anyone else for their folly.

and others are going to wimp out with a 3 way tie

First off, if you didn't want to be a part of it, you don't have to, you can choose to fight instead. I would never suggest that alliances ought to be mandatory, or even 'expected'. I just don't think that because some people don't believe in them, for themselves, they should disallow it for everyone else.

Second, calling it 'wimping out' is just plain inflammatory. For me, at least, Dom2 is a strategy game, not a rite of manhood.

then you are disadvantaged throughout the game.

As I pointed out, you have the advantage of surprise and initiative when you backstab someone. The idea of it having a disadvantage as well only makes it a more strategic tool, not to be employed arbitrarily and carelessly.

What they do after you stop will have impacted on the way they behaved before. Someone else (Zapmeister?) made the same point earlier in the thread.

You don't know if there alliance is permanent or not, really they don't even know for sure...since it is trust based and not enforced by game rules.

If dual wins *are* allowed, they may or may not be allied until they kill you. If dual wins *are not* allowed, they still may or may not be allied until they kill you.

Alliances are supposed to be temporary in the game as there can be only one.

Supposed to be ? See, this bothers me...as I said before, the game is played the way people want to play the game, whatever anyone's personal perception of how the game "ought" to be played notwithstanding, within the confines of commonly accepted etiquette.

- Kel

[NTJedi]

Originally posted by SelfishGene:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
.... The only ones I remember having a problem were the ones who wanted to go back and forth. They wanted the slate to be wiped clean between games. Hey Im real sorry about that but if Wikd allies with me and then majorly uses it to trash me, its alittle hard for me play the next game with Wikd and enter into an alliance on a clean slate. ...

This is actually where role playing can come in handy. If you still act as the same player as you did before there would certainly be a great deal of wariness and mistrust. But, if you change your persona through the tone and kind of your Messages, it helps ameliorate the sense of anxiety and lets you have a clean slate. This is actually one reason why i started role-playing pretty heavily in most of the games im in right now.

I've also found role playing is a giant help in forming relationships in game with ppl you don't know. Sort of an ice-breaker.

---

I go by what I've seen from previous games... it don't matter if xyz person says he's playing a trustworthy priest personality or not.

My own personal code I follow during games is simple. As far as diplomacy I follow a paladin honor system until they break a treaty. Every treaty made afterwards is weak and almost ignored even for future games. I set all my treaties with a time limit of days. If they break a treaty... then from any game in the future I will go so far as to even kick them when they're down.
As long as they always remain honorable to the treaties until the set expiration time those players could leave neighboring provinces completely empty. Even at the cost of losing the game I won't break my treaty unless they have been untrustworthy in the past turns or past games.
To me this is more important then winning... because there will always be new games to play and knowing trustworthy and honorable players will be more valuable in the long term.