Diplomacy

[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.

[NTJedi]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
It should be pointed out that few games actually proceed to their gory conclusion of the "A true god has ascended" message. I find the large bulk of games come to an end when the only a single un-botted human player remains, the remaining 2 or 3 Last standing powers deciding to bot out and concede after the going has become ugly.

That's really sad... but true. How can players expect to experience battles like seen at Helms_Deep by tossing in the towel ? Heck I keep kicking and fighting until the very end. When I start losing... I really kick into gear with using diplomacy more and more for trying to save my butt or draw attention on others.
Sure there will be games which players are going to lose... but players can expect to improve survival skills by facing death head on. If two players are completely equal with strategies who would you want as your ally... someone who tosses in the towel when faith is lost or someone who fights to the bitter end.

[ July 02, 2004, 05:09: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

[SelfishGene]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
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.

I guess you'd hate playing with me but i wouldn't hold it against you if you betrayed me... in fact if i gave you good opportunities to attack me with an excellent chance for success and little risk, and you declined out of some sense of honor, i would consider you, in the back of my mind, something of a fool.

I'm very much an adherent to the Arthashastra school of political thought, where "my neighbor is my enemy, my neighbor's neighbor is my friend". If you were my neighbor in one game, you'd be my enemy (whether i say so or not), or at least, will be at some point in the future; if you were in between me and another, you'd be my friend - by default. Believing this, if i decide at some point i'm going to attack you, in my own mind i have no problem with lies, backstabbing, and all sorts of deceit - even if i remain perfectly faithful with everyone else. After all its only logical to attack an enemy by suprise if you can!

I think this attitude pissed off one player so badly he went and started a "No Homer" game whereby he could take out some of his frustration lol.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
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.

I tend to agree to some extent with your code. Of course, I also don't tend to agree to arrangements that are more binding than a border agreement. Implied is the concept that I consider things on your side of the border to be yours, and will therefore be inclined to leave them to you...but nowhere does it say that I won't actually attack you at some point! By nature, however, I am not a particularly aggressive player and rarely attack unless boxed into an excessively small space, or provoked. Of course, sometimes I feel more belligerent than others, and when I'm in a particularly belligerent mood, it doesn't take a lot to qualify as a casus belli. Generally when this occurs, I go over to "Total War To The Death" mode.

Originally posted by SelfishGene:
I'm very much an adherent to the Arthashastra school of political thought, where "my neighbor is my enemy, my neighbor's neighbor is my friend". If you were my neighbor in one game, you'd be my enemy (whether i say so or not), or at least, will be at some point in the future; if you were in between me and another, you'd be my friend - by default.

You mean if somebody else were between you and the party you're deeming a friend? Yeah, that's the sort of thought that appeals to me also: I tend to be more inclined to be friendly if you are not one of my neighbors. Actual neighbors are always viewed with a strong element of suspicion. Actually, non-neighbors are viewed somewhat suspiciously also, but since they're not in a position to do much about it, they're not a big concern.

Believing this, if i decide at some point i'm going to attack you, in my own mind i have no problem with lies, backstabbing, and all sorts of deceit - even if i remain perfectly faithful with everyone else. After all its only logical to attack an enemy by suprise if you can!

I agree completely. This has led people to view me as paranoid. It's not paranoia when they really are out to get you. You're probably better off not trying to backstab me. I'm on to you. The Last person to try this found that I was all over him like napalm on a baby.

I think this attitude pissed off one player so badly he went and started a "No Homer" game whereby he could take out some of his frustration lol.

I think he's just a weenie.

[ July 02, 2004, 06:08: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

[quote]Originally posted by Kel:

quote:

---

[qb]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.

---

So what's the decision-making process behind an agreed two-way or three-way "win", once the allies have crushed all before them?

1. Risk avoidance. By this point you've invested a lot in this game, and who knows how a titanic end-game battle between the allies is going to come out? Best to just declare a "win" and not take the chance.

2. Lack of reward. If you can persuade yourself and the community around you that you "won" the game as part of an alliance, what's the motivation to go the extra mile to win as an individual?

3. Social costs. Even if you didn't know your ally before the game, you've built up an effective and successful relationship with them during a period of continuous communication. I'm sure that most game-players have experienced the feelings of betrayal and anger at being backstabbed, and the stronger the previous relationship, the stronger the feelings. And most of us are able to predict these sort of reactions in others. Even though we know we are only playing a game, we're unable to avoid these basic elements of our nature as social animals.

That (obviously) doesn't mean that we never backstab people, but it does mean that we are always evaluating the trade-off in paying the social costs to gain the benefits of doing well in the game (or alternatively that we're not socially aware enough to see any social costs...). And when we get to an end-game position with one or two allies, the costs, benefits and risks listed above all drive us towards preferring to declare a joint "win". It's by far the easiest path.

In short, we wimp out. What else do you call it when you ignore the explicitly stated game objectives because the costs and risks seem too high? It's not inflamatory language; it's a reasoned analysis.

[Pickles]

Mark the Merciful said

"In short, we wimp out. What else do you call it when you ignore the explicitly stated game objectives because the costs and risks seem too high? It's not inflamatory language; it's a reasoned analysis. "

I was being inflamatory (well provocative) - I am afraid reading too much Norfleet got to me.

I am actually arguing against how I would likely play in practice (if I survived that long). For the reasons Mark stated I would want to stay in a successful alliance rather than breaking it up. As Norfleet said earlier the game ceases to be entertaining so people call it. In his case it was wars of annihilation - putatively here it is the trauma of betrayal.

Pickles