Diplomacy

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by SelfishGene:
So if i'm weak and your weak, it doesn't matter what you think about me, we should be allies irregardless of trust if we can assail a mutual neighbor and profit from his loss.

Actually, given the nature of Dominions 2, if you're both weak, and you're neighbors, you may very well be better off finding an opportunity to devour the weak neighbor.

This prevents them from eroding away at your dominion with their Pretender, Prophet, and temples, allowing your dominion's strength to grow more rapidly, or at least be diminished more slowly.

Small fish don't get to be big fish by trying to eat the larger fish in tandem; they get bigger by eating other small fish.

[SelfishGene]

Originally posted by Cainehill:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SelfishGene:
So if i'm weak and your weak, it doesn't matter what you think about me, we should be allies irregardless of trust if we can assail a mutual neighbor and profit from his loss.

Actually, given the nature of Dominions 2, if you're both weak, and you're neighbors, you may very well be better off finding an opportunity to devour the weak neighbor.

This prevents them from eroding away at your dominion with their Pretender, Prophet, and temples, allowing your dominion's strength to grow more rapidly, or at least be diminished more slowly.

Small fish don't get to be big fish by trying to eat the larger fish in tandem; they get bigger by eating other small fish.

---

Hmm ... you may well be right. In the game where i did backstab, i choose to let a considerably weaker neighbor, whom i thought was quite new and confused, survive in order to attack a stronger - i guess out of pity and that i didn't want to kill him off so early. But i misjudged the situation (i had no scouts at all! in any province, and my nation's default cost 70), sent a battle to fight a war, and the rest is, now, history. I also feared losing troops to his castle more than conventional armies - another misjudgement .

Well, there's a line between what you call as a "metagame", and a desire to be seen as reliable. If you regularly make agreements in poor faith, then people will be less inclined to make agreements with you in the future, given that they do not expect you to actually keep them. I, personally, favor more open-ended agreements, and prefer not to be overtly duplicitous: I won't outright claim to be your ally, and then backstab you shortly afterwards, and any peace agreement I make invariably includes the provision for "the final showdown", to occur when there's nobody else to kill: This is a clearly understood arrangement

Well of course if i ever did backstab someone i would just assume they would never trust me again, and i would adopt with them something of the logic from Crime and Punishment - once you start down the path of lies and violence, neccesity pushes you, and fear of your duplicity being revealed compells you, to just sort of "bury" the problem as quickly as possible - and just hope they're not the chatterbox on allchat or email .

But im talking myself into a corner, and i don't want to become "The Backstabbing Guy" . Every diplomatic strategy should be weighed and its costs compared to its merits. If you are going to backstab someone (as i've found bitterly ^^) it should be seen as a strategic decision. Your reputation will plummet, and many other unpredicable things might go awry, so it had better be worth it. But if your playing to win, and you have good information, it might be a smart move.

All i was really arguing initially is against the idea of never backstabbing under any circumstances because of forfeiting brownie points. I'm not trying to suggest one should *seek* to backstab as it may not be the best hand to play in every game.

[ July 04, 2004, 04:18: Message edited by: SelfishGene ]

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by SelfishGene:
All i was really arguing initially is against the idea of never backstabbing under any circumstances because of forfeiting brownie points. I'm not trying to suggest one should *seek* to backstab as it may not be the best hand to play in every game.

I find that the cost of backstabbing somebody is, as a general rule, not worth the reputation hit in most cases. There are certainly opportunities, players, and nations, upon which you can pull such a move and incur minimal damage to one's rep (*cough* Ermor *cough*), but in most cases, the benefit of actually backstabbing one's opponent is minimal: At best, you sack a few provinces before he rallies and you have to fight a pitched battle anyway. You may as well simply stab him in the face: While you won't snag as many provinces before you fight the big battle, there's not nearly as much ill-will and distrust generated....and frankly, you were going to have to fight him sooner or later anyway. Other good opportunities to turn on somebody who you were otherwise peaceful with is when he is clearly losing a war badly: You can justify this move in the name of self-protection and opportunism: As the victim was doomed anyway, he is unlikely to hold this move against you, and it is certainly better that you receive a cut, rather than to allow the other party to get it all. Meanwhile, if executed with care and discretion, you are unlikely to incur significant hostility from the other parties, both the third party, and the one who you decide to attack.

Backstabbing a strong opponent merely because he is preoccupied, however, is rarely a sound move: He'll likely resent this and be distrustful of you in the future: This distrust may spread to others if it becomes a habit, and it's generally not that profitable, as it is unlikely you'll be able to decisively overwhelm the opponent before the impact of your actions actually sinks in. A long, protracted conflict after an attempt at treachery is never to your advantage, as it puts you in an preoccupied position, and your move will likely incite others to imitate your example....against you!

As a rule, people will be less inclined to have the matter fester if you can decisively squish them, thus sparing them the task of managing an obviously collapsing empire over the next several turns: For them, the game will end quickly, and they will likely not remember your actions clearly.