MP Etiquette

[Kel]

bleach168 said:
1. Emails.

I do. Though I wouldn't necessarily mind a game whene noone knew each other and were limited to the ingame system, might be fun.

2. Non-Aggression Pacts. When someone says "NAP" I know it means a non-aggression pact but does it also imply a 3-turn warning to break? Or does that have to be explicitly stated? Also, what happens if someone breaks the treaty without the 3-turn warning. Does this ever happen?

I don't assume 3 turns and, though that is probably the average, it should be stated. Several of mine in the past have been 2 turn and a couple have been game long.

3. Alliances. If you ally someone, is it your responsibility to announce it? If you want to prevent yourself or your ally from getting attacked, I would think you would want to announce it as a deterrent.

It depends on the situation but I don't think I would ever announce it to everyone, it would encourage people to ally against you as well.

4. War. Is it okay to attack someone without warning if there had been no previous agreements? Or should you give them at least a 1 turn warning?

If it's someone I haven't established any trust/peace with, I wouldn't warn them.

5. How common is it to gang up on the "supposed" leader?

As others have said, it's really common.

6. Do people carry grudges over from one game to the next?

Personally, I always try to remember what people are like, whether it's being treacherous, honorable, aggressive, communicative, etc. It's not a grudge, it's just experience with that person.

7. Trading. Is there a universal guide as to how much items and gems are worth in trades? Like how much a gem would cost in gold? Or does this differ in every game?

I usually see items/gems traded for like items on a 1-to-1 basis. One path enhancer for another, 10 of these gems for 10 of these. Gold and blood slaves are the two that vary a bit from person to person.

8. If two of your neighbors start exchanging blows do you:

No etiquette, all depends on your political/tactical situation. It can be an opportunity to make a new friend in that war or just a chance to deal with a problem somewhere else.

9. At what point, in your opinion, is it okay to go AI.

The etiquette here varies so wildly, I hesitate to call it etiquette. The nice thing is that you can often make your turns much faster and still be 90% efficient by not micro managing too much. This is usually still way better than going AI or, worse, just not showing up for turns as some people do.

10. Mutual victories. How common is it for an alliance to just be declared the winner and the game ends like that?

Well, there isn't usually a lot of official declaration in my games. The goal is to make sure that noone is alive to object when you make the declaration

- Kel

[Vynd]

I think that out-of-game communication, via e-mail or whatever, is pretty much essential if you want to have effective diplomacy. Using the in-game system it takes a minimum of two turns to make any sort of agreement, and three turns for the person who initiated the idea to find out that the other player accepted (or declined). It takes even longer to negotiate and carry out a trade. The game just doesn't Last long enough for that to be practical.

Here's a question I have along the same line as bleach. When it comes to trades, do people generally swap things simultaneously or do is it Player A gives something to Player B, who upon receipt gives something back to Player A? And have folks experienced much trouble with people lying in their "trades" and not actually giving what they promised?

[Yvelina]

This is my take on all these. I wish I had seen the thread when it originally started.

1. I always try to use e-mails. I think that I have never been in a game that forbade it.

2. I always specify either a duration, or a warning period, or both. I see absolutely no point to a pact with neither of these. I also sometimes specify conditions that void the pact, for example, attacking a nation I have weakened. I have never broken a pact without a warning, but I have seen them broken.

What I have been experiencing in the Battlefield tournament, lately, is that people attack me as soon as they get my warning, without waiting the three turns... but I am ready for it.

3. I would announce it if the point of the alliance was to keep the peace by intimidating some scary neighbor, but that is not always the case.

4. Absolutely. If there is no agreement, I will never warn the target before the attack unless is late in the game, when the intimidation factor outweigths whatever preparations the enemy may make.

5. Pretty common, although if I think I can catch up with the perceived leader, I usually ally with him.

6. Yes and no. I would not keep a grudge for having been defeated, but I consider people's reputaions...

For example, I know that Cohen will expand agressively, and will piss off everyone in the game, so I always join in when he is attacked, thus, I never make peace with him.

Another example - I know that some people are strong enough, so it is not worth attacking them unless they are weakened by someone else.

7. It all depends. Ten coins for a gem, five for a slave is what I usually go by. Sometimes I take credit, sometimes I give away things for free to someone whose fight benefits me. I play Vanheim, so I seldom take anything but gems as payment.

8. It all depends. Whatever benefits me. If I think I can get away with it, I will steal a few provinces from the weaker player while the stronger one kills him. If I am strong enough, I will sneak attack the one who has the upper hand - more loot.

9. I go AI when it stops being fun, or when real life overwhelms me. It stops being fun when there is a clear winner, and I know I could not even scratch him...

10. That's silly. If an alliance wins, why could not the members find a quick way to fight it out? I think Petar and Norfleet were settling even early disputes by 'whoever owns province X on turn Y'. That is a great way to quickly decide the game if you are unwilling to slug it out.

And frankly, HOW can you slug it out when you are both extremely strong and mobile? I am in a game in which I am one of the top two players, and if I wanted, I am sure I could stall for dozens of turns, easily. We shall decide that one with a big battle in an indy province.

[YellowCactus]

Well...
Usually I just get drunk and try to @*$# folks up.
-Yc