Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)

[rdonj]

Added a short blurb to the OP to help clarify the situation.

[namad]

I am not willing to abide by an agreement to selectively not remember who has lied to me and who has not.

If you lie to me, I will remember you have lied to me. I won't expect any sort of retribution or punishment, but I certainly won't promise to forget it occurred forever.



meh, fine i'll play... I've never held a grudge against anyone who has lied to me, but I will certainly remember it happening if you do, and perhaps be less confident in what you say to me for years to come.

[Squirrelloid]

I'm not sure machiavellian diplomacy means no out of game consequences. A player's reputation is built on such things. And its not just backstabbing or lack thereof - a player who behaves erratically may find others less willing to deal with him. Worse, a player who backstabs seemingly at random will be much less likely to be trusted than one who backstabs for clear reasons - ie, predictability in backstabbing gives other players a reasonable expectation of when you might or might not do so.

[Sombre]

There have been a few threads about this (NAPs being binding, or reputations carryng over etc).

IIRC there was no consensus on the 'default' so it's always good to be specific.

[Calahan]

If a game states specifically that back-stabbing is to be expected, and that Machiavellian types of play and NAP's are accepted (and even encouraged) in that game, then that should be enough to ensure anything that happens within that game, stays strictly in that game alone.

If a game fails to state this info regarding NAP's etc, or states that NAP's are binding, then there is a case to be made for a players general reputation in future games to be harmed by their actions in that game (such as backstabbing).

But I think it is completely out of line to hold personal grudges against a player, or to mark their reputation as untrustworthy, for backstabbing etc. in games where it specifically states it is to be expected. It is just another rule of that game, and there should be no post-game repercussions for any player who is simply acting within the rules of the game.

If you don't like the thought of being back-stabbed, then don't sign up for games where it is an option. And if it isn't stated clearly in the rules at the sign-up stage, then make a point to ask the admin of that game about it before signing up.

[Baalz]

Indeed. To me "backstabbing encouraged" games are really "quasi-no diplomacy" games, as in the spirit of the rules of the game every player should be looking at attacking every other player if there is a good opportunity, regardless of the completely meaningless words exchanged. It's stated up front by the host that everyone's words are meaningless, you *can't* have a NAP...though you're free to agree to whatever you want with other players knowing full well it's meaningless.

[TheDemon]

I, on the other hand, make a different list, of players whom I think are likely to put a big black mark on my record if I backstab them. Much easier to backstab someone who doesn't care, and all the sweeter when you pull out the dagger if you know the player who does care trusts you, because the players who really care about keeping deals aren't going to pay attention to a little blurb about "non-binding NAPs" in a game description, even moreso than the backstabbers aren't going to care about its omission.

[namad]

After speaking with rdonj about the topic, I get the feeling that the idea he has in mind is not the same idea baalz just stated. Then again who knows, the vagueness of the topic makes it difficult to tell if anyone is agreeing with anyone else.

In a game especially designed for manipulation of other players via diplomacy, is it possible to have *all* diplomacy be totally meaningless?



This contradiction led me to consider if I wished to play in this game or not. However, once I realized this phenomenon, where everyone interrupts the same statement in a different fashion, was universal... I was able to rationalize my position as yet another interruption of that statement. Therefore, I can believe whatever I want to believe without needing to disbelieve anyone else's interpretation! It then became logically consistent for everyone to disagree about the scenario's guidelines. As a result I won't have any problem playing in the game.


On a larger scope, the games where diplomatic constraints are "unstated" or stated as "no restrictions"... suffer from the same problem. Many people take this to mean that naps cannot be broken and then they whine when they are. Still others take this to mean there are no rules and no need to honor naps. So, the scenario in which every dominions3 game is played is one where each individual player plays according to his own set of rules, which almost always differ from another player's guidelines. This seems to be a contradiction of sorts, but given that it has occurred 1000s of times and in fact ALWAYS occurs... clearly it must be a valid and consistent game setup. Despite appearances to the contrary.

[Calahan]

I think the main problem people have is that they consider both the following types of NAP's to be governed by the same level of trust.

1 - An NAP you sign with another nation, and then have no further contact or dialogue with until 50+ turns later when one of the nations involved says "Hey, you just attacked me. But we signed an NAP 50+ turns ago!".

2 - An NAP you sign with another nation, and then have constant contact with throughout the course of the game, trading items, intel, maybe coordinating attacks.


I consider case 1 to be pretty much a joke. As how can it possibly be realistic to think... "How can I defend the huge 10 border province I have with my Eastern neighbour? I know, lets defend it all nice and securely with a little piece of paper with NAP written on it. As that means I can leave vast sections of my empire completely undefended, and I'll never have to put any troops there again what-so-ever. That is until my Eastern neighbour gives me a convenient 3-turn warning that he is going to attack me in that area."

To me, this way of thinking has no logic to it, or even a remote connection to the realities of any strategy game I have ever played. And anyone who thinks along these lines deserves to get backstabbed to death in every game they play.


Whereas case 2 above is a situation in which you will rarely see a back-stabbing incident occur. As there you have two nations who have agreed to not fight each other for the mutual benefit of both nations, but are in constant contact, and are both regularly benefiting from such a high level of contact.

So at least in my experience to date, a high level of respect builds up between the players involved in these cases, which greatly reduces the chances of any back-stabbing. It may still happen of course, but anyone who has worked closely with another player in a game over any reasonable duration of time, would find it very difficult to suddenly turn on their friend and ally.

Whether case 2 should be like that in the context of the game is another matter, but in reality that is how it does tend to work.

[Executor]

Diplomacy is an ability to gain strategic advantage and find solutions, so if someone makes a NAP so he can more easily attack it's still a diplomatic move to me, and a good one.

I believe both types of NAPs stated above by Calahan are the same, and should not require "maintainance", however a NAP is basically a show/sign of trust between two nations/players, and it is specifically up to them if they are to find them binding or not, and of course the "house rules", which are rarely stated, and never state that NAP are binding which would be ridiculous IMO.
But still, a player who belies that a NAP in any case scenario is enough of a protection has still quite a lot to learn, and should experience some backstabbing as a lesson.

I don't think that diplomacy is meaningless in Machiavellian games as Baalz states, however it is probably reduced to a lower level and players should be aware of what type of game they are entering and not ***** about it if they get screwed over.

But again, Machiavellian game or not is the same to me, nothing prevents anyone from breaking any form of pact, agreement in any game as all is fare in love and war, and as I said, it would be stupid to assume that pacts cannot be broken, any pact.