Diplomacy

[Norfleet]

A key point in the diplomacy of Dominions II, is that you should read about the results of certain unnamed parties to ascertain exactly what you should NOT be doing.

[quantum_mechani]

Originally posted by Zapmeister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by wolfkinsov:
To me this game feels a lot like the AH game "Diplomacy". I mean there can only be one winner. There are no points for coming in second. Letting any one country get to big because you stuck to some agreement is the same thing a conseeding defeat. The big boy on the block expects to be takin down. You can honor your agreements with the weak.

This is how it should be, IMHO. Unfortunately, there are some players out there willing to agree to joint victory which is (again, IMHO) contrary to the spirit of one-god ascension and unfair to the opponents that want to stay true to that spirit. People that know me from Dom1 will know I can get quite hysterical on this topic.

---

I suppose mentioning ancient pantheons would only serve to incite mass hysteria then...

[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.

[Kel]

Originally posted by wolfkinsov:
There are no points for coming in second.

Generally speaking, there aren't any points for coming in first either

One thing about breaking alliances in the end game...since there is no judge, no points and, often, no actual finish to the game, it is kind of pointless to break an alliance with two people left. There is no game implementation of a group win so they can just shrug and say "Well, we agreed to a dual win, two of us are left, so the game is over, we win, catch you next time".

Personally, I am pretty staunch about adhering to my treaties. The game is like Diplomacy if you want it to play that way but I don't see any evidence that it was meant to be like that or has to be played like that. Diplomacy encourages it by making it difficult, even impossible, to progress without alliances (by having no random factors and armies all just bounce off of each other without support from other players).

If you think the game should be played like Diplomacy, I think that is more a reflection of how you want to play than how the game was designed. Not that there is anything wrong with that but lets not deny the personal choices involved

- Kel

Oh, Last note...I played Diplomacy once a week for some time with the same group of people. It actually made it more fun that it was always the same people. You couldn't just randomly backstab people, knowing there were no consequences. It was even more important to be able to do it subtly or justifiably, rather than just screaming out Mwahaha at the top of your lungs

[Endoperez]

Zapmeister commenting how he does not understand people who are "willing to agree to joint victory" in a game where the objective is becoming the one and only god.

Originally posted by quantum_mechani:
I suppose mentioning ancient pantheons would only serve to incite mass hysteria then...

Like Greece one, where all the gods (I think, at least most of them) are descendants of an ancient being of tremenduous strength, Kronos the Titan. Kronos was slayed by his son, Zeus. Zeus the Titan and his two brothers Hades the Prince of Death and Poseidon the Sea King divided the world between them. They didn't, howerver, first have to conquer it. Their father did his best to be the only major power in the whole world. Quite understandable, when we remember what happened to him.

The lesser deities had powers that they obtained from magical items like Boots of Flying. They are hardly the gods we are talking about. Then there were the ones married to the existing gods and their children.

edit: The only god stays god only as long as he is the one and only.

[ June 30, 2004, 07:09: Message edited by: Endoperez ]

[Zapmeister]

Originally posted by Endoperez:
Zapmeister commenting how he does not understand people who are "willing to agree to joint victory" in a game where the objective is becoming the one and only god.

It's not a question of not understanding. I refer you to rule 1.9 from the rulebook:

You win the game if you are the sole Pretender left or if you fulfill the victory conditions

If some players play with the intention of achieving this criteria, while others agree to win in partnership, then the people playing by the rules are at a disadvantage. That's all. The existence of pantheons in ancient mythology has nothing to do with it.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Zapmeister:
If some players play with the intention of achieving this criteria, while others agree to win in partnership, then the people playing by the rules are at a disadvantage. That's all. The existence of pantheons in ancient mythology has nothing to do with it.

You're forgetting one detail: Assuming that you decide to go for total victory, I.E., being the only human player who has not yet conceded defeat, should somebody choose to call the game a draw between the remaining players, of which YOU ARE NOT ONE OF, it is completely irrelevant! You are *DEAD*. For you, who wins is now a moot point, because it's not going to be you.

So why is this a problem?