Diplomacy

[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?

[Zapmeister]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
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?

It's a problem if it becomes the norm, because it means that you must either join an alliance, or be eliminated. Sole victory, the only kind of victory sanctioned in the rules, has ceased to be a realistic objective.

This is exactly what happened in the Dom1 days. People's ability to play Dominions ceased to be as relevant as their diplomatic reputation and willingness to join an alliance. Games were polarized into blocs, then one bloc won and declared joint victory among it's members. I was in one game with 11 starters where 6 of them declared themselves joint winners.

Not being a member of a bloc was suicide, of course. I didn't enjoy playing in this environment, so I quit the game altogether. After Dom2 was published I returned, and was pleasantly surprised to find that the sole victory culture that the original poster described and supported has largely returned.

[Norfleet]

I don't think I'm familiar with what you describe, but maybe that's due to the much smaller and more insular community of Dom 1. I'm more used to "everyone hates me and tries to kill me, except maybe one tiny little empire I saved sometime midgame through my intervention and now they are my loyal lackey".

In which case the game, at best, comes to my winning, alongside my lackey, although clearly the win is mine, as he exists only because I let him. It's not quite the "bloc" you describe, though. If anything, Dom2 seems to discourage this because if you form a big alliance where all of your neighbors are offlimits, what you have is your "teammates" doing redundant research, which is inefficient and wasteful: It's more efficient for the nations in question to devour each other and become a much larger nation.

[Pickles]

I agree with the oiginal poster that this game reminds me of nothing more than diplomacy, a game I grew to hate! It is an irony of diplomacy that it was specifically designed to be a cuthtroat game played to one winner but in practice most games are negotiated joint wins.

I have not played games like this for years and I am not sure if my dislike for free for alls will overcome my attraction to the intricate fantasy game. My "most wanted" feature would be a "pantheon" setting for team play - pre set teams of course.

I have really only finished one game, & that is technically still going on but my diplomatic rustiness (ok ineptitude) has probably had more influence that my greeness with the detail of the game. Lack of strategic focus may also have been a factor - I am not so much a backstabber are a blunderer.


Pickles

[Norfleet]

This is the natural outcome of playing a game with a bunch of weenies who can't stand a little blood.

But not me....I WILL KILL YOU! Or die gloriously in the attempt! Huzzah!

[Nagot Gick Fel]

To me, there are 3 kinds of players in Dominions:

The Faithful: they stick to their word, and won't never break an agreement, even if it means putting themselves in jeopardy. I know such players exist, but I always assume they don't .

The Defectors: these don't hesitate to break treaties or swindle their trade partners at the first opportunity, if they see an immediate benefit when doing so - even if the said benefit is negligible. These players don't annoy me much - their behavior may net them a small advantage in 1 or 2 games, but in the end they work against themselves. I hate to carry my own perception of a player's personality from one game to another, anyway you can't expect from someone to trust a guy who was 'reliably unreliable' in the past 5 games.

The Wise: these usually stick to their word, and can be relied on when trading. However they won't hesitate to backstab you when they think that'll give them a substantial advantage - typically shifting the balance of power enough so they increase their own chances to win manyfold. I think that in Dominions, nothing comes closest to an oeuvre d'art than a skillfully planned and carried out backstab. So I tend to respect this sort of players immensely. Even if I'm at the receiving end of their treachery .