Diplomacy

[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?

[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 .

[Pickles]

Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:
[QB] To me, there are 3 kinds of players in Dominions:

[/QB

Sounds like the game theory sheep, wolves and "do unto others ers". But actually it is sheep, wolves and "wolves in sheeps clothing".

People who renege on deals gain momentary advantage but in the long term repeated good or even marginal, trading will beat a few swindles.

Pickles