Diplomacy

[Pickles]

I do not think we are very far apart on this.

Kel says
"Really, as far as a dual win goes, unless someone tells you about it, you really don't even have a way of knowing whether they are going to fight it out when there are only two people left, anyway."

Except here - if you are expecting to play to the Last man and others are going to wimp out with a 3 way tie then you are disadvantaged throughout the game. What they do after you stop will have impacted on the way they behaved before. Someone else (Zapmeister?) made the same point earlier in the thread.

Alliances are supposed to be temporary in the game as there can be only one.

As you say it is not a problem in practice I will concede it is not worth discussing more

Pickles

[Pirateiam]

1) Most importantly, diplomacy becomes *the single* most important factor in the game once initial expansion is over. It doesn't really matter how well you manage your empire, or how well your armies fight. It only matters who is allied with who. Effectively, diplomacy becomes the game and the entire game becomes micromanagement overhead.

This can be true sometimes but I also find that alliance can work against you just as much as for you. As you have seen in Norfleets past Posts he states that alot of the time he makes no binding agreements and keeps a supicious eye on everyone. While this is a type of diplomacy in itself it can be a very succesful strategy. In my first multiplayer game I was double teamed by two players with an alliance. While they battered against me I pratically begged Norfleet for an alliance. Instead he helped me quitely and built up to a point where he was unbeatable. By the time the other two players realized this it was over and Norfleet ran over all of us. So in the end alliances hurt more than helped. This is but just one example.

The fact is that humans are social animals and one way or another they will interact.(Diplomacy)
Not using diplomacy is a type of diplomacy in itself.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Pirateiam:
The fact is that humans are social animals and one way or another they will interact.(Diplomacy)
Not using diplomacy is a type of diplomacy in itself.

Everything is ultimately diplomacy. War is simply a continuation of diplomacy by other means. Even if you attack everyone you meet on sight, this is, in and of itself, a diplomatic policy. One that is not terribly friendly, but it's a clear policy of interaction with others.

Even the most hostile and aggressive player, however, cannot afford to attack everyone at once from the very beginning, and would welcome any gesture which allows him to focus on his current victim.

[Kel]

Except here - if you are expecting to play to the Last man

Given that we already know that some people will go for a dual win, they don't really have a right to expect this. If someone does, they can't really blame anyone else for their folly.

and others are going to wimp out with a 3 way tie

First off, if you didn't want to be a part of it, you don't have to, you can choose to fight instead. I would never suggest that alliances ought to be mandatory, or even 'expected'. I just don't think that because some people don't believe in them, for themselves, they should disallow it for everyone else.

Second, calling it 'wimping out' is just plain inflammatory. For me, at least, Dom2 is a strategy game, not a rite of manhood.

then you are disadvantaged throughout the game.

As I pointed out, you have the advantage of surprise and initiative when you backstab someone. The idea of it having a disadvantage as well only makes it a more strategic tool, not to be employed arbitrarily and carelessly.

What they do after you stop will have impacted on the way they behaved before. Someone else (Zapmeister?) made the same point earlier in the thread.

You don't know if there alliance is permanent or not, really they don't even know for sure...since it is trust based and not enforced by game rules.

If dual wins *are* allowed, they may or may not be allied until they kill you. If dual wins *are not* allowed, they still may or may not be allied until they kill you.

Alliances are supposed to be temporary in the game as there can be only one.

Supposed to be ? See, this bothers me...as I said before, the game is played the way people want to play the game, whatever anyone's personal perception of how the game "ought" to be played notwithstanding, within the confines of commonly accepted etiquette.

- Kel

[NTJedi]

Originally posted by SelfishGene:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
.... The only ones I remember having a problem were the ones who wanted to go back and forth. They wanted the slate to be wiped clean between games. Hey Im real sorry about that but if Wikd allies with me and then majorly uses it to trash me, its alittle hard for me play the next game with Wikd and enter into an alliance on a clean slate. ...

This is actually where role playing can come in handy. If you still act as the same player as you did before there would certainly be a great deal of wariness and mistrust. But, if you change your persona through the tone and kind of your Messages, it helps ameliorate the sense of anxiety and lets you have a clean slate. This is actually one reason why i started role-playing pretty heavily in most of the games im in right now.

I've also found role playing is a giant help in forming relationships in game with ppl you don't know. Sort of an ice-breaker.

---

I go by what I've seen from previous games... it don't matter if xyz person says he's playing a trustworthy priest personality or not.

My own personal code I follow during games is simple. As far as diplomacy I follow a paladin honor system until they break a treaty. Every treaty made afterwards is weak and almost ignored even for future games. I set all my treaties with a time limit of days. If they break a treaty... then from any game in the future I will go so far as to even kick them when they're down.
As long as they always remain honorable to the treaties until the set expiration time those players could leave neighboring provinces completely empty. Even at the cost of losing the game I won't break my treaty unless they have been untrustworthy in the past turns or past games.
To me this is more important then winning... because there will always be new games to play and knowing trustworthy and honorable players will be more valuable in the long term.

[NTJedi]

Originally posted by 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.

That's really sad... but true. How can players expect to experience battles like seen at Helms_Deep by tossing in the towel ? Heck I keep kicking and fighting until the very end. When I start losing... I really kick into gear with using diplomacy more and more for trying to save my butt or draw attention on others.
Sure there will be games which players are going to lose... but players can expect to improve survival skills by facing death head on. If two players are completely equal with strategies who would you want as your ally... someone who tosses in the towel when faith is lost or someone who fights to the bitter end.

[ July 02, 2004, 05:09: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

[SelfishGene]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
I go by what I've seen from previous games... it don't matter if xyz person says he's playing a trustworthy priest personality or not.

My own personal code I follow during games is simple. As far as diplomacy I follow a paladin honor system until they break a treaty. Every treaty made afterwards is weak and almost ignored even for future games. I set all my treaties with a time limit of days. If they break a treaty... then from any game in the future I will go so far as to even kick them when they're down.
As long as they always remain honorable to the treaties until the set expiration time those players could leave neighboring provinces completely empty. Even at the cost of losing the game I won't break my treaty unless they have been untrustworthy in the past turns or past games.
To me this is more important then winning... because there will always be new games to play and knowing trustworthy and honorable players will be more valuable in the long term.

I guess you'd hate playing with me but i wouldn't hold it against you if you betrayed me... in fact if i gave you good opportunities to attack me with an excellent chance for success and little risk, and you declined out of some sense of honor, i would consider you, in the back of my mind, something of a fool.

I'm very much an adherent to the Arthashastra school of political thought, where "my neighbor is my enemy, my neighbor's neighbor is my friend". If you were my neighbor in one game, you'd be my enemy (whether i say so or not), or at least, will be at some point in the future; if you were in between me and another, you'd be my friend - by default. Believing this, if i decide at some point i'm going to attack you, in my own mind i have no problem with lies, backstabbing, and all sorts of deceit - even if i remain perfectly faithful with everyone else. After all its only logical to attack an enemy by suprise if you can!

I think this attitude pissed off one player so badly he went and started a "No Homer" game whereby he could take out some of his frustration lol.