Diplomacy

[quote]Originally posted by Kel:

quote:

---

[qb]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.

---

So what's the decision-making process behind an agreed two-way or three-way "win", once the allies have crushed all before them?

1. Risk avoidance. By this point you've invested a lot in this game, and who knows how a titanic end-game battle between the allies is going to come out? Best to just declare a "win" and not take the chance.

2. Lack of reward. If you can persuade yourself and the community around you that you "won" the game as part of an alliance, what's the motivation to go the extra mile to win as an individual?

3. Social costs. Even if you didn't know your ally before the game, you've built up an effective and successful relationship with them during a period of continuous communication. I'm sure that most game-players have experienced the feelings of betrayal and anger at being backstabbed, and the stronger the previous relationship, the stronger the feelings. And most of us are able to predict these sort of reactions in others. Even though we know we are only playing a game, we're unable to avoid these basic elements of our nature as social animals.

That (obviously) doesn't mean that we never backstab people, but it does mean that we are always evaluating the trade-off in paying the social costs to gain the benefits of doing well in the game (or alternatively that we're not socially aware enough to see any social costs...). And when we get to an end-game position with one or two allies, the costs, benefits and risks listed above all drive us towards preferring to declare a joint "win". It's by far the easiest path.

In short, we wimp out. What else do you call it when you ignore the explicitly stated game objectives because the costs and risks seem too high? It's not inflamatory language; it's a reasoned analysis.