Diplomacy ethics

[thejeff]

Originally Posted by Jarkko

That is the whole point, isn't it? The whole concept of strategical suprise is gone. Will you ever attack an opponent who is stronger than you if you have to tell him many turns before that you are going to attack? No you won't, it would be suicide. In a game with binding diplomacy, when you notice somebody is heading for victory the game is already over, there is nothing you can do.

That also neglects the other aspect of diplomacy: other people. Most of the time, if you notice someone heading for victory, you can round up other people to help attack him. Since you'll likely want to do this even in a non-binding diplomacy game and "I'm going to break my word to him, but you can trust me" isn't a very good argument, it may still be worth giving warning, so your allies will trust you.

[GrudgeBringer]

I think Jarko misunderstood me. You aren't one one list or the other, cut and dried. I keep a list of those that only I feel acted dishonorably. And that could well be towards another player and not me.

Just because your not on that list doesn't make you my pal by any means. Lets just say I will give you some trust and we will build trust in each other over that and other games.

One time Executor and I where allies and where on our way to winning the game when I ran hard into a nation and the fighting got pretty hard and heavy. I inadvertently cut Executor off form expansion and after a while he actually came to me and apologized but said that he had to expand and that I was the weakest link because of my war and that he had to attack me.

All my troops where south and he started across the north and started taking province after province...I couldn't stop him so I just continued my war in the south until he finally came down and took me out and took over my war. He won the game.

I do NOT consider that dishonorable and it was my fault I didn't protect myself.

What I am saying is, while I have a list of those I don't trust, doesn't mean they can't be trusted. Just as those I have good relations with sometimes we just have to fight it out.

But sometimes I can breathe a sigh of relief when I find a certain player is next to me.

I guess for me its a community game first and a war game second...not a win at all cost game. You will never see me in the hall of fame (except on a team game). And I DO respect others to have the right to be Chaotic Evil.

[Psycho]

Originally Posted by Jarkko

That is the whole point, isn't it? The whole concept of strategical suprise is gone. Will you ever attack an opponent who is stronger than you if you have to tell him many turns before that you are going to attack? No you won't, it would be suicide. In a game with binding diplomacy, when you notice somebody is heading for victory the game is already over, there is nothing you can do.

This is completely untrue. I never broke a NAP, but was still able to exercise many successful surprise attacks. You don't have to surround yourself with NAPs, make only those that are necessary/benefactory; end them when they are no longer needed, not necessarily attacking immediately. When attacking a stronger opponent, find an ally or end your NAP in a bad moment for the stronger player, for example as soon as he starts a war with someone. If you notice that someone is heading for victory three turns before he wins, there is little you can do anyways. Keep an eye on the game and you will be able to end your NAP in a timely manner.

I find it pretty stupid that all new games starting these days advertise diplomacy rules - either as machiavellian or binding. I would never join any of those games. Leave it to each player to play the way that suits him.

[vfb]

Declaring in the OP that a game has Machavellian rules just gets rid of the drama in the (actually rare, even in a Machavellian rules game) cases that someone does decide to attack prior to a NAP expiring.

[thejeff]

It seems to me that there should be 3 sets of rules:
Binding: Actual penalties for breaking agreements
Default: Reputation only
Treachery Encouraged: Whatever you like, as nasty as you want. Dirty trick encouraged. Behavior here shouldn't be considered in other games.

I'm not sure which of those last two would be considered "Machavellian". I suspect different people might have different answers.

[vfb]

IMO "Machavellian" is the last one. But even in a game like that, you still start off with a default "good" reputation. That's what I've seen in the games like that which I set up or joined, anyhow.

There is still very little backstabbing, because:

- Your ability to make future diplomatic agreements in that game will suffer
- You'd better be sure that your backstabbing will quickly kill your foe, because his nation should rightly strike back. With great vengeance and furious anger!

So what's the point? Less OOC drama and whining in the forums, for one. And you reset to a "good" reputation in the next game.

[Belac]

I really don't think it makes that much of a difference. A well-timed announcement that a NAP-3 will be retired can be as devastating as a full-on sneak attack, especially if you've been talking all friendly-like, discussing alliance possibilities, and the other guy was -absolutely- convinced he could declare war on another of his neighbors.

In other words, binding diplomacy does not mean no deceit and scrupulous honesty. It means you have to be just a little bit more subtle if you want to catch someone out.

(Also, I will very rarely make a formal agreement to not fight until 'x' turn, or to not make peace with 'x' nation, etc. 'I will not do 'y' unless I give you 'x' turns warning' is very different from either of those)

[Foodstamp]

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I have a hard time letting a back stabber live long in the next game I play with them.

A guy broke a NAP with me once, and we met again the very next game I joined with me playing Pangaea and him playing Agartha. We bumped into each other around turn 6 both going for the same independent province. It was an accidental slaughter, but it led to me systematically following his province trail back to his capital and putting him out shortly after.

So I broke the sacred rule of what happens in a game stays in a game. The guy begged for peace and he was met with silence and destruction! I wonder how many other players do the same.

[vfb]

Really? Sounds just like a good strategic decision to me. If you had been Agartha and the other guy had been Pan, it probably would have gone the other way.

By "broke a NAP", you mean "violated", not "cancelled", right?

[Foodstamp]

Correct. I was at war with another player and he attacked me despite the NAP. Given the situation, I may have pushed him anyway, but knowing who he was made it a no brainer. What I am getting at is his actions in the first game had an influence on the second game even though we are supposed to give people a clean slate from game to game. I don't think I am capable of that!