pentagram diplomacy

[Wauthan]

Wouldn't it be easier to simply put a limit on two enemies? Symmetrical animosity demands a symmetrical expansion. That's good and well on a map like the Theather of War but in the Cradle of Dominion I might very well be isolated from my enemies in a sea of "friends".

Perhaps another system based on chance, voting or rules could be deviced. Perhaps you always go to war with the first nation you encounter and then can't start a new war until that opponent is defeated. First one to defeat two enemies wins?

[Chazar]

Zooko said:
A big difference between this 7-player graph and the 5-player case is that in the 5-player (pentagram) game, you are always your enemy's enemy.

Yes, and my intention was the following:
I want a game where everybody is at war with everybody else. There shouldnt be much time for building up an army and then just steamrolling without a good fight. Furthermore eliminating three nations seemed difficult to me in a 7 player game, so I was stuck with 2 goals.

So I decided to decouple the goals: Everyone must defend against two nations, but this isnt his topmost priority. Even worse, should he cripple one of his attackers, someone else will win (there is always someone who has those two attackers by design). So that means that there are no likely allies around - No FRIENDS! -, but nevertheless one should better hurry up to see that the right nations are killed, since it is likely that someone wins as soon as the second nation gets wiped out!


Maybe having three goals set is also feasible for a vicotry condition: So one nation has to kill three others, and the remaining three will try to kill this nation:

A - B,C,D
B - C,D,E
C - D,E,F
D - E,F,G
E - A,F,G
F - A,B,G
G - A,B,C
(i.e. every nation needs to kill the next three on a circle, yielding the 7-symmetrical complete graph on 7 vertices).

This seems to guarantee even more trouble, but on the other hand, this victory condition imposes a not so immediate danger of fullfillment, while already suggesting alliances with the two neighbors on the circle who share the goal by 2/3 (whereas the previous chart didnt suggest any alliances, at least none that I could spot), which in turn greatly depends on the starting positions within the map (i.e. am encircled by my two likely allies, or they far or near...).


BTW: these charts shall not prohibit alliances nor wars at all - its just the victory condition...

[Zooko]

By the way, I've realized something silly about the pentagram style: being enemies with the two players opposite you (on the strategic map) makes it so that you will always collide with one of your non-enemies. That is: you attacking your enemy, and the guy next to you attacking his enemy have to go through the same middle provinces.

However, saying that you are enemies with the two people *next* to you avoids that problem while retaining the exact same diplomatic issues.

[Zooko]

I know it is possible to edit a map so that it has five specific starting positions.

But is it possible to make a map with per-player victory points? So that player A has requires three victory points to win: VP a, VP b, and VP c. And player B requires three victory points to win: VP a, VP b and VP d. And so on?

This would be the way to implement the pentagram (or other player-specific) win conditions.

[Chazar]

A friend of mine pointed out how to arrange some symmetry for the 7 nation victory condition, so I updated the picture in my previous Last post in this threas to a more pleasing and more fair one, and I have also updated my comments about that picture as well as design reasons in that previous-Last post of mine.

I am interested in playing a game with such a victory condition, but I am currently involved in enough games, so I am going to ask about that later...

[Zooko]

The 2x2x2x2x2 game that we are playing (you can see it in the multiplayer games section of this forum) is really fun.

One of the teams has been all but eliminated, and an interesting consequence of this is that the two teams who were not the dead team's enemies have become ipso facto allies even though they are technically enemies. You can see why this works when you consider that neither of them can win if the other one dies *first* -- both of them have to kill their *other* enemy before they can kill that enemy. If they kill that enemy first then one of their competitors wins.

I'm pleased and amused. And it's fun.