MP Game - Artifact Game - running 48hr qh

[archaeolept]

yah - they have their own problems though; namely, highly organized trading routines - player one takes high scales and feeds all the cash to teammate w/ the insane uber-bless, for instance.

[Cainehill]

So you do the alliances randomly, after pretenders are uploaded, making it a lot rougher to do that min-maxing : after all, what happens if _all_ your team has horrible scale uber-blesses and can't afford to buy any troops?

Actually, I'd love to see a "no-trade" option in Dom3 to prevent this - maybe "sending items good, money bad" options.

[Boron]

A new total random no diplomacy game would be cool too i think. I hate Diplomacy in Dominions too since i always think it needs the least skill. In order to keep it easy and short i prefer to do my diplomacy if i have to do it in IRC instead though because this is quicker and more reliable than via PMs.

What about a new Random no Diplomacy game with 7 or 8 players?
This way every player could get the choice to pick one of 2 nations. The host would offer the nations semirandom then by selecting them sane, i.e. not offering two similiar nations which are both considered weak but rather 2 different nations to each player that they have lots of choices.

Like player a would get the choice between Abysia and Caelum, player b between Machaka and Ermor, player c between Ryleh and Jotunheim etc. .
So the chance is smaller that you get assigned a nation you really dislike and with 8 players the game isn't that large neither and no diplomacy.

In the last random game i played it was on orania with 15 players and i was unlucky enough to get assigned Mictlan.
If a sane host would offer 2 nations for each of the 7 or 8 participating players such a cruel assignment could be avoided.
Such a game i would find interesting enough to break my intention to not play any more longterm games till dom3.

[Cainehill]

A bidding arrangement might be better (more so if Dom3 supported it to allow people to give up pretender points in a bid) : Instead of someone potentially getting a choice of Mictlan or Tien Chi, everyone puts in 3 bids towards nations, the first bid is worth most, but whichever bid takes subtracts points from their pretender total.

Heh. Taken to an extreme : someone is the only bidder on Ulm, they might _gain_ extra pretender creation points, while Marignon, Jotuns, etc, all lost points.

[quantum_mechani]

I would just like to say, saying that it was 'decided to throw the game to Ironhawk' is a gross misrepresentation of what happened. So, perhaps you will indulge me a quick description of events from my point of view...

As I was finishing the Marignon war I realized I was in a very precarious position, the biggest target for the two most powerful nations, but also threatening enough for minor nations to gang me. Both arch and Ironhawk were pressuring me to their sides, arch with spies, Ironhawk saying he was already prepared for an invasion. So there were a lot of reasons to choose to attack arch:

1. If I didn't, Ironhawk would be attacking right away, and I was not prepared for a war instantly.

2. Boron had already committed to suicideing vs. arch, if I let him go it alone I would end up with a big open border with arch in the north.

3. I hate fighting C'tis.

4. Arch seemed the bigger threat to winning at the time.

So once I was committed to this course of action, it was only natural that I should try to enlist as many allies as possible, and I must admit the number exceeded my expectations. But once they had joined the war, it pretty much precluded me pulling out without effectively backstabbing them.

So now fast forward to when most of my allies are dead, dying or distracted. Now I could probably pull out without to much repercussions there, but there are other factors:

1. If I stopped attacking Arch and just sat and did nothing, the game would get very boring, and I would still lose. If I instead switched sides and attacked Ironhawk, I was fairly sure he would consider that backstabbing.

2. Even at this point, I think switching sides would probably be 'throwing the game to Arch' as much as the reverse is 'throwing the game to Ironhawk'.

3. I hate fighting C'tis.

So I was stuck in a very tough spot diplomatically, no matter what I did I would be insulting Ironhawk or Arch. I very much agree with Caine and Boron that it is unfortunate diplo seems to overshadow the rest of the game, and cause so much animosity. Of all the long term games I have been in were the diplo turned sour (and I have been in a lot of those) this one is probably the worst since there is no one player like stormbinder that can be pointed to as the cause of discord.

Anyway, since as far as I can see there is not anyone still having much fun in this game, I propose we simply stop here and call it a tie among surviving players or some such.

[Morkilus]

I really can't figure out why there should be any animosity. It's a free-for-all as the game was set up, so why can't players do whatever they want in the context of the game? Having to make meta-decisions about diplomacy because you might "insult" other players is more gamey than arrow-catchers.

Diplomacy is part of the game as it is set up. There are RAND and team games for those that don't like it. You can spend your gaming time strategizing and scripting your troops, or you can spend it attempting to coax players onto your side... both are part of the game as I understand it.

I'm irritated the game had to break down because of feelings, and hoped it could go to its own conclusion without accusations and stomping off in self-righteousness. But if nobody's having fun, I'm all for spending time elsewhere as well.

Maybe in the future, easier win conditions could offset stalemates and hurt feelings. I can't even imagine how the CoW game is going to end... I'm guessing Dom3 will come out and everyone will simultaenously quit

[Ironhawk]

archaeolept said:
so, upon discussions w/ quantum, it appears that not only was this a 6 vs 1 gangbang, but that the decision was earlier made to throw the game to ironhawk. That's one way to play, but not a style I am interested in supporting. after this turn i plan on staling my way out of the game, though i shall not resign.

Yeah this viewpoint is one-sided and completely unfair. The truth of the matter was a simple crisis of diplomacy. There came a time when my nation was ready for serious war. The targets were either Man or Pan. Pan was my first choice since he had explicitly told me he was going to invade me over the issue of the Treelords. BUT during my prepartions to pre-emptivly attack Pan, Ulm attacked him instead. Knowing then that if I too were to attack Pan that he would quickly be crushed and I would rapidly find myself with a long front facing a very powerful Ulm I was still unready to face... I chose the second option and attacked Man. After the Man conflict was completed I decided to use the attention-vacuum caused by the two major super-powers fighting in order to try and tackle Ermor.

As fighting in the Ermor war progressed favorably I began to look forward to the future. What would happen when Ermor was finished? Clearly I would have to attack a superpower, but which one? I chose to eventually attack Ulm as the bigger threat, given that he seemed to be succesfully waging war against not one but five nations. Additionally, if Ulm were to be defeated, the resulting geographic layout of Pan provinces would favor my eventual invasion of them. So, two turns ago, I made the final decision and began to support the Panish war effort with intelligence and material.

[Saber Cherry]

"No Diplomacy" is like playing the AI. Since "Unlimited Diplomacy" invariably causes problems and hard feelings (in games, offices, and nations), how about "Limited Diplomacy"?

- Limited Diplomacy Levels -

Level 0: No diplomacy. Public nondiplomatic messages allowed.

Level 1: No private diplomacy. Public declarations allowed (but not required): Unilateral declarations of war, unilateral declarations of peace, requests for trade at a fixed rate. Conditions allowed on war/peace declarations: Anything that does not involve a 3rd party.
Examples:
"I will send 6 water gems to anyone who sends me an Ice Sword. Should I receive too many, I will return the excess."
"I will declare war on Ulm unless his troops leave Province 120, and he gives me 200 gold in reparations."
"My people love the citizens of Soulgate Ermor, and would be content with our present borders for the next 16 months if Ermor will also pledge to peace."

...Of course, that causes a lot of public messaging, but it shouldn't be too much trouble.

Level 2: Private diplomacy allowed. However, no politics involving a 3rd party are allowed. In other words - no alliances, no mutual protection agreements, no discussion of other nations, implict or explicit. Trading is unrestricted.


Level 1 and level 2 are the same, except level 2 allows secret deals and directed trading. Still - since all deals are required to be fully unilateral, with no mention of any third party - there should not be any hard feelings, questions of ganging up, accusations of unfairness, soiled honor, or anything else; so long as everyone (with the exception of, at most, one person) in the game is trusted not to grossly violate explicit rules.

[archaeolept]

<quantum_mechani> well, I would have just withdrawn from the game myself but I figured ironhawk would get unstoppable soon enough, and I'm enjoying our war a fair amount
<archae> like i said, a rigged game
...
<quantum_mechani> you have to understand I am in a very awkward situation, whatever I do I'm slighting either you or iron
<archae> lol
<archae> you've thrown the game
<archae> i don't need any other rationalisations
<archae> games aren't primarily about winning
<archae> they're about how well you play, and about honour
<quantum_mechani> yeah, that's exaxtly it, and I see no honourable way out
<quantum_mechani> if I go iron's way I'm throwing the game

[quantum_mechani]

What is missing in that quote is a set of quotation marks around 'throwing the game' in the last line (not that I am saying the quote is incorrect, only that it would have clearified my intended meaning). IIRC, the gist of that and the next few lines was if I allied with Ironhawk you would call it thowing the game, if I switched to an alliance with you Iron would very likely consider it backstabbing.