Diplomacy

[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.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
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.

I tend to agree to some extent with your code. Of course, I also don't tend to agree to arrangements that are more binding than a border agreement. Implied is the concept that I consider things on your side of the border to be yours, and will therefore be inclined to leave them to you...but nowhere does it say that I won't actually attack you at some point! By nature, however, I am not a particularly aggressive player and rarely attack unless boxed into an excessively small space, or provoked. Of course, sometimes I feel more belligerent than others, and when I'm in a particularly belligerent mood, it doesn't take a lot to qualify as a casus belli. Generally when this occurs, I go over to "Total War To The Death" mode.

Originally posted by SelfishGene:
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.

You mean if somebody else were between you and the party you're deeming a friend? Yeah, that's the sort of thought that appeals to me also: I tend to be more inclined to be friendly if you are not one of my neighbors. Actual neighbors are always viewed with a strong element of suspicion. Actually, non-neighbors are viewed somewhat suspiciously also, but since they're not in a position to do much about it, they're not a big concern.

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 agree completely. This has led people to view me as paranoid. It's not paranoia when they really are out to get you. You're probably better off not trying to backstab me. I'm on to you. The Last person to try this found that I was all over him like napalm on a baby.

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.

I think he's just a weenie.

[ July 02, 2004, 06:08: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

[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.

[Pickles]

Mark the Merciful said

"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. "

I was being inflamatory (well provocative) - I am afraid reading too much Norfleet got to me.

I am actually arguing against how I would likely play in practice (if I survived that long). For the reasons Mark stated I would want to stay in a successful alliance rather than breaking it up. As Norfleet said earlier the game ceases to be entertaining so people call it. In his case it was wars of annihilation - putatively here it is the trauma of betrayal.

Pickles

[NTJedi]

Originally posted by SelfishGene:
I guess you'd hate playing with me but i wouldn't hold it against you if you betrayed me...

I would only betray you during a treaty if you broke a treaty during a previous turn or previous game. Basically the treaty holds little value knowing a blitzing ambush could arrive at anytime.

Originally posted by SelfishGene:
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.

You are thinking short term... not long term. It's much more valuable to have earned a long term trust with players for many future games even for games outside of dominions. Acquiring this long term trust can be priceless because the two allies can blindly trust each other knowing betrayal will not happen.

Originally posted by SelfishGene:
...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!

Again this is short term thinking where you are seeking victory for this one game. Players will more readily seek treaties with those who stick true with their word. If player_A, player_B and player_C are the same strength/skill... then who is player_B more likely to make a treaty with?? Will it be player_A who has backstabbed him the Last two games or player_C who has always remained honorable to his treaties?
Also it's possible to still surprise attack someone and remain honorable to the treaties until the expiration date.

Originally posted by SelfishGene:
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.

Personally I never get angry during a game or at work... only time I get frustrated is when I'm driving. LOL

[SelfishGene]

I would only betray you during a treaty if you broke a treaty during a previous turn or previous game. Basically the treaty holds little value knowing a blitzing ambush could arrive at anytime.

I was going to argue for some reason, but checked myself, since i don't disagree with you. Still won't stop me however .

You are thinking short term... not long term. It's much more valuable to have earned a long term trust with players for many future games even for games outside of dominions. Acquiring this long term trust can be priceless because the two allies can blindly trust each other knowing betrayal will not happen.

While true insofar as it goes, i'd rather pay you thursday for a hamburger today! Besides all that socializing to get into some inner circle rubs me the wrong way and turns it all into some metagame. I just see this game as M.A.D.-fantasy-chess. I don't care if someone beats me at chess (i mean you can't both win); and i wouldn't hold it against someone if they attacked me at a good moment, since that's exactly what i would do. I play way too many different game genres to care much about my reputation in any particular one.

Players will more readily seek treaties with those who stick true with their word. If player_A, player_B and player_C are the same strength/skill... then who is player_B more likely to make a treaty with?? Will it be player_A who has backstabbed him the Last two games or player_C who has always remained honorable to his treaties?

Maybe i'm just to inhumanely (or disainfully) logical to think that way, and i guess expect everyone else to be just as heartless. For me its a question of position. Is player A becoming stronger than me, or stronger faster? Is player B weak and easy to attack? Should i ally with B and C to beat A? ect. This doesn't mean i can or hae actually played in so detached a manner, and there are lots of practical problems there, but thats my ideal.

So if i'm weak and your weak, it doesn't matter what you think about me, we should be allies irregardless of trust if we can assail a mutual neighbor and profit from his loss.

This has led people to view me as paranoid. It's not paranoia when they really are out to get you. You're probably better off not trying to backstab me. I'm on to you. The Last person to try this found that I was all over him like napalm on a baby.

You see, i'm so subtle that im out to get you even if im not actually playing you. I pretend that my opponent is you and so practice baststabbing you by proxy, as it were.

[ July 03, 2004, 05:59: Message edited by: SelfishGene ]

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by SelfishGene:
Besides all that socializing to get into some inner circle rubs me the wrong way and turns it all into some metagame.

Well, there's a line between what you call as a "metagame", and a desire to be seen as reliable. If you regularly make agreements in poor faith, then people will be less inclined to make agreements with you in the future, given that they do not expect you to actually keep them. I, personally, favor more open-ended agreements, and prefer not to be overtly duplicitous: I won't outright claim to be your ally, and then backstab you shortly afterwards, and any peace agreement I make invariably includes the provision for "the final showdown", to occur when there's nobody else to kill: This is a clearly understood arrangement.

That, and I find backstabbing to be less fun than tapping somebody on the shoulder, waiting for him to turn around, and then stabbing him in the face.

[ July 03, 2004, 06:33: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by SelfishGene:
So if i'm weak and your weak, it doesn't matter what you think about me, we should be allies irregardless of trust if we can assail a mutual neighbor and profit from his loss.

Actually, given the nature of Dominions 2, if you're both weak, and you're neighbors, you may very well be better off finding an opportunity to devour the weak neighbor.

This prevents them from eroding away at your dominion with their Pretender, Prophet, and temples, allowing your dominion's strength to grow more rapidly, or at least be diminished more slowly.

Small fish don't get to be big fish by trying to eat the larger fish in tandem; they get bigger by eating other small fish.

[SelfishGene]

Originally posted by Cainehill:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SelfishGene:
So if i'm weak and your weak, it doesn't matter what you think about me, we should be allies irregardless of trust if we can assail a mutual neighbor and profit from his loss.

Actually, given the nature of Dominions 2, if you're both weak, and you're neighbors, you may very well be better off finding an opportunity to devour the weak neighbor.

This prevents them from eroding away at your dominion with their Pretender, Prophet, and temples, allowing your dominion's strength to grow more rapidly, or at least be diminished more slowly.

Small fish don't get to be big fish by trying to eat the larger fish in tandem; they get bigger by eating other small fish.

---

Hmm ... you may well be right. In the game where i did backstab, i choose to let a considerably weaker neighbor, whom i thought was quite new and confused, survive in order to attack a stronger - i guess out of pity and that i didn't want to kill him off so early. But i misjudged the situation (i had no scouts at all! in any province, and my nation's default cost 70), sent a battle to fight a war, and the rest is, now, history. I also feared losing troops to his castle more than conventional armies - another misjudgement .

Well, there's a line between what you call as a "metagame", and a desire to be seen as reliable. If you regularly make agreements in poor faith, then people will be less inclined to make agreements with you in the future, given that they do not expect you to actually keep them. I, personally, favor more open-ended agreements, and prefer not to be overtly duplicitous: I won't outright claim to be your ally, and then backstab you shortly afterwards, and any peace agreement I make invariably includes the provision for "the final showdown", to occur when there's nobody else to kill: This is a clearly understood arrangement

Well of course if i ever did backstab someone i would just assume they would never trust me again, and i would adopt with them something of the logic from Crime and Punishment - once you start down the path of lies and violence, neccesity pushes you, and fear of your duplicity being revealed compells you, to just sort of "bury" the problem as quickly as possible - and just hope they're not the chatterbox on allchat or email .

But im talking myself into a corner, and i don't want to become "The Backstabbing Guy" . Every diplomatic strategy should be weighed and its costs compared to its merits. If you are going to backstab someone (as i've found bitterly ^^) it should be seen as a strategic decision. Your reputation will plummet, and many other unpredicable things might go awry, so it had better be worth it. But if your playing to win, and you have good information, it might be a smart move.

All i was really arguing initially is against the idea of never backstabbing under any circumstances because of forfeiting brownie points. I'm not trying to suggest one should *seek* to backstab as it may not be the best hand to play in every game.

[ July 04, 2004, 04:18: Message edited by: SelfishGene ]