Diplomacy

[wolfkinsov]

Just a thought or rant depending on your point of view.

To me this game feels a lot like the AH game "Diplomacy". I mean there can only be one winner. There are no points for coming in second. Letting any one country get to big because you stuck to some agreement is the same thing a conseeding defeat. The big boy on the block expects to be takin down. You can honor your agreements with the weak.

I am all for honor and my word, hell I went to USNA. But when you play theses games that is how they are played, double dealing, double crossing, who to trust, when will you be backstabbed.

There can be only one in the end.

Anyone else have a thought.

[Vynd]

Well this is true to an extent. Obviously I don't expect any sort of treaty I reach with someone to Last forever. But the community of players is fairly small, and if you engage in outright backstabbing all the time word will get around. People will know they can't trust you, so if they find that you're near them in a game they'll probably just make an agreement with someone they do trust to team up and wipe you out. Heck, even within a single game if you get a reputation as a jerk its possible the other players may gang up on you.

So there are definite incentives to "bad" behavior, but there are some disincentives also.

[Pirateiam]

To be quite honest diplomacy to me is one of the most exciting and fun parts of the game. It gives it personality. Some you can blindly trust and some you have to watch with one eye open while you sleep. I actually before I start a multiplyer game decide either I will play like a white hat (honest and trustworthy) or black hat (decide only on what helps your agenda). It is part of the role playing aspect.

[Norfleet]

I tend to either not make any agreements, and simply stonewall if badgered about one until I feel I can make an agreement I'd actually keep, or make one that I more or less intend to keep until the implied expiration point at the endgame.

Of course, I have no illusions that my opponent will do the same. An ancient Arab proverb states, "Trust in Allah, but tie your camel."

To this end I tend not to agree to anything more binding than a border agreement, and then spend the rest of the game watching that border like a hawk, just waiting for the first sign of trouble. But I always let him make the first move, and make sure that this move will be a mistake.

After that, we move to the next phase of relations, otherwise known as "Total War To The Death". Forgiveness may be divine, but divinity comes after you WIN the game, not before.

[ June 30, 2004, 01:47: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

[Gandalf Parker]

I keep all my agreements. Most of them tend to be easy in that respect since they take the form of NAP's. A Non-Aggression Pact with an agreement such as a turn limit or maybe a 3 turns notify before breaking it. Other agreements are might be full alliances where if the alliance is standing at the end we either declare the game done, or fight it out for fun. One of the complaints since the early days of Dom1 is that the community is too tight. Games are arranged between known logins here or in newsGroups. Too many games were won by alliances. My reputation might be virtual but its important to me.

This is something the game developers didnt really have in mind. The game was designed to be cut-throat. But until the player base gets larger, or some web-site offers anonymous games, the cut-throat games might not be all that common.

[ June 30, 2004, 02:06: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

[Zapmeister]

Originally posted by wolfkinsov:
To me this game feels a lot like the AH game "Diplomacy". I mean there can only be one winner. There are no points for coming in second. Letting any one country get to big because you stuck to some agreement is the same thing a conseeding defeat. The big boy on the block expects to be takin down. You can honor your agreements with the weak.

This is how it should be, IMHO. Unfortunately, there are some players out there willing to agree to joint victory which is (again, IMHO) contrary to the spirit of one-god ascension and unfair to the opponents that want to stay true to that spirit. People that know me from Dom1 will know I can get quite hysterical on this topic.

I am all for honor and my word, hell I went to USNA. But when you play theses games that is how they are played, double dealing, double crossing, who to trust, when will you be backstabbed.

I think there's a lot more to diplomacy than double-dealing and back-stabbing. You've described the real polit, in which everyone understands that ultimately, everyone else is out to kill them. But it's still possible to be honourable. For example, many people agree to giving one or more turn's notice for the cancellation of alliances and NAPs. If you stick to your promises, you can keep your honour and still win the game.