Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)

[Baalz]

Indeed. To me "backstabbing encouraged" games are really "quasi-no diplomacy" games, as in the spirit of the rules of the game every player should be looking at attacking every other player if there is a good opportunity, regardless of the completely meaningless words exchanged. It's stated up front by the host that everyone's words are meaningless, you *can't* have a NAP...though you're free to agree to whatever you want with other players knowing full well it's meaningless.

[TheDemon]

I, on the other hand, make a different list, of players whom I think are likely to put a big black mark on my record if I backstab them. Much easier to backstab someone who doesn't care, and all the sweeter when you pull out the dagger if you know the player who does care trusts you, because the players who really care about keeping deals aren't going to pay attention to a little blurb about "non-binding NAPs" in a game description, even moreso than the backstabbers aren't going to care about its omission.

[namad]

After speaking with rdonj about the topic, I get the feeling that the idea he has in mind is not the same idea baalz just stated. Then again who knows, the vagueness of the topic makes it difficult to tell if anyone is agreeing with anyone else.

In a game especially designed for manipulation of other players via diplomacy, is it possible to have *all* diplomacy be totally meaningless?



This contradiction led me to consider if I wished to play in this game or not. However, once I realized this phenomenon, where everyone interrupts the same statement in a different fashion, was universal... I was able to rationalize my position as yet another interruption of that statement. Therefore, I can believe whatever I want to believe without needing to disbelieve anyone else's interpretation! It then became logically consistent for everyone to disagree about the scenario's guidelines. As a result I won't have any problem playing in the game.


On a larger scope, the games where diplomatic constraints are "unstated" or stated as "no restrictions"... suffer from the same problem. Many people take this to mean that naps cannot be broken and then they whine when they are. Still others take this to mean there are no rules and no need to honor naps. So, the scenario in which every dominions3 game is played is one where each individual player plays according to his own set of rules, which almost always differ from another player's guidelines. This seems to be a contradiction of sorts, but given that it has occurred 1000s of times and in fact ALWAYS occurs... clearly it must be a valid and consistent game setup. Despite appearances to the contrary.

[Calahan]

I think the main problem people have is that they consider both the following types of NAP's to be governed by the same level of trust.

1 - An NAP you sign with another nation, and then have no further contact or dialogue with until 50+ turns later when one of the nations involved says "Hey, you just attacked me. But we signed an NAP 50+ turns ago!".

2 - An NAP you sign with another nation, and then have constant contact with throughout the course of the game, trading items, intel, maybe coordinating attacks.


I consider case 1 to be pretty much a joke. As how can it possibly be realistic to think... "How can I defend the huge 10 border province I have with my Eastern neighbour? I know, lets defend it all nice and securely with a little piece of paper with NAP written on it. As that means I can leave vast sections of my empire completely undefended, and I'll never have to put any troops there again what-so-ever. That is until my Eastern neighbour gives me a convenient 3-turn warning that he is going to attack me in that area."

To me, this way of thinking has no logic to it, or even a remote connection to the realities of any strategy game I have ever played. And anyone who thinks along these lines deserves to get backstabbed to death in every game they play.


Whereas case 2 above is a situation in which you will rarely see a back-stabbing incident occur. As there you have two nations who have agreed to not fight each other for the mutual benefit of both nations, but are in constant contact, and are both regularly benefiting from such a high level of contact.

So at least in my experience to date, a high level of respect builds up between the players involved in these cases, which greatly reduces the chances of any back-stabbing. It may still happen of course, but anyone who has worked closely with another player in a game over any reasonable duration of time, would find it very difficult to suddenly turn on their friend and ally.

Whether case 2 should be like that in the context of the game is another matter, but in reality that is how it does tend to work.

[Executor]

Diplomacy is an ability to gain strategic advantage and find solutions, so if someone makes a NAP so he can more easily attack it's still a diplomatic move to me, and a good one.

I believe both types of NAPs stated above by Calahan are the same, and should not require "maintainance", however a NAP is basically a show/sign of trust between two nations/players, and it is specifically up to them if they are to find them binding or not, and of course the "house rules", which are rarely stated, and never state that NAP are binding which would be ridiculous IMO.
But still, a player who belies that a NAP in any case scenario is enough of a protection has still quite a lot to learn, and should experience some backstabbing as a lesson.

I don't think that diplomacy is meaningless in Machiavellian games as Baalz states, however it is probably reduced to a lower level and players should be aware of what type of game they are entering and not ***** about it if they get screwed over.

But again, Machiavellian game or not is the same to me, nothing prevents anyone from breaking any form of pact, agreement in any game as all is fare in love and war, and as I said, it would be stupid to assume that pacts cannot be broken, any pact.

[Squirrelloid]

Diplomacy in a machiavellian game is the art of convincing your rivals that what is to your advantage is also to their advantage. A rival who believes that what you want is also to his advantage will likely do what you want or something close to it. I had an NAP last over 50 turns in Water Total War because we both understood that violating it would take us both out of the game. (I think he jumped the gun slightly in ending it, but I shall enjoy watching him die =) ).

Also, feel free to whine about being stabbed, just don't expect anyone to care. But stabbing will put a blackmark on that nation's reputation (at least in game) and other nations may be more wary about dealing with them in the future. Nations who honor their agreements will find other nations are more likely to form and honor agreements with them.

[LumenPlacidum]

Sure, I'll join this as a normal nation.

[LupusFatalis]

I'll play.

[Septimius Severus]

It is good to see so many NvV alumni signing up for this game, they are a fine group of players.

Rdonj, have all other settings been decided upon via the earlier concept thread? Map type (i.e. random with placed starts, pre-existing with placed starts, or custom with placed starts), nation selection process, etc?

It will be interesting to see who will prevail in this mixed FFA type game. Likely, one of the overlords will have a good chance with their perks and being helmed by an experienced player. Geography may play a role in deciding which players choose to work together initially but as it is FFA there can be only one winner.

If I am needed to reach a recruitment goal and no one else can be found you may count me in as a normal nation. Otherwise should someone need a sub I am likewise available, especially for any of my former teammates. Best of luck.

[Jarkko]

Interesting to read the comments about importance of diplomacy in NAP and non-NAP enviroment. I've played mostly multiplayer games (where communication and diplomacy are of utter importance) outside these forums, and the whole concept of NAP's has been slightly alien to me. My conclusion has been this: Enforced NAP's kill the diplomacy in the game. I think diplomacy and communicating is *much* more important in games where NAP's are not enforced.

Although, I've played exactly one game where NAP's were accrding to the game rules binding; it is the exact one game where I have had the least diplomacy and contact with the other players. You sign a NAP, after that you don't have to give a hoot of what the other thinks; if he intends to attack you, he will have to inform you ages before. NAP games are the lazy mans games and not very different from single play, if you ask me

Where NAP's are not binding you actually have to *play* the game as a multiplayer game: You have to be in contact with the other players, you have to rely more on intelligence gathered (both in game and outside the game in communications with the other players. Pacts and alliances are much more fluid, becaue you know you can talk yourself out from sticky situations if you just are able to prove the alternative to your destruction is the better one (while in NAP games that is not true; how can you can you possibly take advantage of a lucrative situation where your NAP partner is doing something silly and still expect you to still let him get to a winning position?).

Without enforced NAP's you have to build yourself a reputation. Do you want to be viewed as a windmill, who rotates allegiances all the time? Do you want to be viewed as a bonehead, rigidly following agreed plans even if they mean your own destruction? Or do you want to be viewed as a reliable character who still are not totally against the idea of changing direction if the situation so demands?

Of course each of us have our own views on not only the other players, but on our selves too. It would be interesting to know how close your own views on self correlates with the views others have on you