Diplomacy ethics

[militarist]

If you acheive agreement with Nation1 to declare WAR together to nation2. You declare, and your ally says it declared it as well. At the end you realize that Nation1 never canceled NAP with nation2 and don't going to, and doesn't go to war at all. For me learning of it was quite late for obvious reasons.

In RL I understand everything but direct lie to my eyes. As for game community ethics, I'm just trying to understand the borders - where is the border between something which is a "strong dimoplacy skill" and creating a situation similar for me to attacking me ignoring NAP.

Is there some kind of a reputation list, where newbie player can learn about reputation of other players? Or reputation and dimoplacy are dead here? Or work only for a few elite players who afraid only to break work given to each others?

[rdonj]

This is actually the most complicated question to answer of the ones you've posted so far. First, it depends on the kind of game that you've joined. Often in the first post of a game thread, the game host will state outright whether diplomacy should be machiavellian (nothing you say to another player matters, and you don't have to respect any agreements/whatever that you make with them), or that diplomacy is binding. In a diplo is binding game, breaking agreements with other players is frowned upon and could hurt your reputation. Many of the more experienced players are quite trustworthy in such games, but there are also those who feel that if it is to their advantage to break a deal with another player, that it is their right to do so.

There is no active tracking of people who break agreements... only your own memory, and the memories of those who hear about such things. So if you want to find out whether someone is trustworthy you have to play a game with them, look up other games they've been in, or ask around and see what other people have to say about them.

For the record, in my personal experience most people do not break treaties in the diplo is binding sort of games. If you are worried about playing with trustworthy players, joining only those sorts of games is probably sufficient to avoid being backstabbed.

[Squirrelloid]

Fact:
Every player develops a relationship and reputation with other players as to how 'honorable' he is, how sneaky, and so on.

Opinion:
There is a difference between misleading and outright lying. For example:

"So are you going to attack me next turn?"
"No, I'm not."

vs.

"So, are you going to attack me next turn?"
"You aren't nearly as good a target as [Nation A] is."

In the first example, if an attack did occur, it would be a direct lie and should impact reputation. In the latter example the responder misdirected, and never actually claimed they weren't going to attack, merely suggested an alternative course of action without committing to anything. In that case I'd say an attack is merely sneaky, and shouldn't impact reputation (or rather, shouldn't impact your reputation for honor. It should improve your reputation for craftiness).

[vfb]

Militarist, it's impossible to judge the situation, given that you are only providing the story of one party in a larger tale.

The responsibility of each nation is to its own welfare, and it would be distressing to say the least for your presumed ally to join in the war as he had agreed to, if between making the agreement with you and the time to go to war, events conspired to make joining in this gankfest disadvantageous to your intended ally.

I do agree that if you had made some sort of payment to him, in return for him joining you in the war, it would be unfair for him not to return that payment, if he has changed his mind.

It's not exactly like ganging up on a nation 2-to-1 is an honourable enterprise in the first place, unless you intended target was as strong as the two of you.

[Nasser]

There can be only one.

[rdonj]

Militarist, it's impossible to judge the situation, given that you are only providing the story of one party in a larger tale.

Yeah, I tried to answer fairly generally, but really it depends a lot on the specific situation. And is a very sticky sort of question in a game like this.

[WingedDog]

My recommendation is to choose games which suits you.
If you honor the NAP and expect everyone to do so - join games with unbreakable NAPS.
If you think NAP is crap and all means are good for victory - join Machiavellian games.
If you prefer no diplomacy at all - join RAND games.

If administrator of the game didn't state any diplomacy rules in the OP - ask him to specify, or else it would be a stumbling block later on.

And you can certainly create your own game with your own rules.

[militarist]

It's written: "Standard rules regarding diplomacy" .. and that's all we have..
As for specific situation - after coming to agreement and my question which turn he will declare war, I've got:
"I'm declaring war on this move.
Cheers,"

Quite strightforward. I understand the difference between beign evasive in answers, ans open lie, Squirrelloid, and I've read Machiavelli , all book I've managed to find, though, thanks anyway. It's the same in life. We can dislike people who are evasive and canny, but we never deal with a person who openly lied at least once.


Thanks all for advice. I see It's a complicated issue.

[militarist]

And the guy who broke the deal, avoided war against him in this way. I was thinking to attack him and questioned our NAP (he did something, I would say, evasive before all this situation), and tell that he should free the province or we should reconsider our NAP (he was made in dependence of some borders agreement, which was ignored by him.). So I proposed to remove his army or fight with me against the closest enemy to this my border. He choose second..and that's result. I'm not complaining :) just trying to understand the spirit here and what to expect from this "diplomacy".

[militarist]

Dominions coul learn a lot from Civilization game - diplomacy and morale punishment for attacking much weaker player.

[Squirrelloid]

I'm not sure I'd say I'd dislike someone who is evasive and canny when i'm playing as an opponent in a war game. I'd probably respect them for it. Misdirection is fundamental to the art of war, and diplomacy is just war by other means. Consider the words of Sun Tzu:

"All warfare is based on deception."
"Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt."
"Be extremely subtle even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate."

I find it hard to dislike someone for conducting themselves skillfully in a war game. Of course, if they are really good at it, you may know they were non-committal, but you won't know what their aims are.

Re: Civilizations
Its other people who are making judgements about diplomacy, and they are making them based on exactly what they should be making them on: relative advantage, future prediction/projection, and self interest. That you think troop morale should suffer when attacking a weaker foe is mind-boggling.

Re:Standard rules for diplomacy
Standard diplomacy is Machiavellian - ie, only what the game engine enforces, which is nothing. There is no other standard. Machiavellian just means caveat emptor, not that you can expect everyone to lie.

[elmokki]

I personally like my diplomacy bloody, and will never ever join a game where I can't lie to and manipulate other players.

But yeah, it's really a matter of prefrence. If you want lasting agreements, sure, play with people who want the same.

[Sombre]

A lot of players would consider diplomacy to be completely pointless if you're allowed to lie and break any treaty. So I can see why they'd get annoyed if they ran into other people who were playing that way and they didn't realise it - it would feel like they'd been wasting their time.

If you have strong feelings about diplomacy you should make them known. I also think diplomacy outside of the game (for example lying about your own diplomatic preferences or carrying stuff from one game to another) is generally recognised to be BS because people want the game to be the game and everything outside of it to be unrelated.

[Psycho]

Diplomacy is what you make of it. Personally, I wouldn't trust that person again.

[Jarkko]

I've played a couple games with binding diplo agreements. Not my cup of tea. I've played Diplomacy the board-game as PBM (and later PBeM) since early 80's, and not being able to backstabb if you really really truly need to is just weird. Everybody builds up their own reputation. I wouldn't count on anybodys word in game as long as there is no clear advantage of sticking to his word (like he is getting something useful from a war, like new land or just being able to hold down an expanding neighbour), and usually not even when it would be of great benefit to stick to their word. It is, after all, just a game, and sometimes an un-timely backstabb can make the game more interesting (especially if there is a good story to it :) ).

[militarist]

I see. The more people respond - the more opinions we have :).
I don't really have some strict "demand" for a game. If it's a "standard rule", then at least it's predictable, even lack of guarantee is information.

The question of how I believe it should be done (as any other law) - the way it benefits community better. Some libertarians, of course will say that the less laws the better. I uderstand them as well unless they act as spoilers of community and we lose newbie players s result who we could enjoy playing with. I believe Dom3 were quite popular and still many people are looking for games on this forum. Karma doesn't really work in game enviroment, but in life we have compassion and some of people believe in something. And Machiavelli is just one of strategists, worth to be familiar with, but not many really could take 100% of his ethics in RL even if they think that they could :). After achieving something in management, really a lot of managers start thinink about usig the word "ecology" in relation to management practices. And that's not only because of beliefs or somethig othe irrational. No one can really rule without integrity. And being different with different people make you loos this feeling of integrity.
But that's not what I wated to say.. Being the owner of your word even to your enemies (I mean avoid direct lie) let you much more loyality of your subordinates. If your subordinates see you are direct lier, they will cynically copy your practices against you. And you will not be able to collect those people around you, which could be kept in a state of loyality, basing on positive feelings, not only greed, lie and other staff... Here we have no such word as people management, so we have less realism. That's what I wanted to say.

[Warhammer]

The big issue is how you handle it.

Having played Diplomacy PBEM for a while, Diplomacy is a huge thing. The catch is, you should never lie, unless it is a game changing issue. If there are four nations left, you are #4 allied to #1, and realize tha if you gang up against #2 and #3 you are going to lose, you go ahead and make the stab. The only possible way you win is if you all gang up against #1. The problem is, do the other players trust you when the dust settles?

That is the fundamental problem "care bears" have. They do not know how to play the diplomatic game well. You should constantly be going back and forth regarding the game. Talk about some discussions you are having with other players, forment wars in other parts of the map by discussing what other players are going to do to them, etc.

I played in a game a few years back where one I tried to switch from being allied to the #3 player, to the #1 player (#3 was in a better late game situation). #1 kept on "messing up orders". So when push came to shove and I had to go a way, I went with he #3 player. #1, completely blindsided by this, made it his sole purpose in the game to keep me from winning. Some players might get upset by it, but in a game with diplomacy, even the nuclear option is on the table (I'll do what ever it takes to keep you from winning). The heck of it is, and the player never saw this, is that it really was in my best interest to side with him, but he never saw what he did as impacting relations. How can I side with someone if they "keep messing up orders"?

All that said, Diplomacy is a huge factor in games and should be that way. Keeping you word should carry some weight, but players should understand when a player does not keep his word when it is in his best interest to break an agreement unannounced.

[rdonj]

Ugh. Did you have to go there?

[vfb]

Where, "Care bears"? What's a "care bear"?

[chrispedersen]

In the long term, having a reputation for never breaking your word will attract you as an ally, and mark you for people that will take advantage of it.

Still, generally said, the people that will never break words will tend to know who each other are. Watch each others backs.

[Squirrelloid]

Where, "Care bears"? What's a "care bear"?

Someone who whines about getting stabbed.

More generally, someone who fails to grasp that there are no rules to diplomacy, diplomacy is merely a vehicle for manipulating the actions of other players. Care Bears want everyone to always keep their word, and for people to play nicely. Needless to say, Diplomacy is a boring game when played that way.

Which isn't to say everyone will always lie, it means rational players will lie when it suits their purposes and outweighs the penalty for lying.

[Humakty]

Dominions 3 isn't the kind of game were I would expect to find binding diplomacy in every game, you're a god here to ban all others, so you can only expect temporary diplo solutions, as there are no such thing as allied victory.So even in a diplo binding game, you'll have to fight your 'allies' in the end.

Reasons that can lead to diplo violations in a dom game :

'Your women are all sorceresses : they wield long hairs !'

'Your hat is red, red is the color of evil !'

'How You Dare Eat Salad On A Friday, You Heretic !'

'Your God has got too many hands/tentacles/claws to be trustworthy !'

[Sombre]

Not all games are actually about the dom3 universe where pretender gods vie for absolute dominion though. Some are just games. The objective doesn't have to be 'there can be only one' or there wouldn't be team games etc

[Foodstamp]

Carebears? Since people are starting to treat people like this is an MMORPG forum, might as well start using the terminology too. So goes another good game community! IRC is totally to blame IMO.

[Jarkko]

Foodstamp, "carebear" is an old phrase from the PBM Diplomacy community (Diplomacy is a board game first published in 1959, and there weren't that many MMO's around then). As Squirrel above already defined, it means a person who freaks out when somebody backstabbs them. Actually, the word "carebear" is a derviate from the phrase "carebear allies", ie two (or more) people who stuck together from game to game, co-operating and looking after each others backsides (effectively playing as a team against the other players) then voted for a draw when just they two were left; it affected the Diplomacy ladder heavily in the 80's (and even in the 90's even though different rule-sets had been defined to prevent care-bears from ruling the ladder).

I don't know if the MMO carebear is a derivate from the Diplomacy carebear (in MMO's carebears are AFAIU people who do not like PvP encounters, but I might be wrong), but at least for me carebears in Dom are the carebears of Diplomacy and not the MMO carebears :)

[Foodstamp]

They sound pretty similar!

BTW been playing Diplomacy since the mid 80s and I had never heard the term used.

[rdonj]

The definition of what a care bear is differs highly from game to game. For example, in an mmo it could mean anything from a person who doesn't want pvp in a game at all, to a person who doesn't like pvp where any player can kill you at any time and take everything your character owns.

Under jarkko's definition I can't say as I've ever run into a dominions care bear.

[Jarkko]

Under jarkko's definition I can't say as I've ever run into a dominions care bear.
You've never encountered Dominions players who think diplomatic agreements are binding and they never back-stab others who think so, and freak out if somebody is more machiavellian? :)

[Sir_Dr_D]

I think he meant, he has never seen players who usually cooporate during a game, and then declare things a draw at the end.

[rdonj]

I think he meant, he has never seen players who usually cooporate during a game, and then declare things a draw at the end.

Yeah, I meant the carebear allies thing. I've seen plenty of people freak out over being backstabbed.

[Sombre]

Carebear is a pretty derogative term for people who have a different understanding of diplomacy.

Shall people who think diplomacy means anything goes be known as Nazis?

/godwin's law

[rdonj]

Carebear is a pretty derogative term for people who have a different understanding of diplomacy.

Shall people who think diplomacy means anything goes be known as Nazis?

/godwin's law

Well played, sir.

[Squirrelloid]

Doesn't Machiavellian already have a poor enough reputation to be considered derogatory in many circles? Why do we need to go straight to the bottom?

[Maerlande]

Foodstamp: That IRC comment is offensive. And I don't even know what you are talking about? How could IRC possibly cause this community to fail? I've been on IRC a few months and it's a lot of fun and a great way to make friends and learn about Dominions.

It's probably safe to say that less than 10% of the players here on these boards spend any time on IRC and it's only about 25 of us regulars. The interesting thing is it's heavily weighted to the hall of fame. Perhaps because you learn about the game 10 times faster there.

We joke about it because the IRC folks get slammed on these forums frequently. It's not like folks on IRC all agree or some kind of strange conspiracy. We argue everyday about everything.

[Jarkko]

Shall people who think diplomacy means anything goes be known as Nazis?

The word "gunboaters" is already there for people who think diplomacy mean nothing. And for people who do diplomacy when it suits them but canruthlessly take advantage of situations are called "machiavellians".

"Nazis" are reserved for people who are anal about following the rules to the letter even when they have no point or purpose (like the famous "White sets up first! Don't touch your pieces yet, you set up second according to the rules!" in chess, as if it made any difference who sets up first).

[Sombre]

We argue everyday about everything.

That's BS.

Jarkko: I was just fulfilling godwin's law.

[Foodstamp]

Foodstamp: That IRC comment is offensive. And I don't even know what you are talking about? How could IRC possibly cause this community to fail? I've been on IRC a few months and it's a lot of fun and a great way to make friends and learn about Dominions.

It's probably safe to say that less than 10% of the players here on these boards spend any time on IRC and it's only about 25 of us regulars. The interesting thing is it's heavily weighted to the hall of fame. Perhaps because you learn about the game 10 times faster there.

We joke about it because the IRC folks get slammed on these forums frequently. It's not like folks on IRC all agree or some kind of strange conspiracy. We argue everyday about everything.

Lighten up. I was kidding. The use of "totally" should have been an indicator.

I swear, oversensitive CareBears.

[Warhammer]

I was unaware that "care bear" referred to anything outside of Diplomacy. That is where I learned and used the term. It was not necessarily derogatory, it was used to describe a method of play. I have never played a MMO and hope to keep it that way.

My point is that there is a time and place to keep your word, and a time not to. 99% of the time, you keep your word, or do not commit to anything. The other 1%, if it suited you, you broke it.

In Diplomacy, it you never, ever, ever, left your backside open. Here, if you do so, and someone moves in, they are called every name in the book. In Diplomacy, it was good play. You maximized your return for a minimum of time and effort.

Now, there was an opportunity cost to doing so. If you gained a reputation for not keeping your word, it was much hard to work out deals. In a game where everyone started with the same strength, that meant that you would have to give more than you received which put you in a worse position vis a vis the other players. The player I feared the most in Diplomacy was not the player who did not keep his word, it was the player that DID EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID.

To me, it is simple, you negotiate with the other player, if he stabs you, you make sure he does not win. You take him down with you. It is a valid tactic and makes sure that he does not reap a reward for his actions.

Someone who stabbed me and made a game changing play was respected. Sure, I hated the fact I got stabbed, but it led to him winning the game. Good for him, I should have made sure I was not a viable stabbing target. I think that is where people get upset is they do not like to think they did anything wrong. They want to point the finger at the player who stabbed and say he was not ethical, lied, whatever. For my line of work, the most important thing is your word. You never over-promise, you over-deliver. If I am on time, it means nothing to the customer. If I am a day late, I am garbage.

The flip side...

I have an NAP with country X, if I give three turns notice of cancelling the NAP, guess what happens... All of a sudden, I have a militarized border. If I just invaded, I get all these provinces for free! The reason why many people get upset when they are stabbed, is that they are putting all their eggs in another basket, and when they do not invest in any scouting activity to see what is going on somewhere else, in a presumably quiet sector, they get blindsided. In Diplomacy, if you saw someone massing on your border, you were talking to him constantly to find out his intentions. If you did not get an answer you liked, you took precautions against his potential moves.

The one game played with enforced diplomacy was not a fun experience. Had NAPs with several players, and then they all let them expire or gave the requisite notice and went after me. I tried several times to make deals and negotiate with them, all to no avail. A couple of them said that they could not call off the dogs on me because they had other NAPs, which were unbreakable, and had to keep expanding to keep up with X. To me, that is a bunch of hooey... But, by the rules of the game, they were correct.

[Foodstamp]

If the MMO usage of Carebear is derived from Diplomacy I think that is really cool. In an MMO it is someone who avoids player versus player by sticking to the safe zones or forming large alliances that completely eliminates the risk of losing in pvp. The latter is the extreme and is also called "zerging" (Starcraft reference).

[elmokki]

Regarding reputation carrying over games.

Personally I consider people who backstab when the opportunity arises to be clever and will surely be more careful of them in the following games. Those who honor agreements even to their death every single time I consider a gullible idiots that are mostly assets when they're allied with me, as then I can either have them fight with me or fight them when I feel like doing that.

That's really it. I do have diplomacy with people who I know backstab, the thing just is that you need to be in regular contact and watch them closely for when the tables change and it isn't profitable for them to have agreements with you anymore. Having specific hatred against a specifid player since you lost the last game is just ridiculosuly childish, and gladly the people I regularily play with don't do that.

Machiavellian diplomacy feels more real and is far more intriguing, but that's just my five euro cents.

[Gandalf Parker]

Ive seen carebear used in many online forums. Ive been called it in UO, CoH, WoW, and of course Dom3. Not as a whiner I dont think. Ive always acknowledged that they all openly had a PvP element. But usually in reference to the preference to play support roles to guilds in safe zones.

[KissBlade]

Foodstamp: That IRC comment is offensive. And I don't even know what you are talking about? How could IRC possibly cause this community to fail? I've been on IRC a few months and it's a lot of fun and a great way to make friends and learn about Dominions.

It's probably safe to say that less than 10% of the players here on these boards spend any time on IRC and it's only about 25 of us regulars. The interesting thing is it's heavily weighted to the hall of fame. Perhaps because you learn about the game 10 times faster there.

We joke about it because the IRC folks get slammed on these forums frequently. It's not like folks on IRC all agree or some kind of strange conspiracy. We argue everyday about everything.

Not to mention, a majority of the contributions made to help the game was from the irc crowd.

[Foodstamp]

Hey thanks guys. Without you I would never have Dominions 3. Get over yourselves. Plenty of people make contributions to this game, and not all of them use IRC.

P.S. I guess you missed the memo:
Lighten up. I was kidding. The use of "totally" should have been an indicator.

I swear, oversensitive CareBears.

[KissBlade]

Hey thanks guys. Without you I would never have Dominions 3. Get over yourselves. Plenty of people make contributions to this game, and not all of them use IRC.

Actions speak louder than words? Perhaps you should actually get to that instead of trolling more?

[Foodstamp]

Sure KissBlade, between 15 hours of classes, 40+ hours of work a week and taking care of my newborn, what can I do to make your Dominions experience better? It's a lot easier to ruffle your feathers while listening to the professor!

As I have mentioned earlier in this thread, I don't hold any animosity towards people who use IRC. I just find the distinction between people who do and who don't kinda comical. It's just a chat client afterall.

[KissBlade]

So ... in other words, you have nothing better to do than trolling? Honestly, prefacing your statement with, "I don't hold any animosity" doesn't refute the fact that your actions show you DO hold such animosity.

[Foodstamp]

So ... in other words, you have nothing better to do than trolling? Honestly, prefacing your statement with, "I don't hold any animosity" doesn't refute the fact that your actions show you DO hold such animosity.

Well I meant I have never seen evidence of this player base divide that the "IRCers" are always alluding to. If I've seen any animosity at all, it's a couple of you guys downing Gandalf or making fun of Baalz's guides, but I thought even that was in good humor.

I think you guys are paranoid and I think you are the only ones who see and promote a seperation of yourselves from the average forum user.

As far as contributions go, I have created and released mods, a map and mini mods to help facilitate special rules in MP games. Even with my limited time, I am generating content for the SP community even now; I just don't have the time to polish it to the point that I would feel proud to release it even as a beta, but hopefully that will change soon.

Anywho, have fun perpetuating some mythical divide between yourselves and the people who aren't cool enough to use IRC.

[Sombre]

Yeah I'm not really seeing why Kissblade's statement set you off so bad if you don't hold any animosity.

And if you find the distinction between irc people and others ridiculous, what's with 'get over yourselves'? Which 'guys' are you talking to?

I don't draw a line between people who use irc often and those who don't but you obviously do.

Edit: Nice. I wrote this before I saw that latest post. Pretty amusing.

[Foodstamp]

The "get over yourselves" was directed at Kissblade and the other guy that was saying that regular forumers feel there is a conspiracy blah blah. I'm not the greatest text communicator in the world, so I apologize.

[Foodstamp]

Sombre, I wonder if you guys maybe talk about this stuff in IRC and it becomes "Fact". No one dislikes you guys. (You guys meaning the people who think they are treated different because they use IRC).

[Tolkien]

Sombre, invoking Godwin's Law is not a good thing.

[Sombre]

Typical nazi.

[GrudgeBringer]

I guess I have a different outlook on diplomacy in this and other games. Using Chess, Go, Checkers, or any number of games that pit you agianst another person from the start as an example, there isn't any sort of diplomacy other than you won't cheat in the game.

Even in Poker where there are thousands of dollars at stake there IS diplomacy. Its called 'playing soft' on another player (you just check it down once there are only the 2 of you etc).

From the first day I decided to play Dom 3 MP, I decided to be Honorable to a fault. This has hindered me and helped me in games, but for the most part it has made it an enjoyable experiance for me.

I will ALWAYS keep my word, Naps, or any promises I make in the game. I have also broken Naps and gone to war (after all there can be only one), but I have always given notice etc.

Because of this I have made a number of GOOD friends and can usually expect a fairly easy early expansion period.

I have had a few people who act (in MY eyes) dishonorable and I actually keep a list of them. You can talk about leaving it in the game all you want, but if you where sneak attacted by a player, you won't forget them.
You may not go out of your way to attack them in another game, but you won't forget them...OR trust them.

It is no different than playing sports. If you get a cheap shot from another player you remember them. And if you get a chance to step on their ankle/hand/arm or just blindside them, you will, it's human nature.

By keeping this list I can chose to not play with an individual, warn others that are my friends about them, or get even.

People have long memories and you can quote Sun Tzu, or any number of philosophers to justify your actions.

Me...I like Michael Corleone, "Revenge is best when its cold".

THAT is just the way I am.

[Squirrelloid]

Sombre, I wonder if you guys maybe talk about this stuff in IRC and it becomes "Fact".

Wait, was IRC just given a short-form post-modernist criticism?

[militarist]

May I have your list, GrudgeBringer?

[GrudgeBringer]

The list is private for many reasons.

1. MY definitions of dishonorable may not be any one Else's.

2. I don't want to slight anyone (they may have ONLY done it to me).

3. I am not the Dom sheriff or have the last and only say in this game.

4. You need to have your own list of things that YOU feel are not honorable.

However, IF I was in a game with you and we where allies, I might warn you to look out for someone.

I think your wise to find out as much info as you can, but just by reading this thread you can see that there are MANY definitions and views on this subject. AND it can be one of the most inflammatory subjects on here, so be careful when calling someone out in public.:up:

[Jarkko]

Because of this I have made a number of GOOD friends and can usually expect a fairly easy early expansion period.
Curiously enough, in PBM Diplomacy this sort of behaviour led to various rules to prevent such "Carebear alliances" to rule the ladder... Then again, PBM Diplomacy in the 80's saw a couple thousands people on the ladder, so many more people than I suspect play regularily Dominions 3 MP which are organised on these forums; thus I believe the risk for such "carebears" to have an equally devastating effect on Dominions 3 MP is not that high. Besides, I think it is good there are games where diplomatic agreements are binding, as that hopefully means the "carebear attitude" doesn't spread to *all* games :)

[Gandalf Parker]

Maybe its a basic difference in the games. One is called Diplomacy and the other called Dominion. By definition it would seem that those should treat the subject of alliances differently.

-- MY NAME IS JUAN!
There can only be Juan. All Hail Juan.

[Belac]

Keeping one's word is different from being a carebear. In Diplomacy, there is no research, no recruiting, no site-searching, and thus no reason to turtle; furthermore, there is no randomness or scripting in combat, so the only way to get a combat advantage is through surprise. In Dominions, you can spend long periods of time fighting no one, then declare war on someone and win. In Diplomacy, that would never happen.

Nevertheless, in Diplomacy there is still value to keeping one's word most of the time. Someone who regularly broke agreements in Diplomacy without any real benefit to them would swiftly develop a bad reputation. "Why did you stab me? You didn't get any useful benefit from it" is a valid reason to dislike someone, even when "Why did you stab me? We had an agreement" is not.

[Sombre]

Why would you bother making an agreement with anyone then?

[Jarkko]

I think my point was missed. Partly because I wasn't too clear about pointing out :)

Like GrudgeBringer above sayss to militarist, you either are "in the loop", or you are not. You know the people you trust to always to stick to their agreement, they know you. If you are in the loop, then you can count on the other players in there to cover your back. Wether you stick to agreements or not has no meaning, because those in the loop will kick out those not in.

It is the metagaming that can potentially kill the game, just as nearly happened to PBM Diplomacy in the 80's. Just as GrudgeBringer above says, he has a list of people he counts from game to game to cover his behind. If you are not on his list, there is nothing you can do; you will be on his target-list (because if you are not on the "trusted people who I count on to save my butt and who I thus don't attack what ever happens" -list, then you are automatically on that other list, as he has to attack *somebody* at some point :) ).

[Jarkko]

Why would you bother making an agreement with anyone then?
Because if you never make agreements you will be very dead very soon. Agreements are done (or so I suppose) when two (or more) people can assume to have something to win from the agreement. Agreements are thus by definition *good* things. However, if the agreement turns out to be bad for you (or too good for the other partner), then the smart thing to do would be to break the agreement.

[Sombre]

But the agreement will be broken the second it is not in the interests of the other party. Since you can count on them to follow their interests anyway, what's the point of having an agreement? I mean I see why you'd communicate and say 'I am attacking this guy' if you thought that would encourage other people to attack him. But there's no point in saying 'we won't attack each other until this guy is dealt with' because it adds nothing to 'I am attacking this guy'. In fact I see no reason why they'd believe you are actually attacking the guy unless they can see it for themselves, in which case there's no point in you telling them.

Obviously I'm not being serious. Humans don't work that way. But logically if agreements aren't binding and there's no difference between telling the truth or lying (because all is fair), they're pointless. I just find it strange that people would bother with them when there's no penalty for breaking them.

[thejeff]

That's the point. Humans don't work that way.

There is an advantage in being regarded as trustworthy. There is an advantage in being untrustworthy. The key is to balance the two.

In the metagame, it would also make sense for the untrustworthy to convince others to disregard evidence that they are untrustworthy.

[Jarkko]

If you and I make an agreement, and you leave your behind your backside open while you go on a rampage through something else, you can bet I would be itching to do something about the matter. It is not my advantage to have you get into winning position, so why should I sit on my thumbs and watch you win the game?

However, if you guard your behind well, and we both reap in rewards from the agreement, you can be pretty sure I will stick to the letter of the agreement. Why would I want to make you an enemy (who I apparently wouldn't potentially be able knock out fast enough to avoid your wrath) when we both benefit from the agreement?

[Belac]

If you and I make an agreement, and you leave your behind your backside open while you go on a rampage through something else, you can bet I would be itching to do something about the matter. It is not my advantage to have you get into winning position, so why should I sit on my thumbs and watch you win the game?

However, if you guard your behind well, and we both reap in rewards from the agreement, you can be pretty sure I will stick to the letter of the agreement. Why would I want to make you an enemy (who I apparently wouldn't potentially be able knock out fast enough to avoid your wrath) when we both benefit from the agreement?

Precisely. In order to defend against an ally stabbing you, you only have to have the resources to make it costly for them. To defend against an enemy or neutral, you need to be able to actually defeat their armies. So you and your ally attack someone together while keeping a bit in the backfield, and you can trust your ally because if they stabbed you they'd start losing to your mutual enemy -and- they'd face a hard fight against you. Eventually, as your mutual enemy is weakened, you find another mutual enemy or prepare for the possibility of your ally directing their whole forces against you. Thus the game becomes a set of cycling alliances.

[Squirrelloid]

But the agreement will be broken the second it is not in the interests of the other party. Since you can count on them to follow their interests anyway, what's the point of having an agreement? I mean I see why you'd communicate and say 'I am attacking this guy' if you thought that would encourage other people to attack him. But there's no point in saying 'we won't attack each other until this guy is dealt with' because it adds nothing to 'I am attacking this guy'. In fact I see no reason why they'd believe you are actually attacking the guy unless they can see it for themselves, in which case there's no point in you telling them.

Obviously I'm not being serious. Humans don't work that way. But logically if agreements aren't binding and there's no difference between telling the truth or lying (because all is fair), they're pointless. I just find it strange that people would bother with them when there's no penalty for breaking them.

I would submit that the relevant aspect of diplomacy is not what is promised, but what actions are taken by the other party afterwards. Diplomacy is a method of manipulating other players into doing what you want.

Diplomacy does not just involve negotiations and deals, it can involve threats, blackmail, bribery, etc... The fact that these more aggressive aspects don't see much apparent use in the game is strange. Just talking to other players can manipulate their behavior, even if your discussion reaches no particular conclusion. Consider the impact of selectively sharing intelligence, for example.

When it comes to a deal, the best ones are obviously those with immediate consequences. Ie, arranging with another player who is attacking where so that your armies don't clash. Sure, there is the possibility that they will stab you and attack where you're attacking, but you can defend against that (send enough strength to make it painful and don't reveal how much you plan on sending). And the benefit is immediate, ie, next turn, so the scope for betrayal is small, and this kind of deal potentially benefits both sides. (Either side could lose a substantial force or take large casualties if they don't talk about it). Because both sides benefit, both sides can be expected to follow through most of the time.

So why form non-aggression pacts? I mean, in a machiavellian world, any termination conditions aren't worth the paper they're printed on, right? I would argue that the actual language of your agreement is not the point of the agreement.

First, the point of a non-aggression pact is not to secure a peaceful border until someone announces NAP end. Its to de-militarize the border *now* so you can use your army elsewhere. Similarly, it allows your ally to do the same, so its also to his advantage. Anyone who signs NAPs and doesn't demilitarize the border is, I would argue, a worse violater than someone who breaks NAPs without following the agreed to terms for ending it, and I would consider them to have broken the NAP in spirit if they keep a nominally peaceful border heavily garrisoned. (if they demilitarize it, but later start to garrison it, then its arms race time. But you already got the period of demilitarization at the start as the benefit of the agreement.)

Second, no one is saying there is no cost to stabbing someone. If you break a treaty with someone, even if we believe games are a microcosm from which no metagame emerges, then your ability to negotiate *in that game* in the future suffers. If nothing else, the person you stabbed will be more wary of dealing with you, and others might as well. Consider honorably ending a NAP, starting a war with your former NAP-mate, and then getting stabbed or attacked by someone else. It might be possible to end the war to refocus on the new front. But if you broke the NAP to do it then your new enemy is much less likely to trust you to be willing to agree to peace with you.

Third, maintaining a positive relationship once you've formed one has additional benefits beyond the continuance of the agreement. You're likely to find a more willing trade partner for exchanging gems and forged gear, you have a ready-made military ally, and you have someone you can plausibly rely on to cast remote spells at targets you designate. You give all that up the moment you break the agreement.

Basically, there is a definite cost to breaking deals. This is why a stab has to be worthwhile - you have to have made quite significant gains to offset this cost in order for the stab to be beneficial. The more communication and aid two allies render each other, the higher the cost to one of them stabbing the other.

So in a machiavellian world the best diplomacy is active. No NAP-3 and don't talk to the other guy for 20 turns. Get him involved in your wars, ask to get involved in his, or at least provide strategic support. Make trades that might only be net neutral for yourself occasionally. Be a *good* ally and you won't get stabbed very often. (And be capable of defending yourself if you do get stabbed!)

Basically, diplomacy is far more important in a machiavellian world, because you have to prove that you're worth more as an ally than as a potential conquest.

[Belac]

Even with binding diplomacy active diplomacy is best, and proving prove that you're worth more as an ally than as a potential conquest is important.

All binding diplomacy does is ensure that you get some warning before you become a potential conquest. Your most honest neighbor who has the most unabrogratable NAP-3 with you will retire it and attack you in 3 turns if he likes his other neighbors better. All unbreakable diplomacy does is give you 3 turns' warning (but he probably decided to fight you several turns before breaking the NAP, so he would be hard to dissuade).

[Jarkko]

All binding diplomacy does is ensure that you get some warning before you become a potential conquest.
That is the whole point, isn't it? The whole concept of strategical suprise is gone. Will you ever attack an opponent who is stronger than you if you have to tell him many turns before that you are going to attack? No you won't, it would be suicide. In a game with binding diplomacy, when you notice somebody is heading for victory the game is already over, there is nothing you can do.

Based on my limited experience with binding diplo games, the games are *very* boring. To me they feel like playing single-player game, except some nations are scripted to be unable to attack or harm you in any way. I will rather watch paint dry than join a game with binding diplo ever again :)

[Belac]

All binding diplomacy does is ensure that you get some warning before you become a potential conquest.
That is the whole point, isn't it? The whole concept of strategical suprise is gone. Will you ever attack an opponent who is stronger than you if you have to tell him many turns before that you are going to attack? No you won't, it would be suicide. In a game with binding diplomacy, when you notice somebody is heading for victory the game is already over, there is nothing you can do.

Based on my limited experience with binding diplo games, the games are *very* boring. To me they feel like playing single-player game, except some nations are scripted to be unable to attack or harm you in any way. I will rather watch paint dry than join a game with binding diplo ever again :)

3 turns is not sufficient to prepare against an opponent who has spent several turns preparing before retiring the NAP. It's sufficient warning to get -something- up, but a good player won't retire a NAP without having spent several turns getting ready. So the attacker is doing his final tuneup while the defender is still recruiting/repositioning a main force, unless the defender was prepared through scouting and other means. Signing a NAP and then treating the other player as unable to attack you is never wise.

[thejeff]

All binding diplomacy does is ensure that you get some warning before you become a potential conquest.
That is the whole point, isn't it? The whole concept of strategical suprise is gone. Will you ever attack an opponent who is stronger than you if you have to tell him many turns before that you are going to attack? No you won't, it would be suicide. In a game with binding diplomacy, when you notice somebody is heading for victory the game is already over, there is nothing you can do.

That also neglects the other aspect of diplomacy: other people. Most of the time, if you notice someone heading for victory, you can round up other people to help attack him. Since you'll likely want to do this even in a non-binding diplomacy game and "I'm going to break my word to him, but you can trust me" isn't a very good argument, it may still be worth giving warning, so your allies will trust you.

[GrudgeBringer]

I think Jarko misunderstood me. You aren't one one list or the other, cut and dried. I keep a list of those that only I feel acted dishonorably. And that could well be towards another player and not me.

Just because your not on that list doesn't make you my pal by any means. Lets just say I will give you some trust and we will build trust in each other over that and other games.

One time Executor and I where allies and where on our way to winning the game when I ran hard into a nation and the fighting got pretty hard and heavy. I inadvertently cut Executor off form expansion and after a while he actually came to me and apologized but said that he had to expand and that I was the weakest link because of my war and that he had to attack me.

All my troops where south and he started across the north and started taking province after province...I couldn't stop him so I just continued my war in the south until he finally came down and took me out and took over my war. He won the game.

I do NOT consider that dishonorable and it was my fault I didn't protect myself.

What I am saying is, while I have a list of those I don't trust, doesn't mean they can't be trusted. Just as those I have good relations with sometimes we just have to fight it out.

But sometimes I can breathe a sigh of relief when I find a certain player is next to me.

I guess for me its a community game first and a war game second...not a win at all cost game. You will never see me in the hall of fame (except on a team game). And I DO respect others to have the right to be Chaotic Evil.

[Psycho]

All binding diplomacy does is ensure that you get some warning before you become a potential conquest.
That is the whole point, isn't it? The whole concept of strategical suprise is gone. Will you ever attack an opponent who is stronger than you if you have to tell him many turns before that you are going to attack? No you won't, it would be suicide. In a game with binding diplomacy, when you notice somebody is heading for victory the game is already over, there is nothing you can do.

This is completely untrue. I never broke a NAP, but was still able to exercise many successful surprise attacks. You don't have to surround yourself with NAPs, make only those that are necessary/benefactory; end them when they are no longer needed, not necessarily attacking immediately. When attacking a stronger opponent, find an ally or end your NAP in a bad moment for the stronger player, for example as soon as he starts a war with someone. If you notice that someone is heading for victory three turns before he wins, there is little you can do anyways. Keep an eye on the game and you will be able to end your NAP in a timely manner.

I find it pretty stupid that all new games starting these days advertise diplomacy rules - either as machiavellian or binding. I would never join any of those games. Leave it to each player to play the way that suits him.

[vfb]

Declaring in the OP that a game has Machavellian rules just gets rid of the drama in the (actually rare, even in a Machavellian rules game) cases that someone does decide to attack prior to a NAP expiring.

[thejeff]

It seems to me that there should be 3 sets of rules:
Binding: Actual penalties for breaking agreements
Default: Reputation only
Treachery Encouraged: Whatever you like, as nasty as you want. Dirty trick encouraged. Behavior here shouldn't be considered in other games.

I'm not sure which of those last two would be considered "Machavellian". I suspect different people might have different answers.

[vfb]

IMO "Machavellian" is the last one. But even in a game like that, you still start off with a default "good" reputation. That's what I've seen in the games like that which I set up or joined, anyhow.

There is still very little backstabbing, because:

- Your ability to make future diplomatic agreements in that game will suffer
- You'd better be sure that your backstabbing will quickly kill your foe, because his nation should rightly strike back. With great vengeance and furious anger!

So what's the point? Less OOC drama and whining in the forums, for one. And you reset to a "good" reputation in the next game.

[Belac]

I really don't think it makes that much of a difference. A well-timed announcement that a NAP-3 will be retired can be as devastating as a full-on sneak attack, especially if you've been talking all friendly-like, discussing alliance possibilities, and the other guy was -absolutely- convinced he could declare war on another of his neighbors.

In other words, binding diplomacy does not mean no deceit and scrupulous honesty. It means you have to be just a little bit more subtle if you want to catch someone out.

(Also, I will very rarely make a formal agreement to not fight until 'x' turn, or to not make peace with 'x' nation, etc. 'I will not do 'y' unless I give you 'x' turns warning' is very different from either of those)

[Foodstamp]

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I have a hard time letting a back stabber live long in the next game I play with them.

A guy broke a NAP with me once, and we met again the very next game I joined with me playing Pangaea and him playing Agartha. We bumped into each other around turn 6 both going for the same independent province. It was an accidental slaughter, but it led to me systematically following his province trail back to his capital and putting him out shortly after.

So I broke the sacred rule of what happens in a game stays in a game. The guy begged for peace and he was met with silence and destruction! I wonder how many other players do the same.

[vfb]

Really? Sounds just like a good strategic decision to me. If you had been Agartha and the other guy had been Pan, it probably would have gone the other way. :)

By "broke a NAP", you mean "violated", not "cancelled", right?

[Foodstamp]

Correct. I was at war with another player and he attacked me despite the NAP. Given the situation, I may have pushed him anyway, but knowing who he was made it a no brainer. What I am getting at is his actions in the first game had an influence on the second game even though we are supposed to give people a clean slate from game to game. I don't think I am capable of that!

[Squirrelloid]

I think Machiavellian just means 'caveat emptor', which would be the 'by reputation' option.

Treachery encouraged is certainly permissive of machiavellian play, but there are fewer consequences, so a stab doesn't even need to pay off by as much to be worthwhile. Basically, you're altering the penalty and reward metric, not the nature of the decision making.

[Psycho]

"By reputation" would definitely be the default option of diplomacy. Machiavellian games came into popularity recently and encouraged treacherous play which should not affect reputation.

Altering the penalty and reward metric directly alters the nature of the decision making. It would be sub-optimal not to backstab someone you have an opportunity to do given it would provide you benefit. In a normal game you would think twice before doing it. Machiavellian makes the decision a no-brainer. NAPs don't really have any meaning. If you guard your border closely another player will probably pick another target regardless whether you have a NAP with them or not.

Another thing - why does everyone thinks drama is inherently a bad thing and should be removed? It adds to the experience. We are all human beings with emotions after all. And please don't give me "it's just a game" answer.

[Squirrelloid]

Psycho: the nature of the decision making is cost-benefit analysis. Its the same in either case. Its just the costs are different, so the results don't agree, ie the output can be different given the same benefits.

[Illuminated One]

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I have a hard time letting a back stabber live long in the next game I play with them.

A guy broke a NAP with me once, and we met again the very next game I joined with me playing Pangaea and him playing Agartha. We bumped into each other around turn 6 both going for the same independent province. It was an accidental slaughter, but it led to me systematically following his province trail back to his capital and putting him out shortly after.

You know because of that reason I'm afraid of people who I backstabbed in another game, and make naps with everyone else so I can focus on the guy who must be coming after me now, and then when I find out he isn't and my ally is becoming to strong I have to backstab him. It's a vicious circle.

As a side note while I do not like artificially enforced diplomacy I'd love if there where some games that enforce some cooler diplo then trying to fight on the most uneven terms.
In reality alliances would not be completely random, but determined by economic and social facts. Like a power would automatically have an interest to protect a military weak country it is trading with or Christians will stick together (to some extent) against Muslims and vice versa.
But since all your income is just transfered to your treasury and equally and randomly dispersed and everyone is a heretic...

[vfb]

Good drama is in character, and I appreciate it greatly. For example, posts like this:

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?p=725738#post725738

Bad drama is getting pissed off because you were backstabbed, and insulting other players out of character. For example:

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?p=720701#post720701

[Psycho]

I knew what example you were going to bring up. You can't expect everyone to react the way you like. You can't expect everyone to be a good sport or to take losing well. It's part of the human nature. We are all different, and take this game more or less seriously. It's all part of the game.

[vfb]

I knew what example you were going to bring up. You can't expect everyone to react the way you like.

I don't see the point you are trying to make here.

You can't expect everyone to be a good sport or to take losing well.

I think I'll add that to the OP of games I start. "I expect everyone to be a good sport and to take losing well." Seriously. If someone can't, because they're still 9 years old or something, well, they should get off the computer and go play outside or something.

It's part of the human nature. We are all different, and take this game more or less seriously.

Okay, now it sounds like you are trolling. If we are all different, then we don't all take this game seriously.

[GrudgeBringer]

I don't take this game any more seriously than I take a Rugby game, once I walk off the field and the score is posted.

I won't have a 'dustup' with the guy that gave me a cheap shot, but I will dang sure watch for him the next game.

What does your comment about being "nine years old" have to do with taking the game more or less seriously?

[Sombre]

You can't expect everyone to be a good sport or to take losing well.

Sure you can. That's totally reasonable to expect of people playing dom3.

[vfb]

... What does your comment about being "nine years old" have to do with taking the game more or less seriously?

This commend wasn't about taking the game seriously, it was in response to Psycho's comment: "You can't expect everyone to be a good sport or to take losing well."

I've got a kid who's 6. He's a pretty good kid, but if he plays a game and loses, sometimes he gets upset and cries. He hasn't learned to be a good sport yet. I don't expect that he should be a good sport about losing at only 6 years old, and I think a few more more years will pass before he has gradually learned to be a gracious loser (and winner).

I'd expect anyone old enough to be playing dominions would be mature enough to be a good sport.

[GrudgeBringer]

Yes Sir, that I agree with completely!!!:up:

[Fantomen]

I for one base my diplomacy on roleplay. If I am playing a sneaky backstabbing bastard, then I'll stick to that. If I'm playing a honourable divine prescence, I'll stick to that.

I would also value a diplomatic relation much higher if good roleplay has been exchanged in the process. While I wouldn't care nearly as much if the only communication had been for example: "NAP3?" answered by "Ok"

[Psycho]

By "being a good sport" I meant something different than understood. It was not a synonym for being a gratuitous loser, but rather meant ingame sportsmanlike behavior such as not making cheap shots, not using exploits, not throwing game, etc. I can perfectly understand someone getting upset about unsportsmanlike behavior and letting off the vent in the forums, thus creating drama. Ideally you would have neither drama, nor cause for it. Don't get me wrong here, obviously the part with calling names and insulting is too much. But, I can understand someone getting pissed for being backstabbed in certain situations (Setsumi one included). It's easy to be a gratuitous loser when you lost a fair fight and that is not what I had in mind. How about losing a five to one dogpile or because another player gave away his VPs? It would be reasonable to expect certain things from players, but as the practice proves, you really cannot.

[vfb]

Thanks for clarifying! I think I understand what you are saying now. Just personally:

- I like in-character drama, but I don't like venting out-of-character,
- I don't mind 'exploits' so much, as long as they make some kind of sense in-game,
- 'Throwing' games is even acceptable to me if there is an in-character reason for it.

But you are right, it would be unreasonable for me to expect everyone to have the same opinions as me. My new modified OP request will be "I expect everyone to be a good sport. If you do need to vent, please try to keep it in character".