Diplomacy

[Norfleet]

I don't think I'm familiar with what you describe, but maybe that's due to the much smaller and more insular community of Dom 1. I'm more used to "everyone hates me and tries to kill me, except maybe one tiny little empire I saved sometime midgame through my intervention and now they are my loyal lackey".

In which case the game, at best, comes to my winning, alongside my lackey, although clearly the win is mine, as he exists only because I let him. It's not quite the "bloc" you describe, though. If anything, Dom2 seems to discourage this because if you form a big alliance where all of your neighbors are offlimits, what you have is your "teammates" doing redundant research, which is inefficient and wasteful: It's more efficient for the nations in question to devour each other and become a much larger nation.

[Pickles]

I agree with the oiginal poster that this game reminds me of nothing more than diplomacy, a game I grew to hate! It is an irony of diplomacy that it was specifically designed to be a cuthtroat game played to one winner but in practice most games are negotiated joint wins.

I have not played games like this for years and I am not sure if my dislike for free for alls will overcome my attraction to the intricate fantasy game. My "most wanted" feature would be a "pantheon" setting for team play - pre set teams of course.

I have really only finished one game, & that is technically still going on but my diplomatic rustiness (ok ineptitude) has probably had more influence that my greeness with the detail of the game. Lack of strategic focus may also have been a factor - I am not so much a backstabber are a blunderer.


Pickles

[Norfleet]

This is the natural outcome of playing a game with a bunch of weenies who can't stand a little blood.

But not me....I WILL KILL YOU! Or die gloriously in the attempt! Huzzah!

[Nagot Gick Fel]

To me, there are 3 kinds of players in Dominions:

The Faithful: they stick to their word, and won't never break an agreement, even if it means putting themselves in jeopardy. I know such players exist, but I always assume they don't .

The Defectors: these don't hesitate to break treaties or swindle their trade partners at the first opportunity, if they see an immediate benefit when doing so - even if the said benefit is negligible. These players don't annoy me much - their behavior may net them a small advantage in 1 or 2 games, but in the end they work against themselves. I hate to carry my own perception of a player's personality from one game to another, anyway you can't expect from someone to trust a guy who was 'reliably unreliable' in the past 5 games.

The Wise: these usually stick to their word, and can be relied on when trading. However they won't hesitate to backstab you when they think that'll give them a substantial advantage - typically shifting the balance of power enough so they increase their own chances to win manyfold. I think that in Dominions, nothing comes closest to an oeuvre d'art than a skillfully planned and carried out backstab. So I tend to respect this sort of players immensely. Even if I'm at the receiving end of their treachery .

[Pickles]

Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:
[QB] To me, there are 3 kinds of players in Dominions:

[/QB

Sounds like the game theory sheep, wolves and "do unto others ers". But actually it is sheep, wolves and "wolves in sheeps clothing".

People who renege on deals gain momentary advantage but in the long term repeated good or even marginal, trading will beat a few swindles.

Pickles

[Nagot Gick Fel]

Originally posted by Zapmeister:
People that know me from Dom1 will know I can get quite hysterical on this topic.

Damn! Could it be that Zapmeister is actually Steve A.?

[Edit: Seems so. ]

[ June 30, 2004, 13:24: Message edited by: Nagot Gick Fel ]

[Gandalf Parker]

The complaint amoung the Dom1 gamers was that reputations went from game to game. Even before this thread, if a game started and the logins represented in this conversation were the players, I would already have had an idea to what level I could trust my borders to treatys that were made.

If a game were played totally anonymously then it would play very differently. Hmmm well actually, I guess it wouldnt for those who play cut-thoat anyway. But it would for the loyalists. Or maybe this falls back on those who play the game spread-sheet strategy vs those who play it with abit of RPG.

In any case, I know that I personally would appreciate some totally anonymous games where I could play as Murgatroid instead of Gandalf Parker. I WOULD use the chance to play very differently.

[ June 30, 2004, 14:02: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]