Diplomacy

[Pirateiam]

I find Zapmiester's position on diplomacy quite amuzing. I will not go into details since it will ruin a game we are playing but he seems quite adept at diplomacy. I think he does not even know he is doing it which is really amuzing.
Even if your end strategy is to be the Last man standing (as it should) Helping attack other nations, border agreements, and trying to entice nations to attack other nations IS diplomacy at the highest level!

The one point I do agree with is that I hope social Groups do not effect gameplay. Where players team up all the time with players they know.

[ June 30, 2004, 14:15: Message edited by: Pirateiam ]

[wolfkinsov]

I wrote this post because of what several people have pointed out here. If you play a game like Diplomacy or DOM II by its implied objective, that is one winner, then the game plays out fun for everyone, and no hard feelings in the end. (Having trouble thinking of the right way to express that, you would have to have played Diplomacy to understand) But when people consistently make teams and just don’t tell you the game gets old fast. I am all for team games and would happily play a DOM II Team game but I would know it in the beginning.

That is where I have a problem with people who say they keep all agreements always. I would much rather play in a game where everyone is trying to win and keep the big boy down.

Oh and Zapmiester, does diplomacy and so do I, and how I act in one game is completely different from how I will act in the other. I keep 95% of my agreements that are not with the big boy. He should always be watching his back. But I don’t form teams and the leader should expect to be attached by everyone until he is not the leader anymore.

The problem with Dominions, Diplomacy or playing sports for fun is that on the one hand extremely competitive people can be unplaasant to interact with, while on the other deliberately uncompetitive behaviour tends to subvert the whole purpose of the game. Both tend to increase the frustration and reduce the fun for the rest of us.

Sand-boxers may disagree, but it's not like we're talking about simDomII here; the central assumption of the game is one of conflict.

I don't think alliance "victories" are necessarily wrong. Often alliance are result of in-game events and built up around developing relationships. Maintaining an alliance amongst competitive players takes effort and skill, and there's nothing wrong in rewarding that by allowing joint "victories". I can see however that if alliances seem more-or-less pre-ordained by pre-game relationships, or if a large number of players in a game just weren't interested in competing with each other, that I too would get frustrated.

I used to see a lot of joint victories in Diplomacy when I played, and never objected to them because the games were always competitive, even though technically those results went against the intention of the game design. On the other hand, sand-boxers wouldn't be playing Diplomacy in the first place.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Mark the Merciful:
The problem with Dominions, Diplomacy or playing sports for fun is that on the one hand extremely competitive people can be unplaasant to interact with, while on the other deliberately uncompetitive behaviour tends to subvert the whole purpose of the game. Both tend to increase the frustration and reduce the fun for the rest of us.

Playing with uncompetitive people can sometimes be annoying for an entirely different reason: Some of them have the unpleasant habit of whining obnoxiously when they lose.

[Zapmeister]

Originally posted by Pirateiam:
I find Zapmiester's position on diplomacy quite amuzing. I will not go into details since it will ruin a game we are playing but he seems quite adept at diplomacy. I think he does not even know he is doing it which is really amuzing.
Even if your end strategy is to be the Last man standing (as it should) Helping attack other nations, border agreements, and trying to entice nations to attack other nations IS diplomacy at the highest level!

I think you've misunderstood my position. I'm all for diplomacy, and I agree that the things you've listed constitute diplomacy. The axe that I'm grinding here is that I see the concept of joint victory as the root of much evil.

[Zapmeister]

Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:

quote:

---

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. ]

---

Hi Jacques

[Kel]

I think people should just play how they want to play and deal with the consequences

If you get a bad rep and no-one trusts you, the counter side to that is that your being cutthroat probably gave you a lot of advantage over someone who was more long-sighted about his alliances.

There is an advantage and a disadvantage to being cutthroat. I think that works out just fine, instead of trying to make everyone play the same way.

- Kel