AWIY's blacklist of dishonest peoples

[atul]

The problem I have with NAPs is their all-encompassing nature and the laziness in making them. All right, I can understand that if people play 5 games at the same time, have a work and life outside of gaming and so on they don't have much time to put into forging a decent agreements, but sending a message with nothing but "Neighbours. NAP 3 turns?" is nothing short of lazy.

When I first started playing Doms with several friends, we had all kind of diplomatic agreements which resulted in some surprises. Like in one instance Abysia had promised Marignon that they would not initiate war in exchange of beneficial border, but had a defensive pact with Van declaring any attack on one in effect an attack on the other nation too. After Van had goaded Marignon to attack him, Abysia was actually diplomatically bound to backstab Marignon. Fun and all.

My first game with people in this forum had me meet my first neighbour, who sent me a message "NAP 3 turns ok?" and when I agreed he greedily cut me off from much of the indies.

If I'd have it my way NAPs would be only among equal partners. I mean, if you're a lot bigger than your neighbour, why the hell should you be bound to respect anyone who's just cowering in fear and desperately trying to form an alliance against you? Usually NAPs are made in early game when everyone's about equal, but as time goes by it should be quite clear who can stand on their own and who live at the mercy of others.

One other thing that I've already touched a bit is that NAPs shouldn't be used as "Get Out of the Jail Free" card. If you piss me off, sure as hell I'm going to pound you to ground if I'm able. Pushing dominion, building forts at the border, keeping unnecessary troops there, cutting me off prizes without prior consultation. All the irritating stuff.

On the flip side, I've noticed that if you're friendly and not too agressive people tend to respond in kind. Even when not bound by formal agreements or anything.

And to cover my back: Despite what I've written, I've never breached a deal in MP. Cancelled several NAPs, sure, but I've respected their expiration times to the fault, and those I don't count breaking. Peer pressure, what a powerful tool.

[Gandalf Parker]

I think all of this also goes with the requests that keep popping up to "add diplomacy to the game". Adding diplomacy options to a menu would place game-restrictions on the actions. Such as game-managed NAPs.

The way it is now we have ultimate diplomacy and unlimited options. Very real world but that isnt always what all gamers would prefer. They want an impartial referee. I can see the advantage to both sides of the discussion and Im not sure which one would be best. Best for game play? probably continue with it unmoderated by forum or game menus. Best for sales? possibly a menu-managed diplomacy feature would be good but I dont see Johan working on anything that major anytime soon.

Besides, this would be another of those "there are plenty of THOSE games already out there so lets not change one of the things that makes us nicely unique".

(of course since I mostly play solo I wouldnt mind abit more recognition by the AIs of my gifts)

Gandalf Parker
-- To some people, unlimited options seems to them to be zero options.

[Sieger]

Gandalf Parker said:
I think all of this also goes with the requests that keep popping up to "add diplomacy to the game". Adding diplomacy options to a menu would place game-restrictions on the actions. Such as game-managed NAPs.

It wouldn't necessarily restrict actions. In Master of Orion 2 you could establish an alliance, or a non-aggression pact. You could break either in a violent manner, there was nothing hardcoded that prevent you from doing so. However, the AI (and this tended to have a galaxy-wide effect) becomes very unpleasant towards a nation that repeatedly breaks treaties. If you are at war you could also declare a peace treaty that had a set number of turns in which you wouldn't attack one another. You could violate that, too, and if you did the diplomatic hit you took across the game was pretty significant.

Basically in MOO2 diplomacy just made the overall single player game more interesting, you could completely ignore it if you want, you could also, of course, use it to your advantage (make peace with strong neighbors while you work against weak neighbors and et cetera.) In multiplayer it was just a convenience factor, in that it let your diplomatic relations be expressed in an easy to see panel, without restricting any specific type of action.

Not that I want Dom3 to be MOO2, they are both great games and there's no reason to try to make one more like the other. It's just the first example that came to mind when thinking about diplomacy as it has been implemented in other turn based games. Thematically the lack of diplomacy may make sense, in MOO2 while one goal was galactic domination, there were multiple ways to win the game. In Dominions, you're a pretender god fighting against other pretenders to become the sole god, "there can be only one" so the story itself kind of makes diplomacy meaningless.

[Chris_Byler]

atul said:When I first started playing Doms with several friends, we had all kind of diplomatic agreements which resulted in some surprises. Like in one instance Abysia had promised Marignon that they would not initiate war in exchange of beneficial border, but had a defensive pact with Van declaring any attack on one in effect an attack on the other nation too. After Van had goaded Marignon to attack him, Abysia was actually diplomatically bound to backstab Marignon. Fun and all.

Secret alliances? Didn't you learn anything from the history of World War I?

Seriously though, this kind of thing is why no-holds-barred diplomacy is just more fun (IMO).

I think it is a good idea for anyone who wants to regard treaties as binding to state so up front before the game begins. I won't be joining such a game, but some people might want to.

Binding treaties are a house rule though, not something enforced by the game or intended by Illwinter, and I think everyone should be aware of that and not expect them to be in effect unless they have been specifically agreed to before the game. And carrying a grudge outside the game for treachery in a game where treachery is legal is just poor sportsmanship.