The One Downfall of Diplomacy Games

[Atuan]

The challenge is that kingdoms ally in big groups on turn 1. In 526, there were 6 kingdoms all NAP'd on turn 1. So the only choice to compete is to NAP all of the other 6 on turn 1. But that is a different format, a massive team game immediately. 526 reminded me to NEVER play diplomacy games. So it is easy to blame lack of diplomacy, but you can't compete with the cliques.

Not 526, right? That was a 3 player per team game with no diplomacy between teams.

Sorry 529

Wait how many kingdoms do you NAP with when you start a diplomacy game. I usually pick 1-2 kingdoms I will ally with, and 4-5 I will NAP with for some period of time. And yes these discussion happen before turn 1. Seriously if people approach a diplomacy game like it is an anon or silent game, you are not going to have fun.

But what I have yet to do is turn down anyone asking for a NAP. It is pretty straight forward there. Had Tark even approached me I could have made arrangements with him, and could make them at this time as well. Communication is the key to doing well in diplomacy games, if you would rather have 1-2 allies and not talk to others then you need to do alliance.

But yes each game has its own choice. I for one do not enjoy anon games. I dislike having a dispersed kingdom in my region and no way to communicate with them. Which likely means I am fighting with them rather than figuring out a way to work with them.

[IMPERIAL_TARK]

Tark you initiated with one kingdom when you knew I was coming and declared me an enemy.  You failed to communicate with people, set up alliances and NAPs.  Yes if you hold up in your own corner of the world in a diplomacy game and pretend its an Anon game but everyone else in the game is talking, do you know what ends up being left.  That's right, 1 guy without support.  You also act like these 5 against you are not also involved in other fights.  But at the same time.  5??  Think its 4 but not that that matters.  Perhaps the 5th finished what he was doing but yes surprising I have allies or I am paying a bunch of money/status points.

Where in the heck do you get off deliberately posting false information about my game play and to the public forum no less?!

First, in game 523, I was already at war with the NE (and had taken his R2 from him long before you arrived on the scene) so where do you get off claiming I initiated combat with him when you came for me. A total lie. Second, of the 11 other players in the game, I communicated with 8 of them, of those 8, I have/had alliances or NAPs with 6 of them. And the other two of those 8, rejected NAPs and/or alliances when offered. And of course, that's a two-way street, the other three that I didn't communicate with also chose not to communicate with me. But I don't know of any player that would claim that when I've communicated with 8 of the 11, that I'm some kind of isolationist. So you can take your bullshit "hold up in your own corner alone pretending its an Anon game" and shove it up your a$$. If you're willing to spread these kind of falsities publically one can only imagine what kind of bullshit you're spreading privately. So its no wonder my earlier support has evaporated and there's a 5 on 1 against me if you're serving up whoppers like this above to gullible players.

So in the future, do everyone a favor, and stick to publically critiquing your OWN game play especially if you're going to be dishonest about the other players' play.

[IMPERIAL_TARK]

[/quote]

Tark, I sympathize to a point.  5 seems excessive.  As a new player I was attacked early on by an  experienced player. I had a NAP with you and approached you in extending it as I preferred not having to fight 2 experienced players simultaneously but that was not in your plans.  Then the nomads jumped in against me and I sent them a similar email.  They had the same response.

It would be nice if people didn't join in against people who have already been attacked but it is apparently just good strategy
[/quote]


As a new player, you should expect 2 on 1s, they are quite common and expected when there are more kingdoms than regions to go around. Three on ones occur less frequently and its frowned on but sometimes a necessity especially against a kingdom in a podium position (currently in first, second, or third based on most recent status points).

4 on 1s are generally reserved for a top current podium position making a play for the win.

5 on 1s are pretty extreme and really should be reserved for the first place kingdom making a run at winning the game.

I did give you a 20 turn NAP to give you ample time to prep, and with only two long borders for R3, it was going to be you or the AT when the NAP ended but had allied with AT. Generally, if your border neighbor doesn't renew a NAP, I would expect trouble in the near future.

[IMPERIAL_TARK]

Of course, the situation exists throughout the PBEM world.  But while most games just have their one standard format and fixed position set, I think we have about a dozen formats to accommodate different tastes, and now with The Choosing, 1000+ different kingdom combinations.

The full diplomacy games do require diplomacy to do well. most players will have an ally or two.  It's hard to do well lone wolf.  And having at least casual contact with distant or un-allied kingdoms is sometimes important.

We feel the Alliance and Confederation formats - teams of 3 or 2 kingdoms where diplomacy is restricted to your preset alliance is the middle ground in the sphere of diplomacy.  This is what I would offer as the "correction mechanism".  It provides the ability to coordinate actions and set a grand strategy without requiring communication with any kingdom outside the alliance/confederation.

Then of course we have Silent and Anonymous, where no player has any diplomacy with any kingdom.  Or for the zealous experienced player, Warlords is available.

I had considered requiring a declaration of causus belli (justification for war) for the next release but am leaning against it.  With it, a player would need to make the declaration a turn or more prior to commencing attack or suffer significant loss of influence (maybe 3.0 points).  So this would significantly curtail sneak attacks and especially those of 3 v 1.  But it might also reduce the sense of anticipation and uncertainty.

Yes, I've played all the different formats save the Slugfest and am well aware of the diplomacy angles of all. As you can see from my previous email I was NOT being a lone wolf despite another player's accusation of such. I just think that with some clever programming and/or official policy statements on X vs 1 situations, you could prevent a lot of the ill feelings that are created. Instead, if you do nothing, save tell me not to play in those games, you will be left with players who refuse to play in certain game types which doesn't help the player base overall given how small we are to begin with. Plus, as others alluded to, when you start getting players that create these mega-cliques of NAPed/allied players there is no real defense against them. And heaven help the newbie who doesn't really have any established connections.

[IMPERIAL_TARK]

I think your kicking but Tark to the point where you could still win the game.  Your going for your 3rd region and should be eyeing up your 4th for the win.  At what point did you  think the other forerunners to win would react? 1. NE, you jumped when he was in a war with the AT.  
2. AM, has been at war with 3 kingdoms and your the 4th.
3. UN, I am guessing he is just stealing stuff, that's why we have counter espionage  since he really hits everyone.
4. SA,  surrounding Amberland tends to get region 5 owners jumpy. 
5. IL, I think he is at war with the DU in region 1?  He went quiet so I know he is in attack mode but not sure against who.
6. DU I am sure if he is not attacking you, he is being hit by a few kingdoms.

Tark you kicking ass and taking names, but no one is going to let any other player just take stuff.  Fear is why others attack you now, a caster kingdom this late in the game is like Sauron at the beginning of LoTR.

I am sure it seems like 5 players are plotting against you, all sharing turns, tactics and what not.  The reality is, someone probably coordinated with other kingdoms to war with you and the other 4 kingdoms have little knowledge what the others are even doing.

Stick with it, your doing well, plot the win and go for it.  It will be one hell of a feather in your cap to beat so many top players in one game. 

-Rogal

While I greatly appreciate the kind words on my game play, the reality is that no player, no matter how skilled is going to hold up to a 4 on 1 or worse for more than a few turns especially in a diplomacy game where they can openly coordinate their actions. I find it odd that the 5 on 1 is being directed NOT at the first place player or even the second place player but instead is directed at the third place player (based on the last in-game status point update). I was always taught you take out the top dog. And there are 5 in my lands, actively working against me. Now I have no beef with the NE, I picked that fight, so I deserve everything he throws at me and he still managed to take out my first ally (despite the false claims of others) and gave me a huge beat down in mano e mano combat (kudos!). If I was in first place with 3 regions, rather than in 3rd and about to be collapsed to a single region, then I'd feel the 5 on 1 would be justified.

[Devildog]

Tark, I sympathize to a point.  5 seems excessive.  As a new player I was attacked early on by an  experienced player. I had a NAP with you and approached you in extending it as I preferred not having to fight 2 experienced players simultaneously but that was not in your plans.  Then the nomads jumped in against me and I sent them a similar email.  They had the same response.

It would be nice if people didn't join in against people who have already been attacked but it is apparently just good strategy
[/quote]


As a new player, you should expect 2 on 1s, they are quite common and expected when there are more kingdoms than regions to go around.  Three on ones occur less frequently and its frowned on but sometimes a necessity especially against a kingdom in a podium position (currently in first, second, or third based on most recent status points).

4 on 1s are generally reserved for a top current podium position making a play for the win.

5 on 1s are pretty extreme and really should be reserved for the first place kingdom making a run at winning the game.

I did give you a 20 turn NAP to give you ample time to prep, and with only two long borders for R3, it was going to be you or the AT when the NAP ended but had allied with AT.  Generally, if your border neighbor doesn't renew a NAP, I would expect trouble in the near future.
[/quote]

Understood. It was 15 turns, but whatever. I am not complaining. Obviously just because I would prefer not to be ganged up on is not a good reason for you to not attack me when our NAP ended. I avoided facing a 3 on 1, none of which were initiated by me only because the atlantians dropped just before the nomads attacked me.

Out of curiosity, am I one of the 5 ganging up on you? Because I was attacked by you and am basically defending myself. I hardly think I should be lumped in with the other ones unfairly attacking you. I know that the amazons have attacked you in northern mists. I see the SA has advanced HC issues against you. Has he done much more than that? Someone attacked the druid. I assumed that was you but I honestly don't know. If so I don't think he should be accused of ganging up on you. And if in fact you had 2 territories and we're going for 2 more. I could see that other kingdoms might think they needed to act. I am not sure of the 5th kingdom but it is hard to believe that they are exerting serious pressure as you still have both NM and TM, and Oakendell and eastern steppes remain uncontrolled and heavily contested by you.

[unclemike]

I had considered requiring a declaration of causus belli (justification for war) for the next release but am leaning against it.  With it, a player would need to make the declaration a turn or more prior to commencing attack or suffer significant loss of influence (maybe 3.0 points).  So this would significantly curtail sneak attacks and especially those of 3 v 1.  But it might also reduce the sense of anticipation and uncertainty.

From the programming point of view, implementing a Causus Belli would be fairly simple to do even at the extreme level of actually preventing an emissary or group from conquering a pc if the aggressor didn't declare the targeted kingdom an enemy first. With the two-kingdom enemy limit, that could prevent gang ups or at least notify the victim that they're about to be attack by multiple kingdoms and prepare for such by rearranging one's forces to defend the region or spread out emissaries for status quos.

I think having something in addition to a Causus Belli like an official Declaration of War where there would be heavy penalties to the attacker both politically and militarily if the victim of an attack didn't declare the attacker an enemy as well (so the aggressor is at a disadvantage at the victim's pc's since a mutual declaration of war was not issued). Having an additional policy like this to augment a Causus Belli would help slow down the advance of being ganged up on by multiple kingdoms due to the heavy penalties. I don't think a Causus Belli alone would be enough, the game will need a corresponding Declaration of War or such by both parties to prevent ganging up to a certain degree.

So by having the code interfere and prevent a kingdom from conquering a pc (either outright or heavily penalize the attacker) would help enforce the rule because I don't think that a loss of influence will be strong enough to stop an attack or deter aggressive behavior by others. But I also understand that having a Causus Belli/Declaration of War combo in place would also end up ruining the element of surprise which makes some games interesting just by itself.

Heck, I was just surprised attacked in two of my games (524, 527) and I'm having fun being the victim. The DA in 524 was brutally efficient and made me lose control of my region in a single turn (hats off to VballMichael) but I'm up to the challenge going against him. The WA in 527 took me by surprise with my forces out of position and if the DE wants to join him, I'm fine with that too even though I'm not really expecting to survive being attacked by two highly skilled players who are better at this game than me 

So even though a programming restriction like Causus Belli/Declaration of War may be a way to prevent a gang ups or surprise attacks, I actually like being outnumbered or hit hard by surprise by others in a game. So it's a tough call for the designer to decide if the software should restrict gameplay to a certain degree...

[Tomag Ironfist]

I feel like a Causus Belli / Declaration of War would eliminate any kind of realistic turn-1 aggression from the game, and force players to focus on establishing themselves in a region first, *no matter what.* I think early hyper-aggression is my strong suit, and I would be very disappointed if this was no longer a viable ploy.

[Rogal]

The  problem is to actually define what a 3 v 1 is.  Is it only political and military actions against another player?  Could a 3 v 1 also include the following:
1) Any agent actions to include recons of a player receiving the 3 v 1?
2) Any divination against the 3 v 1 player?
3) Trades to the players in the 3 v 1?
4) High council issues on the 3 v 1?
5) Spells that could alter a players turn results on a  3 v 1?
6) Units just going through a region in a 3 v 1 on the hopes of locating population centers?
7) Any data shared between players prior to the 3 v 1 that led to an advantage to one player involved in the 3 v 1?
8) Using the forms to look for information and reactions of other players and use the forms to influence other players actions?
9) Any player who uses navy to influence naval actions of any king in  the 3 v 1?
10) How does one determine what is truly 3 players plotting to hit another vs coincidence vs the end battle and players forced to just sit there for they do not want to be part of a 3 v 1 and basically just sit there due to not wanting to interfere with 3 v 1 and basically do not play the game over fairness?

So my question is what is the definition of 3 v 1?  Is the answer more then just elements that can flip a population center?

- Rogal

[unclemike]

You can still be hyper aggressive against another kingdom on turn 1 with a program in control of the situation to prevent unfair matchups.

A Causus Belli only notifies the other kingdom that you're about to attack them (giving them advance notice so that they may rearrange their forces, emissaries, or such to prepare themselves against you). Causus Belli only notifies the other, it doesn't actually prevent attacking someone that you want to attack unless you don't declare them an enemy beforehand. If you don't declare them an enemy first then the Causus Belli would prevent any success at the victim's pc's.

After thinking about it, the Declaration of War would be better stated to have the opposite effect of having a War Protest or something similar. Without doing this, five kingdoms may still issue a Causus Belli and gang up on you whether it's turn 1 or later. An official issuance of a War Protest by the victim would only be allowed if 2+ kingdoms issued a Causus Belli against the victim. That way, a 1 vs 1 war between two kingdoms wouldn't be penalized but if 2+ vs 1 is going on, the victim can issue a War Protest against the others which would impose heavy penalties on the gang up against you (which will slow their advance giving the victim a chance to survive in the game).

So if the game had a Causus Belli/War Protest combo in place, it wouldn't prevent you from attacking anyone that you want to attack (from turn 1 or otherwise) but it would help prevent gang ups or surprise attacks in the game. It's just a suggestion but I don't think that a weak Causus Belli (of just an influence loss) will prevent the problem from happening nor will it prevent a gang up from happening. Allowing the victim to issue a War Protest or similar order would help defend one's region against multiple attackers.