Game 195

[Lord Diamond]

End of Game Details attached.

[Jumpingfist]

That may be the most ESOs ever made in one game.

[mafmiller]

DA

I have to say that I'm glad this game is over. It is very difficult to plan anything with one's allies using only a public forum. The thing I liked about this game was the role-playing ... some in our community are excellent writers and everyone enriched the experience with colorful in-character posts. What I did not like was the public-only diplomacy. Diplomacy is probably the one thing in this game that I am actually good at, and I was able to first, pacify my neighbors who were about to attack me when I joined the game in progress, and then, negotiate peace between them when they later wanted to attack each other. Actually organizing an alliance to accomplish a goal, however, was another story. What I really wanted was for the DW, RA and I to go after the GI and BL together. Unfortunately, I hadn't read all of the past posts before I joined and didn't realize how close the RA was to the GN and BL. When the DW was threatened, I expected the RA and I would defend him, but the RA remained neutral because of his relationship with the GN. By then, I had committed to sticking by the RA no matter what, so had no choice but to follow his lead. A discussion about differences in strategy with an ally is just not possible on a public forum. It is this aspect, the normally behind the scenes discussion about goals, that I feel suffers the most in this format. Of course, carrying out a coordinated course of action is also difficult, but these difficulties are more easily overcome ... the GN and AN, for example, handled this quite well.
All together, it was fun(and I'm proud that I never gave in to the UN's extortion!), but I don't think I will be participating in this format again.
Congratulations to GN, AN and UN on their victories! Very well-played!

[HeadHoncho]

GN

It probably won't surprise anyone given my earlier comments and ultimate finish to hear that I love this format.

I think the proper comparison isn't to full diplomacy games, to be honest... we all know that full diplomacy games allow for maximum coordination and alliance and intrigue. But they have also generated the largest volume of complaints about X-v-1 gangups, backroom deals, interlocking NAPs, and a nigh-requirement to spend a lot of time e-mailing and conducting diplomacy that it disadvantages less communicative players. The volume of complaints has become so large that full diplomacy games have now become significantly more rare than full anonymous games.

This is why the better comparison for public diplomacy games, in my opinion, is to full anonymous games. Full anonymous games have the benefit of no coordination at all, no time spent on diplomacy, etc. etc. But to me, they also feel slightly... unsatisfying? Boring? "Pure wargamey" in a game that is supposed to have lots of maneuvering and intrigue?

Obviously, tastes vary, and for some it will be an easy decision (e.g. "Anonymous is the greatest!"), but I think public diplomacy splits the difference in a positive way, for the following reasons:

- More forgiving early game, in most cases, allowing people to build a bit before the blitzes start
- Good opportunities to mentor and give advice to less experienced players
- Limited ability to coordinate, due to the public nature of information (which is a feature and not a bug, in my view)
- Limited ability to gang up, due to public criticism and ability to rally help more easily than trying to e-mail a bunch of people individually
- Greater global knowledge of the "lay of the land" without e-mailing a bunch of people individually (who may not even be telling the truth)
- Excellent role-playing posts, for those who have time and inclination to do it
- Ability to look back over the history of the game and have it serve as a "primer" on what is more and less effective for negotiations

One thing that is striking to me is the importance of tone and "everyone being cool" and I think you need only look at 195 and 301 in that regard, to see some major differences. Although there may have been frustrations in 195 about how to launch an attack, or what interlocking alliances and NAPs existed, or whatever, I never got the sense that anyone was upset or frustrated or taking things personally, unlike 301.

Anyway, in this game, I wanted to build up a strong economic base as GN and do some artifact hunting, before making a play for the Rex. Things went better in both areas than I originally thought they would, and so by the time I moved on TR I was really strong.

DW was my obvious next target, and I started some harassing moves and talked big on the forum, but I wasn't yet fully committed to moving on him, instead looking around for other targets. When I saw EL had some inactivity on both the forum and in his Kingdom, I took a chance and made a move, which paid off by gaining me a turn's jump on anyone else (presumably the neighboring AN, an excellent player in JF, would have moved to take over right away if I hadn't anticipated the drop) and control of the region.

From there, it was full-bore into R3. I was surprised around that time to take control of R2 with only four towns, but so many pop centers had been destroyed by WI that there were only one city, four towns, and one village in the entire region. But I had made a commitment to WI that I wouldn't resist him taking the towns back, which commitment I fulfilled a few turns later when he kicked me out of R2 completely. So I hadn't counted on that region being one of my four.

R3 inexorably fell to my GN forces (three groups running around with full wizard support, plus some Princes with high influence), and so that left one more region. I had a number of candidates (having fulfilled my commitment to WI, I could have gone back into R2, but I was reluctant to do that since we had had silent but good relations all game; I also could have gone into R8 or R10, as my NAP with BL and GI had just expired, but I ran the risk of stepping on DA/RA with whom I had NAPs), and I'm confident one of them would have worked out, but AN graciously offered R4 after DW knocked him out of control, which I was glad to take.

This made good sense for both of us, since UN was on a steeper upward curve than AN, and if I needed to spend a few more turns to take a different region, and didn't trade AN a number of my high-quality artifacts in compensation, UN probably would have taken the Silver instead of AN if this had gone to T37 or later.

As it was, however, we ended on T33 and I was glad to take the Gold. It was a super-fun game for me, and I enjoyed it a great deal.

It sounds like too many people are ambivalent about this experimental format for it to have strong support in the future, but I'm glad we tried Vulkar's idea, and again, my hope is that the game itself can serve as a helpful resource on diplomacy do's and don'ts. All my best, and well played, everyone!

[Lord Thanatos]

I think public diplomacy splits the difference in a positive way, for the following reasons:

- More forgiving early game, in most cases, allowing people to build a bit before the blitzes start
- Good opportunities to mentor and give advice to less experienced players
- Limited ability to coordinate, due to the public nature of information (which is a feature and not a bug, in my view)
- Limited ability to gang up, due to public criticism and ability to rally help more easily than trying to e-mail a bunch of people individually
- Greater global knowledge of the "lay of the land" without e-mailing a bunch of people individually (who may not even be telling the truth)
- Excellent role-playing posts, for those who have time and inclination to do it
- Ability to look back over the history of the game and have it serve as a "primer" on what is more and less effective for negotiations

WI

I agree with HH above.  These contests have an additional feature of creating lots of Forum posts/interaction that could/might/maybe lead to more players joining our community as they see the active Forums.

I decided to play "silently" to ascertain how others interacted when they could be certain that a player had absolutely no allies or coordination.


Whatever players' personal opinions are on diplomacy, my opinions were confirmed:

1) TR attacked me without provocation.  No problem - that is expected somewhere between turn 1 and turn 39 as inevitable.

2) DW (or UN, I forget who was first) joined with TR.  Again, no problem - while it is a challenge to face two invaders simultaneously that is extremely common.  Due to playing both Warlord and Anonymous contests I felt that the limited communication in this format would similarly allow for a challenging/fun-filled contest.  I anticipated that all three players would "get their monies worth" from this contest.

3) TR and DW (or UN) both sought additional players to join their alliance.  Regardless of whether other players joined to make the contest 3 v 1, I have a real problem with the request itself.  This fact has created the following result, as posted by HH:

"[F]ull diplomacy games allow for maximum coordination and alliance and intrigue. But they have also generated the largest volume of complaints about X-v-1 gangups, backroom deals, interlocking NAPs, and a nigh-requirement to spend a lot of time e-mailing and conducting diplomacy that it disadvantages less communicative players. The volume of complaints has become so large that full diplomacy games have now become significantly more rare than full anonymous games."

4) UN (or DW) became the third player actively working against a single player.  My opinion on this type of playing style is well-known.  Why couldn't the UN (or DW) have concluded the two players already had a sufficient advantage and simultaneously concluded there were still plenty of other possible targets?

5) Late in the game the DW sought to rally aid to prevent the GN/AN players from moving towards victory.  This effort could have begun many turns earlier instead of coordinating a 3 v 1.  Once two players attacked me it was nearly inevitable that I could not win.  This should have been obvious.  Equally obvious was that one of the remaining players would have a much better chance at success and should probably be hindered.  Oh well . . . it was "too little, too late" when the DW sought to prevent a GN victory.

Congratulations HH.

[HeadHoncho]

LT, many thanks for your congratulations, and for your even-handed presentation. I actually agree with a good chunk (although not all) of what you say, and regardless, I appreciate the spirit of your comments. All my best.

[Vulkar]

DW

Overall I enjoyed the game, though much more so in the early game than the mid-late game.

My first mistake was probably taking the Dwarf, I didn't realize how awfully week the Dwarf is late game. The limitations with wizards and agents is a real handicap in a 30-40 turn game. Lesson learned.

I was disappointed with the public diplomacy aspect of it, thought not because it isn't a fun and engaging way to play, but because too few really engaged in the role-playing aspect of it. Much of the diplomacy had an out of character flavor and a lot of messages were simply ignored. I was also puzzled by all the NAPs/treaties. I think as this community grows and gains experience with this format the experience will get much better.

The diplomacy itself was awfully civil for a fantasy war game and I was perplexed by the lack of belligerence and aggression, both from a role-playing and strategic perspective. (I'll thank Dupont for being the lone exception here.) I tried to stir stuff up around the mid-game, assassinating Warlock and Giant agents, to no avail. Things didn't get going until I attacked the Warlock out of sheer boredom, which unfortunately was a tragically impatient blunder devoid of any strategic foresight. With the RA/DA alliance leaving me to myself against the GN/AN/WA/WI party I was doomed.

The one thing that really irked me was the total apathy demonstrated by everyone as it became clear that one player was quickly approaching victory. In most games I play (outside of Alamaze) there would quickly be some realignment and a coordinated and concerted effort to stop that from happening. The RA/DA & BL/GI were all too happy to ignore the fact they were about to lose a game and carry on their private war; the UN and AN seemed perfectly happy to settle on a 3rd and 2nd place finish, as though this was a team game. Watching everyone step aside for the Gnome to take four regions was really disappointing.

I think the results of the WI abstaining from communication was predictable, which makes an experiment on the matter somewhat odd.

Congrats again to HeadHoncho, and thanks for setting the game up.

[Lord Diamond]

By the time I realized that the Gnome was about to win, I was getting my butt kicked by the Ranger and I was trying my best to hold him down. "Haha, I bit your thumb while you were punching me in the face!"