The One Downfall of Diplomacy Games

[Atuan]

Similar question I stated above, what constitutes an attack?  Will an attack be based on specific orders? If it will be based on specific orders, what about non specific orders fire off against a kingdom?

Only orders for conquering a pc: emissary rebel/usurp, wizard diplomacy, and group attacks/parley/siege. I would think nothing else in the game should be affected to keep things simple, just the important issues of being ganged up on and losing your pc's because of it. So I'm actually in favor of a Causus Belli/War Protest combo since it will prevent gang ups from happening in the game.

So if I were a victim of a 5 vs 1 gang up (and they all issued a Causus Belli against me that allowed their attack), I would issue a War Protest on all 5 to slow down their advance and to give me a chance to survive. Again, you may only issue a War Protest if 2+ kingdoms issue a Causus Belli against you, not if a single kingdom is attacking you.

If I successfully defended my region and want to go on the offensive, I would have to cancel a War Protest on one of the attacking kingdoms and issue a Causus Belli myself against them or I wouldn't be able to attack their pc's.

UM, your War protest idea sounds interesting.  If there were some way to slow down or deter multi on one attacks I might, and others might also, consider participating in diplomacy games.

Would this slow/down prevent people from taking PCs in their starting region? IE assume I am the DU, would I have more difficulty in taking the SA town in Oakendell?

[unclemike]

Would this slow/down prevent people from taking PCs in their starting region?  IE assume I am the DU, would I have more difficulty in taking the SA town in Oakendell?

Again, all of this is just conjecture and Ry Vor may be laughing and having a good time reading all of this but, yes, your initial expansion into a region would be affected by the new rule.

You would have to first declare the SA an enemy then issue a Causus Belli in order to conquer his/her town. Then cancel the Causus Belli if that's the only pc that you want from the SA (in an anonymous game). Or if it's a diplomacy game, you could convince the SA to pop it neutral by having him tax it then you wouldn't have to declare him your enemy.

The Causus Belli/Protest War mechanism would protect your pc's by some manner throughout the game and slow down gang ups against others. It's just something to think about but we'll need the Protest War command to hamper multiple foes from invading your region.

[Atuan]

Would this slow/down prevent people from taking PCs in their starting region?  IE assume I am the DU, would I have more difficulty in taking the SA town in Oakendell?

Again, all of this is just conjecture and Ry Vor may be laughing and having a good time reading all of this but, yes, your initial expansion into a region would be affected by the new rule.

You would have to first declare the SA an enemy then issue a Causus Belli in order to conquer his/her town. Then cancel the Causus Belli if that's the only pc that you want from the SA (in an anonymous game). Or if it's a diplomacy game, you could convince the SA to pop it neutral by having him tax it then you wouldn't have to declare him your enemy.

The Causus Belli/Protest War mechanism would protect your pc's by some manner throughout the game and slow down gang ups against others. It's just something to think about but we'll need the Protest War command to hamper multiple foes from invading your region.

Ugg... so I lose influence to start with and an order or 2 to take a PC. Hmm okay well I appreciate the other pieces of it but I cannot say I am jumping for Joy on how it will impact turn 1-5 for gaining your region. Not a big fan of losing the surprise factor either. Can we move the 440 order to like order 50 or so?

[unclemike]

Ugg... so I lose influence to start with and an order or 2 to take a PC.  Hmm okay well I appreciate the other pieces of it but I cannot say I am jumping for Joy on how it will impact turn 1-5 for gaining your region.  Not a big fan of losing the surprise factor either.  Can we move the 440 order to like order 50 or so?

Well, Ry Vor could probably make it so that you don't have to declare another an enemy before issuing a Causus Belli. That would save an order and influence.

[Devildog]

I stand corrected.  It was 15 turns not 20. While I include you in the 5 on 1, I have mentioned that you certainly have every justification to smack me since I picked the fight with you; you have been fair in all your dealings and have managed quite well despite the initial loss of your home region. Since the game is on-going, I'm not in a position to reveal specifics in regards to the other aspects of the 5 on 1, but will happily show you when game is over.

I look forward to the end of game information. I think you may be underestimating your threat to other players. Your takedown of my positions in NM was near instant. I was partially in ES at the time but others might not have known that. Whether others knew or suspected that ES would be the third region you go for might have prompted action on their part. And in the face of fighting so many at once you have yet to lose a region. Maybe that will change in the next few turns but as you can see my knowledge of what is going on outside my area is limited to what is on the turn results.

I hope I am not giving away inappropriate information on the forum but suffice it to say there are still high ranking warlock emissaries and wizards hard at work in the eastern steppes so the prospect of so many attacking you has not totally diminished your desire to pursue your war on my little kingdom.

Good luck IT. I doubt I will have any surprises that you can't deal with. We will probably see how it works out before too much longer.

[Ry Vor]

These "who shot who" discussions always end badly with someone(s) annoyed.

I think a valid point is even on what is perceived at 3 on 1 is often the 1 attacked somewhere (so one enemy), was attacked by someone else while out of position, and then maybe lost the region and so invites a blood seeking shark (#3).  I think (empirical evidence lacking) most 3 v 1 are not orchestrated, they just are a natural evolution in a campaign, along of course, with a more concerted effort later to stop the leader from winning, which seems understandable.

The Causus Belli is a stretch even for Alamaze, I don't think I would even do that let alone further imposed restrictions.  There are lots of ramifications to Alamaze to restrict attacks outright.  I might have planned to attack kingdom X for three turns, now I can't at all because two others did, or my target doesn't want to be attacked?  I can see it in another game, or perhaps a powerful kingdom Trait to force peace (if something like Causus Belli was in place, to expand to making further attacks the next turn another violation), something like an Ancient Intervention. 

Anyway, be forewarned in a full-on game going lone wolf.  Most of your opponents will look to gather one or two allies early.  Having more than two allies doesn't seem sportsmanlike or practical - only three can be on the podium, for one. 

We are a small community of mainly gentlemen.  Causus Belli may or may not be an idea along those lines where the Kingdoms of Alamaze have collectively agreed on a code of conduct.