Login

**IMPERIAL_TARK** · 11-01-2016, 05:29 PM

I know that Rick loves Diplomacy games and built Alamaze to be primarily diplomatic in nature but the problem with it is the piling on element. I'm now in a game where its become 5 against 1. All joy has gone out of a game I was really enjoying and moved me to the closest I've ever been to that rage quit level where I just walk away from the whole shebang. Seriously, 5 on 1?! What makes it worse is that I only initiated combat with 1 of the 5. The other 4 picked the fight with me. And only 2 of the 5 even share a controlled border with me, so 3 are jumping across regions to get to me. And 2 of the 5 are in the top 5 players. 5 on 1, seriously?

Until there is a correction mechanism for this, you will lose players.

**Atuan** · 11-01-2016, 05:46 PM

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.

**Devildog** · 11-01-2016, 06:18 PM

(11-01-2016, 05:29 PM)IMPERIAL_TARK Wrote: I know that Rick loves Diplomacy games and built Alamaze to be primarily diplomatic in nature but the problem with it is the piling on element. I'm now in a game where its become 5 against 1. All joy has gone out of a game I was really enjoying and moved me to the closest I've ever been to that rage quit level where I just walk away from the whole shebang. Seriously, 5 on 1?! What makes it worse is that I only initiated combat with 1 of the 5. The other 4 picked the fight with me. And only 2 of the 5 even share a controlled border with me, so 3 are jumping across regions to get to me. And 2 of the 5 are in the top 5 players. 5 on 1, seriously?

Until there is a correction mechanism for this, you will lose players.

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

**Ry Vor** · 11-01-2016, 06:41 PM

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.

**VballMichael** · (This post was last modified: 11-01-2016, 07:25 PM by VballMichael.)

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.

11-01-2016, 07:25 PM

Tark, I also had an experience where I was invaded by 5 kingdoms, on turn 10. I have avoided diplomacy games since then. I understand your rage but implore you to stay with the game. As Rick pointed out there are many different formats and it is not hard to avoid diplomatic games.

If you decide to stay with the game I think you will regain that joy. Just not in diplomacy games.

**Devildog** · 11-01-2016, 07:47 PM

(11-01-2016, 07:23 PM)VballMichael Wrote: 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.

**Tomag Ironfist** · 11-01-2016, 07:47 PM

What makes diplomacy games even better is when your 'secret ally' double-crosses you Smile

I think it is due to this that makes diplomacy games difficult. The reliable players identify other reliable players that they work with every game because they know that they can place their trust in them, which like VBallMichael said, creates these huge clique-based NAPs off turn 1 which limits diplomacy for others.

**VballMichael** · 11-01-2016, 07:51 PM

(11-01-2016, 07:47 PM)Devildog Wrote:
(11-01-2016, 07:23 PM)VballMichael Wrote: 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

**Rogal** · 11-01-2016, 08:05 PM

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