3rd Turn Diplomacy

[Ry Vor]

To recap, over the years we have gone from unlimited "diplomacy" which included phone calls and begging, to silent, which was no diplomacy, which also has some popularity to now kind of a standard of diplomacy every third turn.  This seems to be working well.  But also the major change has been in no long term NAP's (non aggression pacts), which to me when they existed ruined the game especially on a suspense level, as, unexpected to me but I suppose understandable with one persona, no backstabbing.  

I wonder for your opinions, if we can support the idea of no alliances in a Steel game (single kingdom), where you can still ally with your buddy in team games, that with no NAP's we can loosen the restriction on diplomacy to just every third turn.  I don't care either way myself, I think its working out as intended, again the main thing was wiping out the "power player" idea of massive communication revolving around early game long agreements, which to me about ruins the game and the intent. 

So I am asking, do you want to keep Late Season Only diplomacy, which is fine by me, or do you want to have any turn forum only diplomacy keeping no allies, or perhaps no allies until turn 15 or so.  

Just a possible discussion.  No real agenda here.

[Senior Tactician]

This is what I was thinking about:  Trade every turn, but no arrangements that are not supported by game orders.  In other words, you can use all orders 201 thru 206, 411 and 412 (and discuss them in the forum), you can even 440 (but 215 strictly prohibited).  And ALL communication is in the forum, ally or not.

What you CANT do are things that aren't supported by orders, like agree to mutually tax PCs, promise not to break alliance, 215 for services, etc. ANY arrangement that influences a players behavior (or makes a promise about your behavior) in the game that is not supported by the trade orders.  You cannot pay for any service, promise or arrangement by using the trade order to trade 1 food for XYZ amount of gold.

For instance, you can hire the UN (or anyone for that matter) by saying "I will 204 for any DW emissaries".  And in order for the UN to get his money, the kingdoms have to engage in the 204 trade order.  You CAN'T say "I will 215 for proof of dead emissaries."  You cant pay for spells.  You cannot convey game information in any way.

You CAN ally with someone, but cannot promise not to break that alliance (The game does not prevent you from attacking allies either, so you can, without shame or guilt, attack your allies and suffer the moral penalty).  You cannot make arrangements with allies to attack someone together.  In essence the only communication would be about trade orders and or course, smack talk.

I think that essentially eliminating trade orders from the game, or even restricting them to every 3 turns, makes some kingdoms boring to play (UN, HA maybe).

I think it also best if you can not discuss anything going on in the game other than your specific trade order, no calling out information like "this guy is going to win next turn if you don't XYZ", etc.

[HabeusCorpus]

My preference is for diplomacy every turn - the narratives, twists and turns on public display in the forum are half the fun. The diplomacy every third turn makes the discussion disjointed and I believe is done more for turn speed (diplomacy can slow things down as you wait for responses) than it is to further water down cooperation? In a world of no alliances, no naps, etc .. not sure how every third turn changes things that much from every first turn.

Definitely prefer forum only communication as opposed to completely open communication which is better suited to full alliance/team games.

My thoughts.

[VballMichael]

I like having different types of games. Any time there is talking, there is working together. Even saying "no allies" does nothing because trade partners will work together, just not as "allies."
It does not matter whether we talk every turn or every 3 turns as there is working together either way.
I prefer some games to truly be single-player games and then some games where folks can work together. i am just saying that there is not really a middle ground.