Diplomacy or Not?

[Cloud]

The incentives inherent in the game will always govern the choices of the players. In a full diplomacy game, presuming you ever go on the offensive, you have a decision to make. Do you attack your rival 1 on 1 with no help from outside or do you coordinate with other players? As with any choice in a game, there is a cost-benefit (or risk-reward, if you prefer) element that is baked into the choice.

If you go it alone, you stand to gain more territory than if you coordinate but you also are potentially committing to a grinding battle that takes many turns to win or results in a quagmire. You also are risking invasion by opportunistic outsiders who see that you are weakened or tied down elsewhere, a risk that grows every turn that you are busy with your target. In addition, you must consider that your foe may not like being 1 v 1 attacked and contact another player, asking them to invade you. Because that is probably gonna happen. And now it's not 1 v 1 anymore.

If you coordinate, you get a smaller share but are more likely to win quickly, freeing you up to pursue other goals and minimizing the chance that others will see you as a target. Is it any wonder that some level of coordination is the norm? The opportunity cost of attacking solo is nearly prohibitive. The fact that I have never seen a 1 v 1 conflict in a full diplomacy game is telling. I think it's basically impossible.

Cloud

[Brogan]

What else hurts diplomacy and free time is the number of games we all play in and the speed of the turns. Imagine how much time and effort you would put into diplomacy if you were only in 1 game that ran once every two weeks.

[Ry Vor]

There is a thing or two I am still missing. It seems in Classic games, almost all neighbors are seeking "Game long NAP", and if it is not offered, you are treated as an enemy on Turn 0. This is player imposed stuff, not from the game as far as I can tell. There are many reasons not to agree to a game long treaty of any sort early in a game, and IMO, entering into them reflexively really harms the potential of a given game. When circumstances emerge that argue for an alliance, that's fine. Not an automatic capitulation.

Then what is exacerbating is players largely reject the Magic format, where there are pre-assigned, balanced teams of three kingdoms, where you can join a team with your two friends, if you are inclined toward "game long NAP". But no one wants to play in those games. Why is that? So it does raise some suspicion that human nature may be to seek joining an alliance when others do not, to gain an advantage. I am still not clear on why the Magic format is not popular, given the overall popularity of game-long NAP.

Again, I hear the people with Anonymous, but that is a real leap of faith - we have no way to enforce those rules of players not contacting one another. I'm not comfortable with not having any control over what the reality is when I think that is why players trust us to run Alamaze.

[DuPont]

I have never played in an anonymous game where I suspected cheating, though I supposed there could have been some. Certainly if the GM noticed trading going along, that would be a big red flag.
As for magic games, I will not play in one unless the rules are changed so that a teammate who drops can be replaced at any point and not just prior to turn 6.

[Lord Diamond]

Anytime I lose, I suspect cheating! That means that you are all cheating bastards, especially Wynand! I am kidding of course. I have never had any reason to suspect anyone of being less than completely honest.

[Ry Vor]

As much as I am on record of not favoring anonymous games, I would have to admit, like a Don Shula in the NFL that can win with Czonka and Kick, or with Dan Marino and no RB, I think some Alamaze Persona both wins in both Steel Normal (full diplomacy) , AND in Anonymous would evidence quite a diversified skill set, maybe worthy of a special title in Valhalla.

[Wynand]

Anytime I lose, I suspect cheating! That means that you are all cheating bastards, especially Wynand! I am kidding of course. I have never had any reason to suspect anyone of being less than completely honest.

Lol.... I salute you as well, LD.