Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

« Back

1793 days, 8 hours, 46 minutes ago

maqusan

Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side of the game? It's a full third of the game, behind logistics and ahead of tactics, but I don't see much written on it and, from what I've seen, most people can't play Diplomacy for toffee.

Too much reading The Art of War and not enough reading The Prince if you ask me.

1793 days, 8 hours, 23 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Paranoid people are not to be trusted.

Don't be nice and let a new player expand, just kill them before they back-stab you.

1793 days, 8 hours, 8 minutes ago

ace rimmer

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Don't Trust Peter Madsen when he plays the Fascists he's really sneaky with his Glory Bombs. Outright Betrayal and Mass Murder that guy is crazy.

Ace

1793 days, 7 hours, 46 minutes ago

countryreaper

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Everyone is crazy in one way on another.

1793 days, 7 hours, 41 minutes ago

ville kauppinen

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Always kill the messenger.
And definitely kill the one bringing gifts.

1793 days, 7 hours, 40 minutes ago

maqusan

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

You guys are making my point brilliantly.

1793 days, 7 hours, 39 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

The enemy of your enemy is your friend ;)

1793 days, 7 hours, 35 minutes ago

maqusan

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Ah, http://www.donovansvgap.com/strategy/diplomacy.htm seems to be the only doc I've found so far that even acknowledges the existence of N-Player game theory.

1793 days, 7 hours, 20 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

here should be one or two diplomacy guides, one by bond and one by senor koski...
haven't cleaned the strategy guides yet, but sooner or later they will be easier to find ;)

http://www.planetsmagazine.com/category/races/strategyguides/

1793 days, 7 hours, 14 minutes ago

commander koski

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Also, don't forget those articles on diplomacy by Gnerphk! You can find them if you read any article at Planets Magazine dealing with diplomacy and then you click the tag word diplomacy under the article.

I'm planning to write another article on diplomacy, kind of a case study. In my recently finished game I used diplomacy to for example:
- I couldn't reach the Robots early but needed to combat him to gain PBP and keep his military graph under control and troops isolated from one another. So I used diplomatic messages and sacrificed a Thorn to encourage the Robot to attack me quickly and after that attack was destroyed, to keep attacking me and quickly.
- I managed diplomatic messages, ship building and planet conquering in a way that I seemed as small threat to anyone else as possible.
- I used diplomatic messages to divert and encourage the aggressions of other players against other players, instead of me.

There are many who don't understand the importance of communicating to other players, and many who don't communicate at all. Many have similar approach as Ville.

But ignoring messages, treaties and trade is just dangerous, in my opinion:
- For many, the non-communicative player is the enemy nr. 1 - in order to be destroyed first
- you miss important pieces of information you could gain by communicating
- you lose opportunities of trade, treaties and alliances.

There is much more to gain than to lose in diplomacy. Don't ignore it. Instead, develop your skills.

1793 days, 7 hours, 12 minutes ago

commander koski

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

plus, diplomacy is FUN! :)

1793 days, 7 hours, 10 minutes ago

ville kauppinen

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

There is deep wisdom in my words; 'always kill the one bearing gifts' -> I can safely say that in 99.99% of cases he is not thinking of your benefit but his/hers/its.

-> The ones encouraging to attack someone, kill THEM.

1793 days, 7 hours, 7 minutes ago

ville kauppinen

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

... and kill the ones diplomatically active; it is far more easier then to deal with the ones who dont communicate. Standard risk assessment.

1793 days, 7 hours, 6 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

@Ville: thats so true ... kill the spokesman instead of the intended victim (or kill him right after the spokesman) :-)

1793 days, 7 hours, 6 minutes ago

commander koski

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Well, Ville, I for one and I think for example Azzazzello, too, have the approach that a proper way to treat an ally is to create a win/win -situation, where your ally gains more when he is with you than when he is against you. I personally want to overwhelm my allies with my generosity: I build ships and bring money without keeping count, often for example give the first Coldpain I first sent to scout his area.

I think killing a player who behaves like this is like killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.

1793 days, 7 hours, 5 minutes ago

maqusan

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Ville makes a fair point if it weren't for the fact that diplomatically active players are more likely to have allies than you.

1793 days, 7 hours, 0 minutes ago

ville kauppinen

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Naturally there are 2 different scenarios; 0 ally games and 1 ally games.

In allied games its natural to grab someone useful with you and end the game quickly and of course supply your ally with everything you can.

In zero ally games it may not be so practical and I'm referring more to those.

1793 days, 6 hours, 55 minutes ago

commander koski

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Well, Ville, again I disagree. In 0 ally games it is actually very common to see alliances, treaties and all kinds of cooperation. That is because you just gain so much from it! Just the basic non-aggression pacts and trade (cloakers to carriers) bring huge advantages.

In 1 ally games it's easy: just makke alliance and don't bother with diplomacy for the rest of the game. Like you said, just grab someone.

In 0 ally situation you need to work those diplomatic muscles!

1793 days, 6 hours, 54 minutes ago

maqusan

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Important facets of diplomacy in a competitive multiplayer environment:

1. Avoid lying. Obfuscate, misdirect, and reveal as little truth as necessary by all means. Don't outright lie to someone though. A lie ends all future negotiations and earns you a reputation for untrustworthiness.

2. Don't look to what you want, look to what the other party wants. They're not the shopowner, you are. What can you sell them today? Remember there are other shops on the high street that they may want to visit. Why should they shop at your store?

3. Be clear on your bottom line. What do you want out of the game? If it's to win then your objective in every negotiation should be to maximise your chances of reaching a winning state. The purest example of this would be if you had 125 planets and another player had 125 planets. Securing an alliance seals you the win. Most other negotiations will be more indirect in search of this goal.

4. Negotiate from a position of strength. It's preferable to team up with 2 players weaker than you than 1 player stronger than you. The weaker players will always need you and always fear backstabbing you. If you ally with a stronger player they may get to the point where they don't need you any more.

5. Leave the door open. Never close off negotiations permanently. Never form any agreement permanently. Your best protection against backstabbing is ensuring your partner has more to gain than lose from your arrangement. Remember their bottom line as well. If they want to win it's easy to share that goal, but some players just want to watch the world burn....

1793 days, 6 hours, 51 minutes ago

maqusan

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

A 1 ally game where there are 11 players is still very much a diplomatic game. 2 cannot defeat 9 alone. The difference is you can't share the goal of winning. You can, however, share the goal of having a _chance_ of winning. Negotiations between alliances generally involve the weak pegging back the strong. This is where diplomacy shines.

1793 days, 6 hours, 41 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

okay, added a menu for strategy and diplomacy

1793 days, 6 hours, 38 minutes ago

ville kauppinen

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Actually they can.

Managing a big coalition is more pain than eating broken glass with your a-hole so usually 2 good players working seamlessly together can beat up 9 players who are still struggling where to send their ships and in which order to fight and where.

That reminds me of rule 4: Never take part in big coalitions.

1793 days, 6 hours, 38 minutes ago

commander koski

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Very good points, Maqusan! I agree in - well, everything. :)

Just one thing - more close allies than 1 often brings problems. Coordinating actions becomes quickly a mess. And especially in a 0 ally game, at some point you are forced to stab someone in the back, if you want to win. I see such situations as failures in strategic diplomacy. It gives adent to your reputation that lasts even if the game ends!

1793 days, 6 hours, 34 minutes ago

commander koski

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

This is where I agree with Ville, whole heartedly. Like someone said, managing a big coalition is like herding cats.

Also one think: big coalitions make game booooriiing. Not much happens anywhere. And in worst cases it just gives the leading player or players the advantage of ship building etc., because they are the ones doing all the fighting!

1793 days, 6 hours, 30 minutes ago

maqusan

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Who said you have to form a coalition? Simply pointing people at mutually beneficial goals can do the trick. A couple of ship trades and a mutually agreed enemy is a good outcome for negotiations. I've you've not sealed yourself into an alliance early (see above re: closing the door) then you can work together with 2 or more other players towards a common end without telegraphing to them they have no chance of joining you in a winning alliance.

1793 days, 6 hours, 26 minutes ago

commander koski

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

I am starting to get the feeling that Ville is right. I think that if I get into same game with you Maqusan, I'll attack you first. You are too good in this.

:D

(And Ville will kill both of us!)

1793 days, 6 hours, 7 minutes ago

maqusan

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

@Figak knows very well points 2 and 4 above ;)

1793 days, 5 hours, 24 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

@Maquasan

Thanks :)

I like that the 1st if the 1st.

Hopefully I may do 1, 3 & 5.

It is very interesting to see that you started as a Mentee not so long ago. TBH you are a "keeper" for the community simply for the diplomacy side and sticking to it even after your Mentor went awol.

Now stop getting the xtal to lay webs for you, Mentar to give you PBP via Merlin-kills and stop moving those Virgos. My Priv mentee ( @nebulon ) would like to borrow the contents of your underwear.

1793 days, 5 hours, 19 minutes ago

maqusan

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

TBH my mentor didn't go awol, he was never there to start with. And I started 9 turns late.

How am I gonna learn if I only play the easy games though?

1793 days, 4 hours, 25 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

It is interesting the what Commander Koski was initially describing in the thread is typical recommendations for Networking (building reciprocity into your relationships), while the five points Maqusan made were more business oriented competitive advantage (demonstrating the value of yourself as an ally). Vile seems to almost be describing a Machiavellian diplomacy (most times they really are out to get you).

I wonder in what situations each of the forms would be most useful..

1793 days, 4 hours, 9 minutes ago

maqusan

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Actually I cribbed a lot of mine from Machiavelli. The guy is one of the most spectacularly misunderstood writers in political philosophy. He was writing a How To Win manual for the ruler of a small nation state surrounded by other small nation states, none of which were powerful enough to overwhelm the other outright.

Sound like anything we know?

1792 days, 22 hours, 28 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Problem with diplomacy it is a lot to do with a persons personality.

Some people are very good at diplomacy out of game so they are better at diplomacy in game.

Some people are also good at lying and misdirection. They tell you what you want to hear and can do this and you never know until the fleet appears and you start loosing planets.

Some people are good at keeping complex diplomatic conversations going and keeping everyone balanced and happy and then win by finding the best answer.

Some people can go through 10 players in a 11 player game and have their rough position, intent and relations mapped out in the first 10 turns!

These players then can build up alliances with people on the other side of the player attacking them.

Sometimes this cannot be taught as it just comes naturally.

I know these are the best methods to win the diplomacy game.

But I do not have the skills to in a few lines in a message convince a player to supply the information I need etc.

I do not have the skills to manipulate the diplomacy in the way some people can.

But then my personality means the limited diplomacy I do have is strong and I rarely break treaties and border agreements. Which is a good thing and a bad thing and has been used against me as well as benefitted me.

So I think you can teach the basic rules of diplomacy to everyone but the really good ones are just naturally talented at diplomacy.

Most people who are bad at diplomacy are also bad at contributing to forums so would not read any help guides in the first place :-).

1792 days, 22 hours, 6 minutes ago

mule

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

I think "diplomacy" should be subdivided because it means different things to different players. And as Martinr says, depends on your personality. Even more, it depends on your chosen race.

As an example, I am thinking of one player that considers threat, bluster, and arrogance to be diplomacy. I am shocked when I see other players actually cooperating with him, but they do. There are others of us that will ally immediately when we find ourselves in the same game with him, simply because of his arrogance. (OK, also because he's a good player) Is that diplomacy? He thinks so.

Diplomacy can also include trading things and services. Here, it depends on what you have to trade and how good you are at trading. Also, of course, doing so when they need what you have more than you need what they have makes a difference. I like helping people in exchange for a favor to be named later.

Over the years I have seen diplomacy change a great deal. Maybe it's a good thing to add many shades of gray instead of everything being black and white. This keeps me learning and changing my strategy.

1792 days, 20 hours, 59 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Reputation is also good for diplomacy.

If they are a good player and have won championship games you know they know how to play the game so you know they are going to last a long time and should be very successful.

Forum threads may not be the same as one to one diplomacy messages in games. Diplomacy in games will be more specific and may not cover the varied themes we have in forums (and not cover more contentious issues).

If you have chosen to try and kill them or not work with them once you learn they are in the game this will also limit your diplomacy.

Different players also act differently with different races. Some people just turn evil when they play the cloaking races, and some don't.

Also with certain players if you ally with them your team will be the ones building ships.

Also tenacity and game history helps with diplomacy.

I try and look up peoples history. Are they a serial dropper? Do they have a high no turns %.

If they do will they be around to keep any alliance? Will they have time to set up a ship swap? Will they fold if you put them under a bit of pressure? Are they in 8 games with 100 ships and planets in each and have time to pay attention to your game?

All things can effect diplomacy.

1790 days, 6 hours, 19 minutes ago

ville kauppinen

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Yeah, I must agree 100% on the sentence "Some people just turn evil when they play the cloaking races, and some don't." - thats one of the main reasons why for example Romulans are considered to be weak.

If you play with "honor" and engage into battles like 1700-century riflemen sure, your ships will blow up to pieces. But if you sneak, backstab and do YOUR thing you can be highly succesful.

And its not really evil. It really is a form of roleplaying, play with the cards you've been dealt with and do your best.

1790 days, 6 hours, 6 minutes ago

ace rimmer

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

I agree with Ville, sometimes the cards you have been dealt and the race you are playing dictate how you treat your neighbors and allies. You may start out as friends with a neighbor only to attack them later cause you made a better deal with someone else, but you don't tell your neighbor cause you want the element of surprise when the 5 glory bombs you sent to his starbase in trade suddenly blow up destroying 15+ ships. Ahhhhhhhh that was an awesome move.

Ace

1790 days, 5 hours, 46 minutes ago

maqusan

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

You'd be amazed how many people will accept delivery of an SSD in trade at their homeworld....

1790 days, 5 hours, 42 minutes ago

ville kauppinen

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

When the opportunity presents itself you should take it. Especially if you're playing the 'underdog' -races. Only Borg, Colonies and other hero class -races can go rampaging ignoring everything else :D

1790 days, 5 hours, 6 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

I always probe out for the guys I can work with and the ones I can't. I'm always astonished how few people bother to reply to messages.

Those who don't reply are the ones that can't be worked with so they are prime targets for me and people who do reply.

Quite soon you can identify also those you could work with but can't because that would be signing off the victory to the other guy.

Then the big picture is clear. You encourage those conflicts that suit you and discourage those that don't. You see the ones that need support against your main adversary and support those with any means necessary.

The non-communicative ones will get stuck in local conflicts where their enemies are assisted by the party that looks at the big picture and decides that their conflict becoming stalled would benefit them. Or backstabbed because one neighbour was quaranteed a free hand to invade them, again because it was deemed beneficial by someone aiming for cluster domination.

The most critical diplomatic lesson is all about exchanging messages and not becoming the guy who can't be worked with. People need to see benefit in keeping you alive and if they see benefit in you being strong, you will also get the support to invade someone else that didn't get the lesson.

1790 days, 4 hours, 15 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Anyone who won't speak to me (and I'll try a bunch of languages if it helps) is obviously out to get me and thus goes on top of The List, not least because it's easy to convince other players that someone who doesn't talk to them either should go on the top of their List too.

1790 days, 2 hours, 25 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Smn, you are 100% spot on.

1790 days, 1 hours, 11 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Smn, what happened in capricorn?

1790 days, 0 hours, 37 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Figak: Come on, you don't want to win this game purely by picking up all the ships and planets of people around you that have dropped already, do you? You've been growing at a ridiculous pace because of that :)

It will probably be too late, but we want to make you work for those last 20 planets, you know?

*smiles sweetly*

1790 days, 0 hours, 28 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

@SMN:
>People need to see benefit in keeping you alive

On other words. Aslong you are usefull and serve somehow somebody you will be allowed to survive - if you are no threat of course - As much usefull you are, as much you are welcomed for this...sort of player. It's not important that you play bad or so, you only need to be usefull. That is what SMN want to say :)

1790 days, 0 hours, 21 minutes ago

mule

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Back to Diplomacy...

I just wanted to remind everyone that treachery and backstabbing is often a single shot pistol. Not only do you make an enemy in that one game, but if it were against anyone that thinks like me, in every other game - current and future. Your victim may also spread your reputation as far and wide as he can and thus block you from as many other people trusting you as well. Good or bad reputation is also diplomacy! :)

So, spend that single shot wisely. Because what you gain in that one game and in that one situation may prove transitory.

1790 days, 0 hours, 6 minutes ago

maqusan

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

I personally really dislike that attitude. Don't carry grudges from one game to the next and don't make snap judgements about character based on what someone does in a competitive game. Crossing and double crossing is part of the game and you should learn to protect yourself from it rather than try and run anyone who does it out of town on a rail. If someone outplays me at the economic game I don't cry foul. If someone outplays me at the tactical game, I don't ban them from my future games. Likewise if someone outplays me in the diplomatic arena I chalk it up to better play and endeavor not to be outmanoeuvred next time.

1790 days, 0 hours, 5 minutes ago

ville kauppinen

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

@Mule - still don't agree on that. As far as I know almost every high ranked player, who play multiple races, know that you must use different tactics with every race to survive and win.

That includes diplomacy. For exmaple the notorious Romulans. To utilize their sneaky cloaking advantage to the maximum MIGHT require player to do something evil :D

Depending of the situation. So far I've managed to "honor treaties" even as the Bird and done quite well but in zero ally senior officers / championships it could and most likely would be a different story.

1790 days, 0 hours, 4 minutes ago

maqusan

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Also it's true: Figak is incredibly dangerous against people who have dropped or are otherwise unable to fight back.

1790 days, 0 hours, 2 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

I totally agree with /\/\ule. Role playing is one thing but promising or half promising and getting someone to do your will and then basically say, "I said maybe, kinda, could be; back then 60 turns ago and so sorry you spent all those turns covering my butt but no I am now going to ally with player X who I convinced you to not ally with.... Etc>" Anyway, that is part of the game but it is something that is not forgotten. Also, blasting to the planets universe that player X is not to be trusted is less effective than just remembering and privately warning select players at the most effective time. I have lost many games, including some I am now in just because I never break my word.
As for diplomacy, I remember back in the early 90's when planets was just starting, We were all learning how to play and one player said "Diplomacy, the most important tactic, just wait and see" That player was Bondservant and he was so very correct.

1789 days, 23 hours, 53 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

@Ryder Cross

10 Neffies popped over Teds p37, there are now 2 ships in orbit with clans to take it over. I got the 15 pbp out of it and prevented a Biocide build, but as I had screwed up my pbp situation earlier I had to build sdsfs to halt the queue. Horrible numbers for cap ships but don't worry, I'll bounce back.

@Ted you are amusing as always :)

1789 days, 23 hours, 30 minutes ago

mule

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

@maqusan:

If a 3rd player is having to decide which of us to cooperate with, who do you think he would rather choose to trust? Someone that thinks treachery is just good play or someone that plays it straight? This is as much an aspect of Diplomacy as any other.

If someone is deciding who to or if they want to back-stab, they may hesitate to pick me, because I make my grudge carrying ways very clear. You and they may dislike me carrying a grudge, but no more than I dislike someone backstabbing me. When someone outplays me, I do not put them in my grudge file. Only when they lie, cheat, steal, back-stab, etc. I added someone new to my list just this week. What a joy it will be to serve that Revenge Dish - hot or cold. But, it will be served.

1789 days, 23 hours, 28 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

A couple of points:

1. Failure to use diplomacy can cost you something greater than just a game. It can cost you the chance to make new friends beyond the games. I've met some great folks playing Planets, and here at Nu is little different. Good people. I like playing with good people, so I use diplomacy to sound them out and shake hands. It is not uncommon for me to be talking to my enemy in game about what his kids were doing over the weekend. This is a game, but it can yield some real life gains. I would imagine a lot of the folks who attended the convention feel the same.

2. @Mule I tend to agree with Mule that players are just normal folks and it is awful hard to forget a traitor. I don't go to great effort to trumpet his evilness, but I assure you I will kill him off in every game I get the chance...gladly. Or he will pay a hefty price for me letting bygones be bygones in any negotiations. Errors carry forward.

3. It is not diplomacy if only one side gets any advantage. The key is to convince the other side that they actually are getting an advantage, while really not.

1789 days, 23 hours, 24 minutes ago

mule

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

BTW: Please take no offense, but doesn't capricorn have an activity thread somewhere? I'm getting a little "tennis spectator neck" trying to follow this thread.

1789 days, 23 hours, 20 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Thanks for the plug, Koski. :o)

In this game as in any game, diplomacy rules. Treachery pays for a little while; honor and decency can get you killed. But who wants to befriend a treacherous backstabbing quisling?

...of course, if you think of it a slightly different way...

Bet you wish that sneaky bugger was on your side, don't you?

1789 days, 22 hours, 44 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

I do not care if he is a sneaky bugger, I can only judge him on how I perceive his honor based on his/her promises and commitments to me be they real or perceived.
No, I do not wish he were on my side if has treated me with direct or shadow dishonesty, that is different than hard negotiating; I generally do not care if I then win or get my butt kicked as long as I enjoy the game and ruining a game (present or future) for someone who has backstabbed me I find to provide great enjoyment. Still, even then I would not break my word, of course I would then not give my word to one of these deceitful few.
As /\/\ule says, I have my list, it is not a long one but it is there and if I run into one of those few players the goal changes from winning to being as sure as I can that they do not.
I have made many friends at various planets sites over the years, many were enemies in games but still there is respect and friendship, however, there are those few that I would never trust, in game or out.

1789 days, 22 hours, 43 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Maqusan: Your mindset is what high-level "Diplomacy" (the board game) players favor. You'd do very well there.

I generally agree, though in my experience, this is not how it really is. People do take notes and carry grudges, so my suggestion is to limit backstabs to the minimum (e.g. for Highlander games). Better protectyour reputation and stick to the policy of truth as far as possible.

1789 days, 22 hours, 31 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Diplomacy in Planets:

Sometimes, i wish that we would receive only each turn one diplomatic message from a player/race like in the past. Why? Today, you can easy plot/discuss ALL in hours. Beside the fact that this cost you extra time, its like you are able to forge something like a predefined alliance very early with a (simple) talkative skill.
Doing so and you can receive very big advantages, or if you are not be able because you have not the right neighbour/race/player you are running the whole game run after - for a year or even more - to fight and most time lose against this. Be talkative and find a player who has still to learn, and you beat normaly economic expansion from others easy. So my feelings - no even only as Borg player - are different about the Uber Power of diplomacy. We have game mechanism to balance all races, but diplomacy is out of this scale on my view. It since the early days still the biggest problem to find a equivalent group of veterans to play good together. Having only like 2-3 too pliable persons inside a match often promise not a fine match! Heh, politicians most time ruin things as we all know :)

1789 days, 22 hours, 29 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

And I should add, there is a community of players out there. Some have known each other for some time, so they are likely going to work together more often than not. I heard rumors that in the one champion game, one couple actually lived in the same house? Not sure if that is true or if it factored in the outcome.

For me, I don't no anyone else in my community that plays, but I do plan on sending out invites. So, most I meet in the game for the first time and have learned to trust certain players and not trust others. Than there are guys like Gnerphk who are another breed.

1789 days, 10 hours, 17 minutes ago

maqusan

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Actually I've been thinking and there's a few other things I think we should limit:

I'm terrible at manipulating the PBP queue. Anyone who uses prisoners to convert stores of Merlins into PBPs is manipulating the game and goes on my list. These actions have consequences. If I want to build ships but I can't because someone is messing with the queue then you'd better believe that player has ruined their reputation with me and I'm coming after them next time I see them.

Also I don't know how to defeat the Privateers. I'm just going to avoid games with Privateers in them from now on. And if you play the Privateers, you're going on my list: you're obviously not prepared to move 81ly per turn in open view like everyone else.

While we're at it, rushes in Starcraft are too hard to defend against. I certainly won't be playing with any players who use that tactic.

Check-raising in poker. Too sneaky. Just bet what you honestly think your hand is worth. I can't trust players who don't play poker honestly.

Oh, and overhead serves in tennis dominate the game making service breaks too important. Let's make people serve underarm from now on. Big servers: you're on my list.

It makes crazy that here at the premier international location for this game people will still countenance enforcing a limitation on playstyles they are uncomfortable with losing to. I'm only a beginner at this game. I've completed one public game in my life. I was a joint winner, largely via diplomatic means. I backstabbed no-one; I lied to no-one; I broke no alliances; I behaved honestly and openly in all my dealings and I STILL got pelted with insults and told "I was everything that was wrong with this game" for not picking an ally on turn 2 and sticking with them until the end of the game. This is not about lying or not. This is about people being actively hostile to this entire dimension of the game.

There are articles devoted to every niche aspect of this game from minefield probabilities to nuances of the host order but few people are prepared to aspire to the highest level of play for the diplomatic third of the game.

I have a degree in international relations. I'm interested in game theory. I play poker. I love board games, particularly Diplomacy (yes thanks Mentar, I've heard of it ;) ). This is one of the few really good games in the world where diplomatic skill really shines and it's enormously frustrating to me that people are prepared to settle for the Fisher Price version rather than aspire to expert play.

1789 days, 10 hours, 5 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Very well put, Maq. I have a feeling you'll go far.

Normally, right now I'd suggest you adopt a becoming humility for a while, but since I'm about to suggest you go read one of my Planets Mag articles it's a bit inappropriate.

http://www.planetsmagazine.com/newsandstories/editorials/on-honor-in-warfare/

Let me know what you think, will you? And, if the subject interests you, there's a fine rebuttal done by ECV.

1789 days, 9 hours, 44 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Incidentally: Most of you probably missed the subtext of that little interplay between Baer and myself. It's an excellent example of out-of-game diplomacy. As it happens, he and I are in a game together and he expects help that he doesn't believe I've given.

If you take a look, there's a pretty good threat hidden there -- hidden from public view while being instantly understandable to me. (And I hope he doesn't mind me using him as an example.)

Now, Baer is an experienced player; you can take it from me that he's got a fair grasp of each tactics and logistics. I don't play as he does, but that doesn't mean his style is at all wrong. Bottom line? I believe his threat, and I'm not the sort to encourage enemies. Will it influence me? Quite possibly.

I'll not air the dirty laundry here in public, but I'd like to observe that, while I find his out-of-game tactic irritating, unpleasant, and unreasonable (and it's designed to be all three, I should think), I believe it to be perfectly valid.

Bear in mind, of course, that this sort of thing has its drawbacks. First and foremost, if people go overboard, they risk breaking one of the three site rules. (Be polite!) Second, it does rather bind one to a course of action, just as any politician running on a peace platform is far more likely to face war once elected. And third, it may irritate the target beyond bearing; unless intended, that too will have consequences.

I should point out that the last bit there was NOT a threat.

1789 days, 9 hours, 32 minutes ago

maqusan

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Tom N, Gherphk: Great articles. I am relieved to see the art of Kanly is still alive.

1789 days, 9 hours, 9 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Thanks! Glad you liked and enjoyed your post!

1789 days, 8 hours, 37 minutes ago

maqusan

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Also the point is well taken my posts came across as bragging. I didn't mean to. I was mostly frustrated that in my first public game on this site I was castigated simply for _engaging_ in diplomacy. I fully agree with the common sentiment here that backstabbing is an unsustainable go-to strategy, if for no other reason than it's rarely as productive as a well-maintained alliance. To my mind if you're good at nurturing alliances and paying attention to your allies endgame goals neither of you should ever need to backstab the other. This, to me, is the core of diplomacy and simple black and white discussions of "do I betray or not?" neglect the entire spectrum of negotiation and co-operation in between.

I am mostly heartened to see that a significant number of people share my view that a silent opponent is a dangerous variable and not to be trusted. In my last game there were 2 players who refused to respond to diplomatic communiques and by the end of the game both their homeworlds echoed to the sound of Imperial jackboots.

Come to the table, people. Decisions are made by those who show up.

1789 days, 7 hours, 33 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Everything you need to know about diplomacy:

If you're not ready to go to war with someone, offer them peace in the mean time.

If someone offers you peace, assume they intend to go to war with you later.

1789 days, 7 hours, 28 minutes ago

maqusan

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

"Si vis pacem, para bellum"

1789 days, 1 hours, 42 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

@gnerphk
"Most of you probably missed the subtext of that little interplay between Baer and myself."

I didn't. ;)

1788 days, 22 hours, 39 minutes ago

mule

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Maq...: I actually can agree with several of your points, however...

You infer (if not say) that only players that are "terrible at manipulating the PBP queue.and so on." are those that do not like the PBP. At the risk of reopening a bleeding wound, just remember I didn't start it this time. I am only responding...

Your supposition is wrong. I am actually quite good at many games that I don't like or wish to play. Example: I'm pretty good at Chess. I defeated the state champion a time or two. But, I seldom play anymore for a variety of reasons.

We could change Planets so that before you build any ships you must first fiddle a turn. Fiddlers would like that. They might say to the non-fiddlers that they just need to learn how to fiddle better if they want to win at Planets. That some of us just don't want to play a game where we have to fiddle doesn't mean we couldn't be good fiddlers if we tried. And being a good fiddler makes just as much sense within the context of the game as does PBP.

1788 days, 21 hours, 51 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Fiddlers aside, fundamental rules of the game, and I reiterate for those that are new to the game:

Be very wary of those that do not communicate or are short in their communication. This is a SIGN that they will attack you. More often than not, they probably have an agreement with another player that emboldens their position.

If you want to build a relationship with another player, work out a mutually benefiting trade. Showing trust is always a good step. It's important to build these relationships early on.

1788 days, 21 hours, 48 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

"Si vis bellum, para bellum." Otherwise, I just don't see it.

The most important thing with a backstab is to make sure you can live with what you're doing. These are real people, and sometimes you will form close relationships with them during the course of your games. To betray them is often to betray yourself. Some people just aren't cut out for that, and I honor them for their inability to play the traitor.

For the rest of you, I urge you: Study this concept. Read articles on online ethics and engage in debate until your own mind is made up. Once you have established a position you can feel comfortable with, you will be able to undertake this aspect of diplomacy with a whole heart -- and that's equally true for those who love the knife as for those who hate it, or even those like me who will backstab conditionally.

1788 days, 21 hours, 42 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

@Mule

with due all respect,the last sentence is plain wrong and the whole.fiddling example makes no sense at all. either you troll or you seriously lackunderstandingin of the subject.

1788 days, 21 hours, 42 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

@Mule

with due all respect,the last sentence is plain wrong and the whole.fiddling example makes no sense at all. either you troll or you seriously lackunderstandingin of the subject.

1788 days, 21 hours, 42 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

@Mule

with due all respect,the last sentence is plain wrong and the whole.fiddling example makes no sense at all. either you troll or you seriously lackunderstandingin of the subject.

1788 days, 21 hours, 9 minutes ago

maqusan

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

I think it's illustrative of the dearth of understanding of the nuances at work here that so much focus is given to the notion of backstabbing. For a significant number of players (and this goes for the few public games I played in the 90s as well) diplomacy is a binary state: Ally or Enemy. And the transition from the former to the latter is seen as the ultimate transgression.

There needs to be a greater understanding of the middle ground because that is the field on which diplomacy is conducted and there are many secondary states beyond winning and losing, friendship and betrayal.

One of the key states of allegiance in an n-player game is the Shared Possibility of Victory. It's entirely possible to co-operate towards a win with another player, knowing one of you will ultimately have to defeat the other. There's any number of crappy action movies and popular reality shows built on that premise. "We'll work together, for now, but don't think this makes things right between us...."

That kind of arrangement is where things get fun. Nobody's going to get hurt because nobody in their right mind is honestly suspecting they're not going to get turned on at _some_ point. but in the meantime there's advantage to be gained if you can just manage to take a little more than you give.

1788 days, 20 hours, 56 minutes ago

mule

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Anaconda: Rather than supporting my fiddling vs. PBP simile - a figure of speech in which two unlike things are explicitly compared - I will pass for now.

That said, it is not trolling to respond to Maq's comment. Unless you are also prepared to label his note which originally referred to PBP in this diplomacy thread as trolling. I hope it not just the opinions you disagree with that you want to label thus. We both know what rabbit hole THAT discussion will take us down.

Ryder and GP are entirely correct in trying to return this thread to Diplomacy.

1788 days, 20 hours, 56 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

The key to good diplomacy is respect. There are real people on the other end of your messages. Make polite contact (or try to scare them into submission, as a few players do...but I don't recommend it). Start off by negotiating a fair border, but the MOST important (and usually overlooked) aspect of your pact is the time limit. Advise them that the treaty will be revisited in 5 or 10 turns. Agree that any canceling of that NAP will be done with a 3 turn warning. This allows for an honorable change of plans and start of aggressions, because, after all, this IS a war game and there won't be 4 or 5 winners. I've had that revolving 5-10 turn NAP continue for entire games. Others become allies. To be honest, I can't remember ever turning one into my enemy...but expect that could happen at some point.

1788 days, 20 hours, 47 minutes ago

mule

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Maq, Now your last note I can agree with.

If you say, "We'll work together, for now, but don't think this makes things right between us...." or anything like that, it's hard to blame you when you eventually turn on me.

If you say, "You can trust me. I'll never turn on you." and then you do, it's a different situation entirely. That's not diplomacy, it's treachery. And I'll get you for that if it takes me 20 games of chasing you down and finishing last in every one to accomplish it.

1788 days, 20 hours, 43 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Hee hee hee. "Rabbit hole". Snicker.

1788 days, 17 hours, 58 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Maq, you do not seem to have allowed for the possibility that posting in this thread is itself gameplay, as Baer did - well, metagaming, anyway.

By stating that one always responds to betrayal with vendetta, isn't one just trying to deter such betrayal - by using diplomacy, rather than by parking a defensive fleet on the border?

1788 days, 17 hours, 7 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Really loving this thread.
One thing I found amusing is how almost everyone agrees that if someone does'nt answer your messages he should be the first to be attacked.
Funnily enough if someone I'm planning to attack sends me a message I actually deliberately do not answer.
There's really no point in it , although I might answer them once I do attack them.
About backstabbing , that's a word that gets thrown way too casually around here.
I've been accused of backstabbing more than once simply because players have inferred that we're at peace.
It's important to remember that me , and actually quite a few others that I know of , may be trusted to keep our word.
But you should be careful to analyse what that word actually is.

For example if I agree to trade ships or something along those lines that only means I'm willing to trade ships.
Unless specifically stated , there's nothing wrong with using those ships to attack you a few turns later. This a war game after all :)

1788 days, 16 hours, 58 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

The devil is always in the details;)

1788 days, 16 hours, 51 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Gnerphk,
Not the place, not the proper thread. I could write a few thousand words on the history of that game but this is not the place.
Of course I am sensitive to probable backstabbing after that game but I am not verbally targeting you and certainly not here. I never mentioned your name here. Are you player X?
Just play on Buba, just ramble, er play on.

1788 days, 16 hours, 39 minutes ago

barnabas

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Gnerphk backstabbed you?

1788 days, 16 hours, 5 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Barnabas, I did not say that and I only responded to the earlier post above where I am mentioned specifically. In that specific game I have actually built a high level of respect for the player that is slowly but surly beating me. There are good reasons for that respect but again, not a good place to discuss.
Others have dropped out for good and some for bad reasons and others have tried to take ownership of agreements made by others that had to drop.
I had that game in mind when I posted on topic but I did not mention any game or person by name.
I suggest that this is an interesting thread and that I do not want to bring any specific grievances I may have into this thread.
After all, it is only a game.
If you want me at some time to list specific players that I have build a high level of respect for over the years I will do that but again, perhaps that is a different thread but as far as those I hold in disdain, I will keep that rather short list to myself or a few trusted others.

1788 days, 15 hours, 18 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

1. As the worst diplomat on this site, I would like to put forth my diplomatic strategy: Carry a very big stick and try not to trip over yourself.

2. I vote that Maqusan give an hour+ presentation on Diplomacy at the next VGAP convention with Q & A session (available on the Internet like this summer's talks.)

3. Is Planets Mag going to have an easy, clickable list of this summer's talks so we don't lose that resource?

1788 days, 12 hours, 16 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Baer makes an excellent point, and again I wish to hold him up as an example.

Diplomacy can occur everywhere, but there are proper methods and correct avenues. In my opinion, it is inappropriate to carry private grievances into a public venue at all (and he, quite correctly, refused to do so). Certainly, it's quite impolite to do that sort of thing in a profitable thread on a neutral topic. Disagreements ought to be kept private.

As well, I'd like to comment on a couple of things Siggi said.

I talk to anyone and everyone in a game, and I always aim for politeness. I've come away from games with friends and enemies, and quite often the friend was my target and the enemy my nominal ally. Likewise, I've attacked an ally with all the force I could muster due to an impoliteness on his part that I chose not to overlook.

Agreements are essential; they are vital. They ought to be kept to the letter whenever practicable, and where not, at the very least an explanation or apology to the injured party is required, and restitution in kind might perhaps be offered. We do not live in the days where duels would be fought over a broken promise in most parts of the world, but that's rarely reason to eschew politeness.

And it should always be remembered, as Siggi pointed out, that two people may -- probably will -- see any agreement differently. Many will choose to abide by the spirit of an agreement rather than the letter; others choose the letter while ignoring the spirit. Most players will break a contract the moment their opposite number makes a hostile move; this is usually unwritten in reality but has almost the force of law in effect. And these are but a few examples; there are many, many others.

And so I counsel you all: Be intelligent; be reasonable, be cautious -- but extend trust when you can; those who do are often disappointed, but those who see enemies everywhere are invariably proven correct.

1788 days, 9 hours, 53 minutes ago

maqusan

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

@Johnqpublic actually I've not overlooked that possibility. In fact it cuts to the heart of my biggest grievance with the careless use of accusations of backstabbing and betrayal which is this:

It is a far, far greater ethical breach to visit repercussions on someone outside the context of the game for their conduct inside the context of the game.

That to me is the epitome of unsporting behaviour. You leave everything in the game. All repercussions occur in-game. If Astrid reneges on a deal made with Brian in game A and Brian uses that as an excuse to break an agreement in game B. Or to publicly trash Astrid on the forums, or by private message, or at work the next day, that is absolutely not on.

I see as I've written this that @Gnerphk has basically just written the same thing so with that I'll take my coffee and bid you good day.

1788 days, 9 hours, 36 minutes ago

ville kauppinen

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

I've always said (and I consider) games as separate entities. What happens in game A does not really affect game B. Sure, it may affect whom to cooperate with and I sure tell everyone if I've noticed pre-game alliances between player A and B and they're again together in same game.

But for some reason treaty-honor-nonsense exists and people really make big deal about reputation and shit like that. This is a (competitive) game and in my opinion every player should do everything in their power to win it.

Not trying to win is just as complete bullshit as honor/reputation -talks.
Thats why I've a list of non-competitive players instead of backstabbers.
At least backstabbers play to win.

1788 days, 9 hours, 9 minutes ago

commander koski

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

What Maqusan wrote (and Gnerphk. And Ville) is spot-on.

These games are artificially created contexts in which a different or modified set of morality and ethics apply.

Here we battle, compete, even remove (kill) our fellow players. These aims and premises that differ from our everyday lives grant us possibilities to behave differently. Under a set of rules, of course.

Some people do martial arts, boxing etc. because they love to kick and beat people. They do this in a civilized manner on a defined arena under defined set of rules.

I love to intellectually crush people. To see them use days to build something, then to attack it, destroy it, conquer it. It gives me pleasure. But I know it's something I should never do at work or on my way to buy groceries etc. So I do that here, in a civilized manner on a defined arena under defined set of rules.

Or that's where I get my kicks from. Of course, other people have different motives. :D

1788 days, 8 hours, 59 minutes ago

ville kauppinen

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Yes. And backstabbing someone only affects one player. The one you gave the sweet knife.

Not trying to win affects everyone in the game and the game dynamics.

-> bigger sin in my book :D

1788 days, 8 hours, 55 minutes ago

maqusan

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

That's not to say you can't build a picture of the kind of tactics a player favours from one game to the next. That's just good sense. So long as you're carrying experience and not grudges from game to game.

1788 days, 7 hours, 56 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

@Ville

An interesting comparison with Diplomacy - in which the rules explicitly state that it is expected that players will lie to each other, and betrayal is of the "sudden-yet-inevitable" flavour.

Because Planets' rules doesn't make any such statement, players feel free to expect less duplicitous play, even though there is equally no statement supporting that expectation either.

People who use the metagamey threat of retribution in future games over a betrayal in the current one *are* playing to win. They are trying to turn the Prisoner's Dilemma from a single game into a series, and so reduce the value of betrayal, in game theory terms, because it precludes cooperation in future games. They just don't have a problem with a little metagaming.

1788 days, 7 hours, 50 minutes ago

ville kauppinen

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

@John - that is assuming we all play the same races.

As said 100 times, each race needs to be handled differently. Honorable romulan/privateer gives away a lot of his potential compared to for example Colonies.

So, if in game 1 player A did something dirty as a privateer against player B I would consider it illogical not to cooperate with him in game 2 where he is the Feds.

Different races and situtations require _successful_ players to think differently.

1788 days, 7 hours, 47 minutes ago

maqusan

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

I think there's a difference between saying "betrayal in this game will engender retribution in the next" and saying "betrayal in the last game has guaranteed retribution in this one."

Leaving aside the possibility the latter is just to throw the opponent off balance I think the former is legitimate gamesmanship and the latter is unsporting.

1788 days, 7 hours, 46 minutes ago

maqusan

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Also pay the Wash quote.

1788 days, 1 hours, 26 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Doesn't mean it wont happen however, and what race you are playing wont matter.

Someone plunges the sweet knife in my back in game A, and then expects me to believe it wont happen again in game Z?

As far as I am concerned, your diplomatic behavior will set the impression I have of you as a Commander.

Like it or not, some of us are just built that way.

On the other hand, I as a commander can build and maintain a reputation of stalwart honesty and honor, and proven strategic and tactical value as a commander.

I argue that an honorable reputation is MUCH more apt to help win games than a dishonorable.

Your argument that you must do all you can to win, I agree with.

Just not your argument that backstabbing is the only way to do so properly.

1788 days, 0 hours, 20 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Back stabbing happens. Will I work with you a second time?

Yes, but I will be on my guard and constantly considering how you are plotting to stab me again.

So I will not be anywhere near as effective an ally with you as if we could have a more trusting relationship.

Who wants half an ally when you could have a whole one?

Tom

1788 days, 0 hours, 6 minutes ago

ville kauppinen

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

In zero ally games there is no such thing as whole ally ;)

1787 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes ago

mule

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Johnq, Issen, and Tom G, all "get it."

If I tell everyone that a knife in my back will result in retribution in this and all future games, is that meta-gamming? Of Course it is! If I can dissuade someone from sticking in the knife now or making sure they do not in the future by henceforth refusing ANY cooperation, I think I have a better long term chance of winning. Nor when I say it can it be an idle threat. To be useful it must be real.

If someone can only "win" with treachery, I question their other skills. If they do it for the "fun" it gives them, they need to be prepared for the consequences and the "fun" I will have getting even. If they think treachery should be forgotten from game to game because that is how they get fun, they need to pick their victims better. Maybe by only stabbing someone that thinks exactly like them.

To expect everyone else must think (and play) like them... it ain't gonna happen. Any more than me expecting everyone else to think and play like I do. You know, by applying such obsolete and silly ideas like honor and trustworthiness. Stab me if you must, but remember my resurrected will surely track you down.

1787 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Just 10 10% allies!

1787 days, 23 hours, 55 minutes ago

maqusan

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

If you think diplomacy exists in a binary state between "never backstabs" and "only backstabs", you're gonna have a confusing time.

If for no other reason than past performance is the weakest possible predictor of whether someone is a reliable ally. You should be evaluating their own goals and whether or not co-operation with you is in furtherance of those goals.

Example: if my neighbour is on 195 planets and fighting a war with their other neighbour which has reached stalemate, they can be the most honest player in the world and I'm still not going to trust any offer they put in front of me.

1787 days, 23 hours, 43 minutes ago

mule

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Maq, See - there you go with "you shoulds..." and "you're gonna have a confusing time."

I'm not confused in the least. I EXPECT some people will feel the need for treachery - whatever their reasons. It is they that "should" understand that there is more than one available game theory. I believe mine is not just as good as theirs, it is a better long term strategy for winning.

As far as your example... I HAVE walked away from a fairly sure "win" to honor an agreement. And I not only felt better about it in the morning but I also gained the trust of someone that might help me succeed in many future games. That's my game theory.

1787 days, 22 hours, 11 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Quick aside: I love this sort of discussion! Bravo, gentlemen! This is one of the many reasons I love this game.

OK; back to the debate. :o)

1787 days, 20 hours, 55 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Hmm... just curious what the different positions people are arguing for? Whether treachery is acceptable or not? Or what the reasonable consequences for treachery should be?

I agree with gnerphk but im actually a little lost as to what the different perspectives people are taking. Anyone e willing to summarize the different sides?

1787 days, 20 hours, 46 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Summary:

Good Diplomacy is subtle and nuanced and it changes with:
The position
The player
The game situation
The history of relationship
and more

Bad Diplomacy is saying nice nice and then sticking in the knife.

One group thinks diplomacy should be game specific, just like economics and military
Another group thinks diplomacy is trans-game, just like rankings and the literary knowledge of the player applies across games.

On group thinks that it is a game and anything goes in a game.

Another group thinks RL ethics and morality should apply.

Pretty much the same thing we always discuss

1787 days, 20 hours, 42 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Oh... and Commander Koski wants to use Hob-Nailed boots and stomp your brain!

1787 days, 19 hours, 55 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

With allies I do this, keep track of their name, they stab me fine, my fault, but ya just screwed your self in future games with me as I keep track of dependable allies vs the scam artists. I always will abide by agreements.

1787 days, 19 hours, 27 minutes ago

commander koski

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Well Tom, we were talking about meta-game messages here. Mine is:

"I need you clothes, your boots and your motocycle."

http://youtu.be/FWmH9ylqYYQ

1787 days, 19 hours, 18 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

As the star in the new show Forever says, "Hang me once, shame on you. Hang me twice .. . "

1787 days, 11 hours, 30 minutes ago

commander koski

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Also:

"Come with me if you want to live."

http://youtu.be/y5JJ3ogJ574

1787 days, 11 hours, 0 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

I am sorry... I did not read all 117+ messages. Here is my two cents... If someone already said this then just take it that I agree with them. ;) While I like to be proactive in my diplomatic endeavors, if you build a strong military they will have to respect your strength. Sometimes just having a big gun forces people to come to you. "Uh, hey I noticed you have like 5x my military strength... um, what are you plans? Please don't kill me."

1787 days, 10 hours, 58 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

"When you see discord amongst the troops of your enemy, be of good courage; but if they are united, then be upon your guard. When you see contention amongst your enemies, go and sit at ease with your friends; but when you see them of one mind, string your bow, and place stones upon the ramparts."

-Saadi Shirazi

1787 days, 7 hours, 27 minutes ago

maqusan

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

I think a good agreement is one that no-one wants to backstab out of; and I think the best backstabs are the ones you convince someone else to perform.

1787 days, 6 hours, 35 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Sure, but in this particular case, the two attaking races had an alliance before, and made a good job. In less than five turns, they torn apart all my planets. So the "colaboration" with me was fake. But as I said before, no hard feelings, just realpolitik.
A good agreement, should be based on a win-win condition, and that breaking it would have less benefits, than continue with it

1787 days, 3 hours, 25 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Someone's been watching too many 80s movies. :o)

That's an excellent point, Waerloga -- the best deals make themselves, and they break only when their time has come.

1786 days, 20 hours, 20 minutes ago

degotia

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

in my opion diplomacy is very important, but:

1. As an German player i would like to communicate/play with an other german speaking player, because it's easier for me to write in german. if 1 of 10 other races in a game is an german player, i would ask him.

my english is to bad, that i can't plan a huge turns in the future.

2. If one of the friendly player resign the game, the complete situation "ist fürn Arsch". Sorry i mean bullshit. A former allied or friendly player could be the devil. The new player need some turns to check all the messages and diplomacy. And you don't know what he planing! Peace or war?

3. I think the starting position is very impotant. If oyu have enough money and minerals you can build a strong fleet. After 20 turns you know wheres your neighbour, and which is the dangerous onces. Without money and minerals you only fill the shiplist with small freighters with warp1.

an d at the end: Erst hatten Sie kein Glück und dann kam auch noch Pech dazu.

1786 days, 17 hours, 51 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

I fully understand, as I with English, who cant speak a second, language plus, I have trouble understanding slang from other English speaking cultures. For instance: An Aussie said once said he would knock up my wife when she got their. Well I went ballistic,problem was what that means in Canada isn't what it means in Australia. There it means a telephone call.

1786 days, 17 hours, 45 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

I always stick to my word in agreements or alliances. and have never stabbed anyone, however I have been on numerous occasions been a victim of the Trojan Horse approach. That's my fault for trusting, not preparing for a back stab. So now I make a list of players who are dependable and trust worthy, while I have a list of players not to trust, so I can repay the favor.

1786 days, 10 hours, 23 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

Who cares about grudges, I don't. I get angry and think about holding a grudge then in the next game I look at the practicalities of the situation. I can attack player A for a big and quick reward, or I can go out of my way to attack player B. It comes down to a simple cost vs benefit analysis. Maybe you can do it for cheap some way (diplomatically, militarily), so why not. My main priorities are not other people but my empire. A strong healthy empire will never be the easiest target and thus less likely to be attacked. At this point good relations with other players is important, and a good reputation makes life easier, also a good economy helps with the ability to trade. Overall, good traits in ones gameplay foster good outcomes and bad traits foster bad outcomes. Diplomacy is but one aspect of the game and if you are poor at other aspects of the game your diplomacy will suffer. At no point do needlessly complex machinations benefit anyone if your empire at home is poor, so diplomacy on it's own is not that important (this is also true of military strength). Having said that diplomacy used well with your racial abilities, a good economy, and a good plan, Wohooooo.

1786 days, 9 hours, 58 minutes ago

RE: Has anyone written a decent article on the diplomatic side...

This notion of vengeance against your betrayer carrying over into other games reminds me of the season 3 finale of the show Farscape.

Scorpius and Crichton had allied in much the same way that planets players ally. But Scorpius warned Crichton if he ever betrayed him, he'd dedicate his life to vengeance against him. Much like @Mule has said he'd dedicate himself to vengeance against his betrayer.

But when Crichton does betray Scorpius, and Crichton asks him if he intends to follow through with his threat, Scorpius is more like @Rod. He replies "What would be the point in that? What would that get me?"

It's actually a rather poignant scene in the show. I found the clip here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYl8AR-YNOQ

Jump to 5:00 minutes in.

Incidently, the command carrier they are aboard is image used for the Quietus Borg ship.