Diplogame Rules and Victory Discussion

[LzPrst]

I'm still in favor of giving the points system another try. and that is one of the reasons I want to play this game. as a sandbox experiment of some of the changes we need to make in order to get the max enjoyment from our games.

so I say we use the scorechart for this game and when we see the results, we'll decide whether to export it to our full-fledged Marathon games.

sound ok to everyone?


Addition to the rules. If you and an ally find yourself both at the top 3, then the alliance must end within 10 turns.

sounds fair?

[LzPrst]

I don't think those rules are overyl complex. in summary they are:

1. Don't ally within the top 3.
2. Both sides must announce alliances.
3. Don't trade techs with non-allies, unless at bottom 3.
4. Max 2 alliance partners.


these are four simple yet highly effective rules.
nr.1 will break the major powers apart.
nr.2 will demand some writing prior to alliances.
nr.3 will limit tech trading. and
nr.4 will also assist in limiting tech trading as well as preventing vast world-spanning superalliances.

my hope is that these rules will make alliances less common, on the basis that they will be less safe. if people don't trust their alliance partners (which they shouldn't) then they hopefully will be more reluctant to trade techs and give away information and so on. perhaps with this an isolationist strategy might even be viable.

[LzPrst]

btw. should we consider using Bhruic's patch?

[Robert]

Depends on when you want to start
Rules sound fair to me.

[The Capo]

I just read page 9 and 10 of this forum and I think before we greenlight this we should actually dicuss it, as in compare the pros and cons. So far there aren't many cons being presented, so here are a few...

1) This completely ruins the storyline portion of the game, not to mention the entirety of the DIPLOMATIC part of the game. If you force alliances to spontaneously break apart simply because one country popped up a few points in the game-score. This isn't necessarily going to work becuase (a) if everyone is close it is going to constantly change and that just wouldn't work, and (b) the game score does not necessarily show you how powerful or technologically advanced sombody is. Secondly, as far as the stories and diplomacy go if you are forced to not only announce all "alliances" (how exactly is that term defined in your opinion?), but also come up with random reasons for two countries to discontinue their alliance, it just removes part of the personality of your country and your national identity. Not all alliances are based on science alone, in fact they rarely are.

2) Why can't you have more than two allies? What if there is the need for some type of coalition to defeat a strong aggressor, or to BE a strong aggressor? I mean, again this removes part of the diplomacy aspect of the Diplogame.

I understand what you want to accomplish/prevent here, but I think we're going a bit too far and removing the game's character. I mean, it has to be a game that is defined by what the people do and the interactions the states have with eachother.

[Robert]

1) right now alliances about never change, I think it's a good idea to put some dynamics into the game through rules. There's always a good in-game reason to be given for an OOC forced alliance split. It makes alliances far more dynamic. The reason is that we want to prevent alliances between the best civs, as has happened in the past, who can dominate the game.

2) I agree that it's a pitty that we have to limit the nr of civs that can be in an alliance. I'd rather have no rules for this as well, and see that people are able to restrain themselves. But the fact is that people always need some rules to restrain themselves. There's no fun in 6-8 civ alliances. It turns the game into turn-proceeding boringness.

I don't think this removes the game's character. I think it adds to the character. It forces us to make in-game politics interesting. Right now the in-game politics are more or less like: "I ally with the first civs I meet and stay allied to them all game, and if possible I try to be as friendly as possible to all civs".

Everybody agrees that tense diplomatic situations and wars add to the game. We just need some rules to force us to look further then our initial-builder-approach.

Face it, diplogamers are builders by default, not warmongers. (of course there are some exceptions to this rule)

[Pinchak]

Have to say I agree with Capo's assesment, as it echos my concerns posted on page 9.

It is quite a catch 22 however. Capo is correct in stating that diplomacy should rule the day by definition of the format. Cyber and others have a historicly backed concern as well.

I see one of two solutions...

1. Adjust final scores according to alliances. The actual mechanics of this would take ALOT of discussion, and tweeking, but I see it as the only way to breakup the alliance issues without implementing artificial rules. The alturnative would be...

2. Have no winners based on score or ingame victorys. The "winner" would be based only on the quality of their story posts, and effort made to create a more dynamic game (ie. breaking a stong alliance for storys sake). This solution is a bit utopian in concept, and I'm not entirely sure it would work, but putting the "story" before "victory" would solve alot of the alliance concerns.

When I played as the Zulu in my only diplo game, I tend to think I played for the story more than for score and the results were nothing short of very interesting. I'll also add that I was almost always at war. So, it CAN be done... the trick would be making sure everyone was on the same page so to speak. Story before ego.

[deity]

Originally posted by The Capo
I just read page 9 and 10 of this forum and I think before we greenlight this we should actually dicuss it, as in compare the pros and cons. So far there aren't many cons being presented, so here are a few...

1) This completely ruins the storyline portion of the game, not to mention the entirety of the DIPLOMATIC part of the game. If you force alliances to spontaneously break apart simply because one country popped up a few points in the game-score. This isn't necessarily going to work becuase (a) if everyone is close it is going to constantly change and that just wouldn't work, and (b) the game score does not necessarily show you how powerful or technologically advanced sombody is. Secondly, as far as the stories and diplomacy go if you are forced to not only announce all "alliances" (how exactly is that term defined in your opinion?), but also come up with random reasons for two countries to discontinue their alliance, it just removes part of the personality of your country and your national identity. Not all alliances are based on science alone, in fact they rarely are.

2) Why can't you have more than two allies? What if there is the need for some type of coalition to defeat a strong aggressor, or to BE a strong aggressor? I mean, again this removes part of the diplomacy aspect of the Diplogame.

I understand what you want to accomplish/prevent here, but I think we're going a bit too far and removing the game's character. I mean, it has to be a game that is defined by what the people do and the interactions the states have with eachother.

Hi Capo and welcome back - perfect timing.

I'm having second thougts about these new rules too.

If you look at what happened/is happening in HOTWXI I think we are seeing a natural process of diplomacy being played out in the game and in the story threadf that resolves our alliance issues of its own accord.

I think myself and others migt have over-reacted a bit.

Cyber played the sutiation superbly in full character mode and as a result the diplomacy in the game just started to change. Other factors influienced this as well - like how far ahead the top few civs are getting (not just score but demographics etc). This all influences civ's decisions - look at the Inca approach; look at the Roman approach; look at the Ethiopians as well as the Native Americans. The only civ not adjusting to changed world circumstances is Russia and I think that's because Mr L misses sessions between the ones he plays and doesn't read the story thread (correct me if I'm wrong here)

I think we should pull back from these rules.

Capo is exactly right.

[The Capo]

Yeah, I mean I understand why we would want these rules, and I understand the merits of the new rules too. But ultimately I think the games have been pretty good, even the one I was in, and I haven't seen much of a big problem other than in maybe one of the games I looked at.

So if we see a game go by the wayside, or some type of huge breakdown then we might need to tweek the rules, but for now I don't see any reason to do so. Nothing extreme so far has occured to warrant that reaction, but correct me if I'm wrong please.

Is there a specific reason we are discussing a change to the rules?

And by that I mean other than determining the winner. Because that should be our biggest concern.

[LzPrst]

The reason we are suggesting these rules are because a lot of the times alliances seem to develop that are just too long-term for the game to be dynamic. In one game I seem to remember India and Russia being allied most of the game. In another it was Arabia and Bulgaria, and in another it was someone else again. A lot of the alliance making we see come about as a counter to 2 or more superpowers being allied. and those alliances inevitably encompass most of the other players ending in a deadlock. these deadlocks DO break up occasionally, but far too often they dominate large parts of the game. Often, the only reason they break is because one player gets bored and decides to toss things up by breaking out or acting irrationally to shuffle things up. or when a player leaves his empire and no replacement is found, forcing a breakup via the AI.

In effect the alliances we see end up not being 2 different empires, but the same empire split into 2 different civs. they are allied in all wars, they share all tech, they share resources freely, for thousands of years. in other words, it's like 2 (or more) players all playing a different part of the same civ. it is unbalancing, unrealistic and imo not very interesting.

that is why I want to suggest these rules. again, I have not suggested these rules be a permanent part of diplogames, I am suggesting them as an experiment in the Epic speed HOTW10, to test their functionality.

(a) if everyone is close it is going to constantly change and that just wouldn't work

-In other words, alliances would be unstable, and therefore players would hopefully be able to say to themselves, 'as alliances are too unstable to rely on long-term, I mustn't have one at all times'. empires would still diplo, but as individual empires, not as 2-3 vast blocs. As it is now it is nearly impossible for 2 nations to fight a war without the whole rest of the world jumping in.

I would like to see less stable alliances. I would like to see individual civs dealing for themselves instead of blocs of 2-7 players all acting together. the coalitions do change, but there is always a constellation of coalitions. I belive that if civs are forced to be on their own it will create more diplomacy not less, as the prospects for cooperation would be shorter, but more varied.

there would be a possibility for alliances, but they would hopefully be ad hoc agreements rather than millennia-long utopian harmony and cooperation. I suspect that would make diplomacy more vivid and alliances would be a short-term affair, as it usually is in the real world.





As for the winning, once again, I suggest we try Ozzy's point system in one form or the other. What we could do to make it more viable is to make a website that counts the score for us. And we agree to go in and rate diplomacy, military and story posts, not just at the end of the game when people can barely remember who said what in the first sessions, but after for example every 75 turns. After a session, if the 75, 150, 225, 300 (etc) turn mark is passed, all players will within the week log into the website, input the scores for diplo, story, military, and it would all add up and not revealed until the last session is played and a final vote is given. that way it won't be possible to count who's gonna win before the last session is over.

Those are my 2 cents.

[LzPrst]

and as for the definition of 'Alliance', I've defined willfully vague. I summed it up as max 2 IDC's. Intricade Diplomatic Connections.

one being vassals.
the other being defensive pacts.
and the third being 'established' alliances.

'established' means defined in the story thread by both participating civs beforehand. OR during the session as an official announcement in chat, again by BOTH (or all 3) civs.

again, 'alliance' is vaguely defined. it can be a military alliance, it can be a technological cooperation, it can be a trading partnership, a religious or political union or a mere official declaration of friendship. it can be whatever the parties decide to define it as. but if it is declared by both parties as one of their IDC's, then they may trade techs. it is mostly a way to keep tech blocs unstable and thereby rare.

now note this does not state that more than 3 civs may not fight against the same civ. it simply states that for the purposes of technology trading, you can't have more than 2 tech trading allies, or defensive pacts/vassals.

my thoughts with this is that game mechanic based relationships such as vassalage and defensive pacts are very definite and inflexible. as such they should be somewhat more rare than a political announcement of support in case of aggression which is not necessarily binding.

Example. It would be FULLY possible to announce that if Germany attacks Russia (allied with England and France), that Greece would declare war on Germany as well. they just wouldn't be part of the main alliance. the difference here is that Greece's declaration would not be binding, they could decide to stay out of it, if for example Germany bribed them, or they simply didn't feel like it. And Greece could not receive techs from the Allies.

I am hoping that this will create political constellations between many individual nations, ranging from 'Good Neighbour Declarations', to 'Strategic Co-op Partner' to 'Hated Enemy', and that these will play a part in the diplomacy without necessarily a guaranteed set of responses included. For example, helping a 'Good neighbour' during war is completely optional, in fact, you could even be a devious sneak and give money/troops to his enemies all the while politically supporting your 'Good Neighbour', whom you feel needs to spend less on culture cause he's getting a bit too friendly in the border areas. And if you feel like bringing down your government over the scandal later, you've just given yourself a wonderful excuse. etc etc etc.

You see what I'm getting at. I want nations to act first and foremost in their own individual interests, not based on their alliances gravitational force. We are all in agreement here. We want as many options as possible. But I believe that our human nature pulls our gameplaying into undynamic, unvaried behaviour. And to counter our natural tendencies to cooperate as much as possible to get as much as possible out of it, we need some rules to create a better environment for more flexible and interesting diplomacy.

[Pinchak]

I am suggesting them as an experiment in the Epic speed HOTW10, to test their functionality.

I see no problem with this.


One thing I noticed after reading this thread a second time is that tech trading seems to be the underlying issue more than anything. Perhaps any "rules" should focus on regulating how tech is traded rather then regulating alliances.

"Can only trade a tech 10 times per game", would create some interesting diplomacy.

As would, "Can only trade tech 4 times with any civ". Talk about alliances changing!

Just some ideas. Laying out who is allied with who on the table then regulating it just seems too restrictive in a format called "diplomacy games". I think with some thought and creativity we can address the issue without implementing such artificial methods.

[LzPrst]

I'm glad to see that someone else is suggesting something. Again, my suggestions are just something to limit the damned tech blocs that run completely amok. Not only do they tend to lock alliances, but they also limit diplomacy by reducing the number of diplomatic partners since everyone is constantly tied up in an alliance.

There are 2 main developments that I would like to see.
First, make some semblance of making alliances a temporary choice rather than a permanent necessity. Part of the reason it is the way it is now is because of tech blocs.
Which leads me to the second issue. Destroy tech blocs. they're just too unbalancing. and they are by definition longterm, reducing diplomatic options by tying civs to eachother for long periods.

those two issues are tied very closely together. Your suggestions Pinchak may well address these issues in a far simpler way. But it does require some book-keeping and trust.

[The Capo]

Personally I agree with Pinchak; the issue seems to be tech trading and that alone, so I think the best way to handle this is to handle that issue outright.

I do remember there was talk of allowing only the civ that created the tech to trade it. Obviously this didn't work out, and I guess it must be because that civ gains more influence than before. So maybe there should be some other type of limit on tech trading.

I can't really think of one that would work in this situation, but hopefully that direction is a good one. I mean if we make it so that you can only trade a tech you yourself created, we thought at least, it would limit the trading partners to the ones who created the technology. Therefore there was no tech trading but between a few people and the idea was that the others would eventually "catch up" because of this limitation.

What I can envision is that two tribes remain powerful and even plan out which techs to research to maintain this advantage, that was probably the reason why this ploan wasn't implimented. However, I think we need to follow a similar path to this. The main problems with what have been suggested so far seem to be that it is (1) unfair, and (2) takes away from the diplomatic aspect of the game by limiting the interactions two players can have. So the best idea is to come up with a solution that sees fairness and diplomacy as the two main objectives.

So whatever proposed rules we come up with should be rules that apply the same way to all people in theory and in practice, and that maintain the allowed diplomatic agreements and exchanges available by the game.

If we can fit within those two guidelines I think we will come up with a good idea.

[deity]

I like the ideas being discussed here.

But I'm tending toward having no rules, or very limited rules. As I said in another post HOTW11 is balancing itself out - a strong bloc that gets way ahead gradually gets lots of enemies