Diplomacy in PBEM's - by techumseh - comments

[SlowThinker]

I want to start a debate about tecumseh's article Diplomacy in PBEM's

Originally posted by tecumseh
These are not exceptional situations. The forums are full of PBEM games which resemble the diplomacy and warfare style of the early 18th century - a city changes hands now and then, and few are willing to risk a major battle if it can be avoided. Caution reigns. The kreig has lost its' blitz. What's wrong?

IMO this needn't be wrong. It depends on your approach to the game:
1) You can be a monarch, whose main goal is prosperity of his country.
2) You can be a game player, who wants to beat all other players. Or you are a leader of Napoleon's type who wants to conquer large empires.
In case 1) you will prefer a war only if you can expect your profit will be larger than a profit from trade (so you can expect almost no war in scenarios where trade is very advantageous. One example is Kull's Seeds of Greatness: In our PBEM we had a 1 vs. 6 war, very easy and quick win, and still the war represented losses for winners (in comparison with peace and indisturbed trade)).
In case 2) you will enter a war even if it will harm your civ, supposing it will harm your enemy much more or destroy him.
In case 1) you want your empire survives as long as possible, even if it stays weak. In case 2) you are ready to risk to be wiped off in order to get strong or to prevent another leader to become strong.

Originally posted by tecumseh
10.Playing to win.
I think some people fall into an inactive and over-cautious pattern because they don't want to ruin someone else's game. So they hold back. I'm reminded of Gen. George Patton's famous quote: "No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. Wars are won by making the other poor bastard die for his country." The objective of a PBEM is not to have the other guy have a lot of fun. It's for you to have a lot of fun. And the best way to have fun is to win.

IMO this is only one possible approach to (any) game.
Your main goal may be
A) to win
B) to play
Of course B-type players also want to win, but the win has a secondary priority. A (good) game is primary, and players prefer to have an interesting, high-level, thrilling game that ends by a loss than a brainless, stodgy game that ends by a win by opponent's heavy mistake.

[Eivind IV]

I personally tend to do whatever I think will make the game more fun. My perseption of a fun game is to recreate historical situation, or to make decisions based on presedences set by other players. Role playing makes the game 10x more fun. My main goal is therefore seldom to win. I once refrained from attacking a guy in a game because I felt bad that I had already sneak attacked him in another game (but I ended up invading him anyway, with an apology ). If I'm playing Britain in a pre-ww2 situation, I like to cut Germany some slack. If USA, I like to lay back and let the others fight, and if I'm Germany, I want to play agressively. Very easy to read, but I enjoy it nonetheless. And if I end up winning, nothings better!

Whether caution reigns still, I don't know. Most PBEMs I've played has ended as a result of war. All these genious micro-management civ2-geeks that emigrated from evo, I always watch with care, as I know many of them are loose cannons, and very capable players. I don't want them winning too much either. I am not a stranger to bold moves myself and quests for an empire, but generally strive to keep calm. Once I also declared war just out of pride, although I knew it would hurt me badly. He had just dissolved an alliance with me, and declared our non agression pact void. So I responded with war, and invaded him successfully, but it turned into a bloody stale mate, which we both realised and eventually signed peace. Come to think about it, i think both situation are from the same PBEM (Imperialism).

But when all comes to all, I think the most fun pbems are the ones that require a lot of diplomacy and where the people involved are dedicated to role playing, and not playing randomly and inconsistant.

[Peaster]

I've played in a couple of dreary PBEMs which began in a state of war. Despite talented designers and lots of playtesting, they quickly became Civ2 versions of Bambi meets Godzilla. The players formed historical alliances in these games, as the designer intended, or the games could have been much worse. It seems a designer just can't control all the variables well enough to promise "an interesting, high-level, thrilling game" this way. BTW - the diplomacy in these games was naturally pretty meaningless.

Maybe Eivind has had better experiences with these kinds of PBEMs. But IMO there is more hope for balance and excitement in a duel. Even so, I'd expect most wars to have a fairly quick resolution. Hopefully the players can enjoy the earlier phases as much as the fighting itself.

AFAIK the last alternative is an empire-building game such as "Seeds" - my favorite PBEM so far. Even without major wars (most of the time) there are enough barbarians, border conflicts with insane neighbors ... ... and economic competition to keep it interesting. But I am a little surprised this game has stayed in balance so long, with only one lop-sided alliance, and no trading schemes gone completely out of control.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Eivind IV
I personally tend to do whatever I think will make the game more fun.

This is the worst type of monarch. I feel sorry for all your subjects.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Peaster
...I'd expect most wars to have a fairly quick resolution.

IMO this is caused by units with high movepoints. ZOCs become narrow (relatively to movement of units), manoeuvring is easier and brute force (combined with surprise attacks) wins.
I am not experienced with PBEMs, this is just my theoretical view.

[Peaster]

Every EVO player has played many more PBEMs than I have (about 5), and could speak with more authority on this.

But IMO you can't expect a duel to sustain a long balanced war, like a good game of chess. A chess game starts off almost perfectly even, and even after minor errors, the weaker side usually has 98% of the opponent's force. If the gap exceeds about 5%, the game becomes trivial to any master, and the weaker side normally resigns. A Civ2 duel could almost never stay this balanced. I'd expect a rich-gets-richer paradigm without prolonged suspense.

A PBEM with several players might stay balanced if neutral players tend to back the weaker side when conflicts arise. But this view is also "theoretical" - I haven't seen a PBEM war actually work out that way.

Fortunately, Civ2 is not just about war.

[SlowThinker]

IMO you can't compare Chess and Civ2.
In Civ2 if the attacker is only 5% stronger in military than the defender then he will lose probably (or he SHOULD lose, otherwise Civ2/the scenario is tuned badly, because it works like "who strikes first wins" ).
Let us say you play a duel with equal starting positions. Let us say the attacker's army must be 20% stronger than the defender's one in order to win. Then the game resembles poker:
In order to win you must balance an economy/military ratio of your investments properly: if you prefer the military so that you are 20%+ militarily stronger than your opponent then you win. If you are 0-20% militarily stronger then you lose because your opponent will fight off and win economically. If you are 0-20% militarily weaker then it is you who wins (economically). If you are 20%+ militarily weaker then you are crushed.
The problem is you don't see the economy/military ratio of your opponent ...

So you may be stronger than your opponent in aggregate (military+economy) and still you may lose because you set your econo/milit ratio unproperly.

[Eivind IV]

In adition comes technology, diplomacy, battlefield tactics and grand strategy.

[Peaster]

Good points and I agree. A duel or mutli-PBEM can provide enjoyable suspense for a long time before a war begins. And with the fog of war, the opponents may not be able to predict the winner for a little while.

But I've not seen a prolonged balanced thrilling war in a Civ2 PBEM (as in chess/etc). The ST-Peaster duel war was interesting to me, but I imagine that ST saw the end long before I did. I've seen several lop-sided wars, which were unclear for maybe 5-10 turns, but then predictable.

BTW - I just finished a war in a SP game. The Zulus demanded tribute, declared war, attacked first, but lost all 7 cities that same turn (even though I was not really prepared). The last SP game I saw from ST had similar lop-sided "wars". I think we have to expect most Civ2 wars to end quickly. Maybe more experienced PBEMers can offer better examples?

[techumseh]

The article was written four years ago, at the height of the popularity of PBEM scenarios. At that time, almost all of these scenarios were designed as military contests. The major exception is Kull's "Seeds of Greatness", which, interestingly, is the most enduring PBEM.

In the context of the scenarios then being played, I stand by my assessment that many, if not most, games suffered from overly passive playing, and that successful aggression requires effective diplomacy.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by tecumseh
8. Negotiation vs. Propaganda
There's a difference between diplomacy and propaganda. Diplomacy should be conducted between players privately, via PMs or email. Many inexperienced players think that negotiations should be conducted on the forums, in full view of all players. Shun them. They will do almost as much damage to you as they do themselves.
The forums are used for general communication about the game, ie. rule amendments, finding replacement players and for posting save games. Everything else posted on the forums is PROPAGANDA!

This is not so evident.
Public statements are more weighty than statements you say privately (For example it is much easier to lie between two people than publicly.). Also promises/announcements uttered in public have more importance, because if you break them your reputation will drop more.
If you want to be open (and to show you are open) it is good to talk to all people or at least to all friends/allies.