Game Discussion IV

[Hot_Enamel]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
this is interesting and all, but isn't there a better thread for some of these posts?

btw, just should say that game behavior matters (Although it shouldn't), people learn about opponents and get expectations based on them based upon previous expereince...

Jon Miller

In GoW, I recall reading Uno's psychological workup of other teams players.
We discussed who had PBEM experience with who, and who & what we could exploit in each team.

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Hot_Enamel


In GoW, I recall reading Uno's psychological workup of other teams players.
We discussed who had PBEM experience with who, and who & what we could exploit in each team.

OK, now I *REALLY* gotta see the GoW private forum!

[Theseus]

Ya know, thinking about MZ's philosohy in general, it just occurred to me...

In twenty years or so, North America will be consolidated, and I'll be living in: the United States of Mexico!!

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Theseus


OK, now I *REALLY* gotta see the GoW private forum!

It really didn't amount to all that. More an analysis of individuals than the teams. And it's not one post in particular, but a series of them.

Here is a random one in preparation of one of our chats:

(This is as much for me as for anyone else, feel free to make suggestions/changes. yes Im an organization freak in case you didn't already know)

1. Status of War:
   1. History of Vox landing on Bob. (Do not discuss payment for City, make it sound as if the city were a seperate transaction from whoever payed us to help Vox)
   2. Our mercenary role. 4 more units committed
   3. DO NOT disclose our employer or the compensation
   4. History of 'deception'. Vox wanted screenshots, even falsified, we refused.
   5. We are not interested in GS continent or the war, only fulfilling obligation.
   
2. Status of Research:
   1. Chivalry: Taking heat from several teams for not refusing to deal with GS
   2. Assure them the deal is still on
   3. Inquire as to their research path and ask if we can cooperate.
   
3. Status of Vox:
   1. Northern Bob unacceptable, period.
   2. 'discuss' southern bob in attempt to discern if GS has our map
   3. Suggest Legoland on a point of logic: they are too dangerous if allowed to grow peacefull
   
4. Status of Bob:
   1. Present 'rumors' of hostility on Bob in attempt to discern how much they know.
   2. Ask them to verify with us before listening to propoganda that is sure to follow should hostilities resume
   3. Let them know that we will be keeping all obligations to all teams despite rumors.
   4. Ask their opinion on who we should support should hostilities arise...
   5. Ask them to at least remain neutral should hostilities begin, inquire on possible support, either open or otherwise.
   
5. -GS' oncoming harbor completion and the prospect of Luxury and Iron trade.

Analasis of opponents

NYE: Tends to act reserved. Only occasionally given to outbursts, would prefer to allow us to talk ourselves into trouble and look for flaws in what we say.

nbarcly: More emotional, tends to speak his mind easily.

GS attitude: Feels the entire world is against them. Becomming more reserved in their Foreign Relations as they feel everyone will contest anything they say. Could possibly use this to our own advantage.

Possible Questions and Answers

1. 1. Q. Why would we accept the mercenary job?
   A. We did not fear Vox incursion on Bob, but were uncertain because it allowed both ND and RP to have units in our area, ostensibly to repell Vox. Would those units have peacefully returned home? We were faced with either helping or facing 30 Immortals +ND and RP forces all on our borders.
   
2. shouldn't be a problem here.
   
3. 1. Q. Are we opposed to Vox destruction?
   A. Are we? help me out here.
   
4. 1. Q. What kinds of things could we hear?
   A. We don't know, but fear a similar propoganda campaign to the Voxian one against GS.
   
   2. Q. who are we leaning towards supporting
   A. DO NOT ANSWER (duh) State that we are trying to get a feel for who the rest of the world would support first.
   
5. 1.Q. What we can/are willing to trade
   A. Im totally lost here as well...

RULES OF CONDUCT

• Remain Polite: Chances are they will object to the Mercenaries, remain polite and discuss with logic, do not show anger
• Be Understanding If they become angry, at least profess to understand. Now is not the time to compound anger by creating a debate or becomming defensive.
• Remain Open: Do not burn any bridges right now, listen with an open mind, or at least appear to.
• Do Not Interrupt: Allow them to finish their thoughts before commenting. Take this time to think of a polite response.

I typically made these before any chat. 90% of the time they were pretty accurate.

You'll also see gems like these:

Hell yes.

This gifting **** is out of hand. GS can kiss my ass.

[Hot_Enamel]

And then, MZ & I turned up drunk during the chat.
Uno had a hell of a time trying to keep order.

[ZargonX]

See, I think we have a critical case of gameplay style clash here. MZ, you have to understand that not everyone has a "win at all costs" attitude, so of course there is some friction when those two styles meet. It doesn't mean that you are right and they are wrong, nor does it mean the opposite. It's just the way people approach the game...

[Krill]

See, I think we have a critical case of gameplay style clash here. MZ, you have to understand that not everyone has a "win at all costs" attitude, so of course there is some friction when those two styles meet. It doesn't mean that you are right and they are wrong, nor does it mean the opposite. It's just the way people approach the game...

Zargon pretty much hits the nail right on the head. It must be all that building they do...

[UnOrthOdOx]

I'm curious.

Did any other team break down diplomacy to the extent we did (as referenced above)?

I've always had the theory that while all the other teams most likely did far more planning in terms of game mechanics, none even aproached our diplomacy. MAYBE roleplay. I could see Arn or Togas doing similar prior to the war. The problem was they managed to put allot of teams off, where we went to great lengths attempting to at least appear open and nice.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by ZargonX
See, I think we have a critical case of gameplay style clash here. MZ, you have to understand that not everyone has a "win at all costs" attitude, so of course there is some friction when those two styles meet. It doesn't mean that you are right and they are wrong, nor does it mean the opposite. It's just the way people approach the game...

Don't get me wrong, it's not so anarchic. I definitely believe teams have to honor treaties, act decently, etc. if only so that the perception of your team by others is favorable - and hence you're likely to get more out of others than if everyone thinks you're a dirty backstabber.

However there comes a point in which one has to weigh in the advantages of such a strategy if the alternative will provide unthinkable benefits. Such was the case against GCA in the ISDG.

[Aeson]

GS put a lot of thought into everything we did diplomatically. Why do you think we were so slow at it?

While GS diplomacy was always maligned by everyone, I think it actually was a strength for us. We didn't let ourselves be lead around by GoW, which is part of why GoW thinks we were so hard to deal with. We knew what the world situation boiled down to (ie. who controls Bob wins the game), and we were the only team which actively attempted to confront ND and GoW on Bob. Who you choose to go to war with, and why, is part of diplomacy.

Vox's diplomacy always seems to be highly regarded. What did Vox do diplomatically? They did what the world in general wanted them to do, and without getting much support in return. It's easy to get along with everyone if you let them get their way. Certainly Vox was in a tough position, but they had other bridges to try, and the one they burned was perhaps the one with the most potential.

If you say "GS should have allied with Vox", in the same breath you are saying "Vox should have allied with GS". Over and over again, GS is maligned for it's diplomacy, but no other team is mentioned for it's part in that diplomacy. It's a double standard.

GoW's diplomacy with GS was not very good either. GoW succeeded in making themselves more hated than RP (by a good margin) by GS. The bobian war could have gone much more easily for GoW and ND if they had been more friendly to GS. Instead of facing GS and RP, GS probably would have hit RP too, and then GoW and ND would have just faced GS, GS already having done most of the work against RP.

In my view, GS made one major mistake diplomatically, and GoW had one major triumph diplomatically concerning GS. We signed the NAP with GoW, meaning we couldn't proactively hit GoW or ND, but were forced to try to protect RP's land as our enterance into the war. While GS' tendancy to be hard to deal with is maligned, it was a case of us being too easy to deal with that cost us dearly. If we had been able to invade GoW or ND as our enterance into the Bobian war, this game probably would have been a lot different.

[UnOrthOdOx]

I've only ever complained about one thing on GS diplomacy. You were simply TOO SLOW. It has nothing to do with wanting to be 'leading you around'.

I'm sorry, but it was not uncommon for 2-3 GAME TURNS to pass by before an answer was communicated to us. With you being the only team taking so long, it was really aggravating for allot of things.

GoW's diplomacy with GS was not very good either. GoW succeeded in making themselves more hated than RP (by a good margin) by GS. The bobian war could have gone much more easily for GoW and ND if they had been more friendly to GS.

Actually, considering the situation: We had helped Vox in their war, albeit bungling that horribly.

I think we had wonderfull diplomacy, which took me allot of work convincing GoW to let you go your own pace. Had I not been spearheading it, I doubt we would have so much as been trading techs with you at that point given the whole attitude, and not wanting to wait for "GS speed".

The whole nice thing. Yes, that was a problem which made the war allot more difficult than it needed to be (and perhaps even the subsequent Lego war, honestly) This was the result of a total breakdown in the GoW forum. I had been working exclusively on GS affairs at that point. I knew very little of ND, and had posted my diplomatic intentions for some time with no one objecting, So...

I went into that final chat before the war fully expecting that we would be nice to you, that both ND and GoW would be offering you land on Bob. Not as far west as you were wanting IIRC, but I was totally blindsided by the staunch, frankly rude, and moronic IMO, refusal of any form of compensation. I'm still a little miffed what happened there.

And **** went downhill from there, yes. You will get no arguments from ME that the final chat was absolutely horrible, rude, and ****ty diplomacy from GoW/ND, though. It caught ME off guard as well.

[ZargonX]

I think Lego's diplomacy worked as well as it could in our situation. We made some very good deals with the various civs, and Vondrack did an excellent job as our main diplo coordinator. I think we honored every agreement we made, save for the very first one (our cooperation agreement w/RP that was made at the very beginning of the game, before we really knew how DGs would go...).

The problem was, immediately after the Bobian war, everyone stopped talking to us except Vox That was when we basically knew that GoW/GS would be gunning for us sometime soon (we actually expected the invasion much earlier than it happened). ND at that point also went from friendly to the point of threatening us as soon as the war started (which we know why, now ).

That was the part that bothered me the most, and still bothers me about most of these demogames; diplomacy is important for a while, than becomes almost irrelevant. You can make excellent deals, have a wonderful relationship with a team, but as soon as they decide that they have a chance to win by turning on you, they usually will. Maybe I'm just an idealist who dreams of a proper RP'd demogame where relations actually mattered, but I have yet to see it in practice...

[Rhothaerill]

Originally posted by Aeson
Vox's diplomacy always seems to be highly regarded. What did Vox do diplomatically? They did what the world in general wanted them to do, and without getting much support in return. It's easy to get along with everyone if you let them get their way. Certainly Vox was in a tough position, but they had other bridges to try, and the one they burned was perhaps the one with the most potential.

Vox's diplomacy post-Estonian war was to maintain the position of official neutrality while supporting Lego's endeavors in everything. We were free to make all the deals we could, and I pursued that as an attempt to strengthen Vox's relations with all the nations, including GS. I'm fairly sure our "officially neutral" stance didn't fool anyone, but it did allow us to continue building our economy and stockpile luxury items for later in the game when we would need them (i.e. after electricity allowed us some irrigation and true growth in our lands).

If you say "GS should have allied with Vox", in the same breath you are saying "Vox should have allied with GS". Over and over again, GS is maligned for it's diplomacy, but no other team is mentioned for it's part in that diplomacy. It's a double standard.

I wasn't a part of Vox until post-Estonian war so I can't comment with full authority on the diplomacy that went on before I joined, but from the bit of time I spent going through back threads Vox felt they were allied with GS for a time, primarily with technology deals.

When the advance onto Bob was rebuffed because of the three team alliance, the leaders of Vox at the time decided that removing GS and having Estonia to ourselves was the only option that remained. Vox was screwed by the map generator with only one luxury and, as it later turned out, only one strategic resource which was many tiles away from the core.

Perhaps a full alliance with GS at the time to invade Bob might have been preferable, but I think it was seen that invading one team was preferable to invading three. Obviously that didn't work out and Vox paid the price a second class citizen the rest of the way.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Yeah, rebuffed by, IIRC, our force of 4 horsemen, us lacking Iron, ND the only real military power on Bob at that point, some 20 turns away and worried about RP, and RP laughably far away to the point I doubt they could have done anything militarily in the war.

I was surprised not to see EITHER a war with GS much sooner, OR an allied invasion from the both of you.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by ZargonX
I think Lego's diplomacy worked as well as it could in our situation. We made some very good deals with the various civs, and Vondrack did an excellent job as our main diplo coordinator. I think we honored every agreement we made, save for the very first one (our cooperation agreement w/RP that was made at the very beginning of the game, before we really knew how DGs would go...).

The problem was, immediately after the Bobian war, everyone stopped talking to us except Vox That was when we basically knew that GoW/GS would be gunning for us sometime soon (we actually expected the invasion much earlier than it happened). ND at that point also went from friendly to the point of threatening us as soon as the war started (which we know why, now ).

Very well said, Z. Especially the part on how great I was...

But I think you summed it up very well. As long as there was a way to conduct good diplomacy, we did our best, and mostly succeeded (I am still quite proud of how we secured the Sistine Chapel through various deals with all other teams). Once others decided it was time to cut us off, we could have done whatever and it would not help.

And yes, UnO, we were discussing our diplomacy quite some, often setting guidelines to stick to during diplo chats. With very few exceptions, Lego was following an official, pre-discussed strategy in diplo chats (though I'll be the first to admit that a lot of diplomacy happened sort of "in the shadows", with people chatting here and there to their mates from other teams, sometimes more, sometimes less with an official blessing of the current team executive.

Originally posted by ZargonX That was the part that bothered me the most, and still bothers me about most of these demogames; diplomacy is important for a while, than becomes almost irrelevant. You can make excellent deals, have a wonderful relationship with a team, but as soon as they decide that they have a chance to win by turning on you, they usually will. Maybe I'm just an idealist who dreams of a proper RP'd demogame where relations actually mattered, but I have yet to see it in practice...

What Civ3 is really lacking is a proper ingame alliance victory, available to an alliance forged halfway through the game. Then, things would work very different (and we'd not be having most of this whole shared victory discussion in the first place - as it would be generally considered something very natural).

But MZ hinted at CIV being hopefully better in this regard, so let's hope for a brighter future...

BTW, is Poly no longer choking on threads with slightly more than 500 posts...?