Diplomacy

The Mike

Warlord
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
218
Since it is my responsibility to make sure this goes well, I want to get myself prepared ahead of time. This is my first MTDG, and really my first multiplayer game.

I'm looking for pointers and advice and things that I will need to know, as well as some answers to basic questions.

I guess my first is -- what is the primary method of communication with the other teams? Will there be a shared diplo forum, or private messages? Email? IM?
 
From what I read from the previous games, it is primarily email with occasional chat from turnplayers, but they are not official diplomacy talks of course.
 
I have no experience with this kind of game, but I would be prefer to use primarily email. It would be nice to slow any diplomatic communications down enough, so all team members have an opportunity to scrutinize the proposed text.
 
what works :goodjob: are private subforums for diplomacy here, only the involved teams can see:

we+ each other team 1subforum = 5 for us (making 25 in total for all teams)
both teams can read and write in their common subforum


pro
-> easy to use, avoids external communication (except allowed chats)
-> works great, is seen instantly and can be read by both teams instantly
-> speed diplo up cause you dont have to copy past every message into our forum (click and see yourself)

con
-> is work for us to convince the admins
-> is work for the admins
 
Since it is my responsibility to make sure this goes well, I want to get myself prepared ahead of time. This is my first MTDG, and really my first multiplayer game.

I'm looking for pointers and advice and things that I will need to know, as well as some answers to basic questions.

I guess my first is -- what is the primary method of communication with the other teams? Will there be a shared diplo forum, or private messages? Email? IM?


Most teams use gmail, or the gmail chat feature.

Some terms you probably should be aware of:

Nonaggression pacts (NAP) are very common in multiplayer - they're basically a mutual agreement between two teams that they won't attack each other. Often times, teams set an "expiration" date for a NAP by turn XXX and allow either team a chance to renegotiate. (Of course, if a team is planning on warring vs. us, they won't want to sign a NAP.)

No-scouting clauses agreement by other teams mean that 2 teams will open borders with each other, but not send in any units to scout (so as to catch military buildup). I don't think we had any no-scouting clauses at all last game though.

Lastly, be sure to have every message start with an introduction ("Greetings Team XXXX") and a conclusion ("I hope this will work out for the best of us. Sincerely, The Mike of Team Mavericks").

I don't think there should be a problem as long as you post whatever you're going to send to a team on the forums so others can "check" the message. That's what generally happened in the last demo-game anyway.
 
Nonaggression pacts (NAP) are very common in multiplayer - they're basically a mutual agreement between two teams that they won't attack each other. Often times, teams set an "expiration" date for a NAP by turn XXX and allow either team a chance to renegotiate. (Of course, if a team is planning on warring vs. us, they won't want to sign a NAP.)

Are these verbally binding, or do they rely on TRUST?
 
So for once diplomats taking a nap during work hours is actually desirable at times?

(I know it's horrible, I couldn't resist :lol:)
 
Are these verbally binding, or do they rely on TRUST?

Well, get the agreement in writing and pray they don't backstab you. Usually Teams like to keep a good reputation (maybe not SANCTA :lol: ) and stick to NAP agreements, but yes ultimately it does rely on mutal trust.
 
Alright, I was never sure, but it seemed from past games I looked at people simply had TOO MUCH TRUST. I guess that is for the meta-game of things. I had assumed that maybe those NAP would get sent to the moderators if someone violated them.

In any case, since we only get a one-shot-deal on breaking a NAP (since no one else would trust us after that), we should save it for the best opportunity.
 
Yeah - the only time we should ever break an NAP, in real terms, is if it effectively wins us the game. Other times it's just too costly diplomatically; people just won't ally with us if they think we break our agreements on a whim.
 
I definitely want to scan over any diplo-emails that come in and go out. I just read AlphaShard's post regarding the Amazons and how their imp-rush is now nerfed costing them perhaps the game.

This really annoys me. Obviously it didn't take a genius to figure out what Amazons were doing long before we found out they were going after AH first. And obviously Team Sirious, which Alphashard was on, was most likely discussing it in great detail.

But instead of keeping his mouth shut, Alpha had to mention this just now on the forum. Which... can only mean Amazon's can realize now that not everyone was dumb enough to fall for that, and they had better stop under-estimating their opponents.

We basically want our opponents to keep making mistakes, NOT get smarter.

This makes me want to DoW on team Sirious just because that GENIUS is on their team, haha.
 
FWIW, I feel NAP breaking/breaking 'social' rules can be done with the right 'Causus Belli'...

If you do it for a purely 'greedy and selfish' reasons then you do get to do it just the once and your rep is toasted.

However, if you can convince other players that it was under duress/reluctantly/for a strong 'one time only' reason/etc, then you *might* 'get away with it'?

E.G. breaking a NAP with someone who'd been allowing hostile ROP to your lands and gifting units to people fighting you. Breaking one to save an ally. NAP holder chokes you with undefended aggressive settling. These could all work if spun properly... or might fail.

It's not about absolutes, it's about perception and convincing other people that you've done the 'right thing'. If you can carry the group consensus with you then you might salvage your reputation. It's much easier to convince people it was the right thing to do if it advantages other players in some way or cripples the leader. Though the people you stabbed are unlikely to forgive you.

To sum it up: Spin the hell out of a situation where you are being the bad guy.

At least that's what I've observed from watching some other MP games.


FWIW, personally speaking I'd rather keep my word, even if it's inconvenient, but I just enjoy that more myself.
 
Top Bottom