Deception

[Alan_Nicoll]

I have never tried to deceive another human player, but in one game I made some attacks on a player's one-city islands which led him to pull units from his mainland. A later attack on his mainland was very successful, and I believe in part because he had pulled too many units off to the islands. I believe he had put a full transport (8 units) into the cities I had attacked. Instead of making feeble attacks because I was too impatient to prepare strong attacks, I suppose I could have done the same thing as a feint with intent to deceive, and ended up with similar good results.
Have you set out to deceive another human player? With what result? What kinds of deception are even possible (other than lying or making treaties later broken)?

 

[EyesOfNight]

My entire game is based on deception.

 

[drake]

you're kidding eyes right

Deception is part of any competitive game. Surprise can be your biggest ally.

That being said, I don't deal cheap shots in the games I play, especially if it's people I might want to play with again. You can be an honorable rogue if you are skilled diplomatically.......

 

[Alan_Nicoll]

Some further thoughts on this topic. I was playing a multiplayer game recently when I got into an early peace treaty which the other player broke in order to capture a small, undefended city of mine. This player then said he wanted peace. I said, fine, give me back my city. He said something about not having room to expand, that's why he attacked me. He spoke often of making peace, while continuing to make war. I was not deceived. Eventually I recaptured my city and was beating him up pretty well when I had to leave. This kind of deception seems worthless, though it might fool a fool. Once.

In this same game, a second player did a very similar thing, this time breaking an alliance because he said I was encroaching on his territory. He captured one city and destroyed another, then wanted peace without offering any compensation. This player did not continue to attack, probably because the rest of my cities were far away. When I left he was in the best position, though I was very close on the powergraph.

This kind of play makes me wonder about some people. In a multiplayer game with 3 or 4 humans, it's losing play to be on the warpath from the getgo. While you slaughter units, the others build cities. To break a treaty or an alliance to capture an undefended 1 point city seems remarkably foolish, particularly if it's not at a strategically important point.

 

[Dogberry_Old]

Good thread ! Hope to see more of this stuff
.. that said player etiquette can be a very touchy thing. It does not bother me particularly.. when a player is trying to pretend peaceful.. when really being warlike. Nor some of the habits other players fall into. In good MP ( not duels ! ) as soon as you start setting patterns.. your success rate will recede. The trick is to come into each game "new". Also retain your sense of humor about what goes down.

Dog

 

[SlowwHand]

I agree that deception is key, if you're talking "appear weak when strong, appear strong when weak".
Surprise attacks are the biggest advantage one can have.
Outright lies work, but your reputation (not meaning with AI) is tarnished.

------------------
It's In The Way That You Use It
Tuatha De Danann Tribe
ICQ 51553293

 

[EyesOfNight]

No, I'm talking about far more complicated things like creating the disguise that your civ is on one part of the map and it's really on the other. Or sacrifcing units to make the opponent think he's gaining ground. Or luring a unit out of a city leaving it undefended and then coming in with a second unit to take it from the opposite direction. Among other more complicated strategies.

 

[SlowwHand]

That's pretty much my first point.

------------------
It's In The Way That You Use It
Tuatha De Danann Tribe
ICQ 51553293

 

[Karlsen]

Deceptions certainly include:
o Feint attacks to either draw off defenders or to get your opponent to concentrate on the wrong area
o If attacking via the sea, spend that extra turn so it looks like your forces are appearing from the South, instead of the West for example thus hiding your true location (works whilst map has not been revealed and you keep killing their explorers).

 

[Dogberry_Old]

When I first saw this thread.. I asked myself if this is a subject that I really want to get into.. & decided mostly to give it a pass. However temptation has won out & at the risk of having my reputation permanently besmirched..here it is.

Now the deception that I am talking about does not have to do with ambushes.. advancing when retreating.. or vice -versa, it has to do with deception on a broader diplomatic scale.

There are three kinds.

1) Misdirection: an example of this is attacking someone after assuring them that you will not.

2) Indirection: an example of this would be building up & making threatening noises against player A .. while you know that player B is going to attack him. You have no intention to attack yourelf.

3) Deception as practiced through Others: this again can be subdivided itself into misdirection & indirection. You know that players A & B are yakking a lot. You feed player B a piece of false information intended for player A... or better yet you feed player B information that is mostly true .. but has some important facts left out.. or crucially skewed.

Misdirection is the kind that most practice..& it is also the kind that has the shortest "shelf" life..as players become attuned to the fact that you do this. A small, but crucial lie can often go unnoticed amongst the hurly-burly tho.

Indirection is better.. but sometimes leaves a whiff of collusion.

Deception through Others is best..but again you have to be careful. You can judge by the results. If the targets are blaming each other & really don't have the slightest idea what transpired .. then you have been successful.

The very best sort of deception is the kind where you let others deceive themselves.

Dog

 

[EyesOfNight]

EoN-if you don't have anything useful or informative to add then don't respond.



[This message has been edited by Smash (edited June 23, 2001).]

 

[Dogberry_Old]

Smash.. you can let Eyes say whatever he wants.. as far as I am concerned. His chatter does not bother me ( altho I like to pretend that it does occasionally ).. like I said, self- deception is the very best kind.

Dog

P.S. I realise that you are also trying to do your job as moderator..thanks !

 

[EyesOfNight]

I can't help it that Dogberry is a moron. I mean come on, can you say with a straight face that this is useful information?

 

[Dogberry_Old]

Bump.. yet again. Gee, I hope this isn't considered SPAM. BTW..reading these threads will give you a good idea of the caliber of EyesofNight's contributions to these forums..or lack thereof.

Dog

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

When I played MP games, I would attempt to confuse the other player as much as possible.

When our units first meet, I would send a message like, 'Crap. Retreat!!' and then move my unit a different direction than where my cities are. They would chase that one unit for long while.....

I even go as far as changing my city names if they get close to me. Make your newer cities the names of the older cities. That way they think they found your develpoed cities and usually wait to build up a force to try and take them rather than attack right away.

When you launch your space ship change all your city names to the same thing and move your capital. That way they don't know which one is your capital.

I loved screwing with people's minds in MP. Too bad I never have time for it anymore. If I did I wouldn't be telling you guys my tricks, you'd have to learn them first hand.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

I wouldn´t say I based much on deception at all...but I base A HUGE amount on keeping my empire unexplored by the opposition and WILL not be swapping maps.

I WILL declare war if units of the opposition make moves to discover areas I tell them not to (or in some cases EVEN with ships surround them and provoke war).

I WILL expect to be allowed to put units and diplomats in your territory...war will result if any move made against them.

I WILL have cities in positions to launch attacks should a REASON for war arise...I don´t attack for no reason EVER (in fact I´ve always been the victim...my poor diplomat etc)

THIS idea of faking weakness can point very clearly to the fact you ARE weak...small cities can only be so much of a disguise...lack of wonders and tech etc!

To quote EON "Or sacrifcing units to make the opponent think he's gaining ground"
Well if you lose units that is a gain...the advantage in that is pitiful!
miaow!

I agree with "Duke of M´s" capital name changing (do it earlier!) as part of the secrecy thing (I SMAC I renamed my planet busters, fusion rovers so I could build them in controvention of the enforced treaty with my brother -his probes found out and nuked my newly built missiles, but it was close!).

But ultimately the idea that deception is valuable vs concerted aggression at certain points with overwhelming force in combination with maintaining a shroud over your empire (at least your capital) is MUCH better IMHO.

Each to their own.

[This message has been edited by kittenOFchaos (edited August 05, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by kittenOFchaos (edited August 05, 2001).]

 

[Dogberry_Old]

Kitty.. if you ever have the time to get into 4 or 5 player games.. & I hope that you do, you are going to have to be a little more flexible than what you have indicated here. Or at least disguise your strategy a little. I regard the refusal of embassies..etc, as hostile acts & I am sure most other players worth their salt will also. Nothing like building an early coalition against yourself.

Sometimes you can & ought to get along with your neighbors..other times it is different. Don't take SP attitudes into MP games ! The wrong war, for the wrong reasons.. at the wrong time will scuttle your game faster than anything else.

Dog

 

[SlowwHand]

The Dogster speaks the truth.

If you go into MP with a cocky ass attitude generated by success in SP, you're going to be toasted.

About the only thing similar, is that both are called Civ II.

------------------
It's In The Way That You Use It
Tuatha De Danann Tribe
ICQ 51553293

 

[TrailblazingScot]

I won´t have a cocky attitude (maybe it sounded that way here)...I just regard keeping my city positions secrecy of utmost importance.

If I was ganged up on for doing this I would make an utmost effort versus one of the combantants and take him out too!

Having not had the pleasure (YET!) of a big multiplayer game I would say that although the big alliance vs me for trying to retain my secrecy in terms of my core cities (I don´t mind my frontier cities known about and with embassy) that people would be busy targetting aggressors, NOT people that can be placated by demanding things that promote their defense.

AS for my units in enemy lands...yes, I agree in a larger game I´d have to refrain from that! But as for retaining forward cities...they give something for the enemy to target preferentially to your core, and moreover to launch a knockout blow should war arise.

I am not an aggressive player (HONEST!)...and by retaining your core cities hidden nature is a reasonable demand as only an aggressor need know their position. I would always be open to negociation

Home in 8 dayz! play you guyz on wednesday of next week??? PM me!


[This message has been edited by kittenOFchaos (edited August 06, 2001).]

 

[Dutchgael]

In one MP-game I played, another human player was on a neighbor continent. There was a narrow strait between our continents, but the other player had a stronger fleet.
So I wondered how to get an invasion fleet over to the other side.

Well we were at peace at that time, but of course, if I would send a lot of Transports, he wouldn't be stupid and sink them before they could get across.

What I did was this: I sent some Transports from time to time, only loaded with a Caravan. Of course, he saw no harm in this, so he didn't sink these Transports. One can tell the difference between a single unloaded Transport and a loaded one, when seeing them on the map. The icon changes when there are more units, but if you see the Transport on top you can't tell what the other units are.

One time it wasn't a Transport with a Caravan, but a stack of about 6 Transports. The other player wouldn't be able to tell the difference. When these Transports where
very close to the narrow strait, he noticed them, but didn't attack them.

Next turn I founded a railroad-connected city on my side of the narrow crossing and moved the Transports in. Over the railroad I moved many units (Cannons, Engineers and other units) into this city and made them board the ships. The Transports still had some movement so they moved to the other side, where I unloaded an Engineer. This Engineer built a city and the Transports moved in. That meant that I now had 6*8-1=47 units on the other side, their movement still intact. With the Engineers I built railroads to his cities, connected to his railroad-network, and could send all the other units in.

In the next turns the Transports could "ferry" many new units to the other side.



[This message has been edited by Dutchgael (edited September 08, 2001).]