MP reputation

[Matrix]

Well, diplomacy is a different game than Civilization III.

After all, you can also win a game here by building a space ship or gaining a cultural victory. Furthermore, with Civ3 you build up your empire with the land you have. Conquered land is half as valuable as your main land because you have to build it all up again (unlike in diplomacy), unless you conquer it somewhere in the beginning. But that would give you the reputation of "the aggressor" for the rest of the game.

I believe you think too much in war terms, col.

 

[Matrix]

Another view: if what you say is the moral, then in fact there is not such thing as reputation! I'd find that quite a shame.

 

[Skyfish]

OH NO Matrix !
You vote CDA or VVD ???????????????
Damn !
That's horrible ? How old are you ? 60 or 70 ?
I used to like you ....:saiyan:

Hope this is some form of very sarcastic joke.

 

[col]

Originally posted by Matrix
Well, diplomacy is a different game than Civilization III.

After all, you can also win a game here by building a space ship or gaining a cultural victory. Furthermore, with Civ3 you build up your empire with the land you have. Conquered land is half as valuable as your main land because you have to build it all up again (unlike in diplomacy), unless you conquer it somewhere in the beginning. But that would give you the reputation of "the aggressor" for the rest of the game.

I believe you think too much in war terms, col.

I think in terms of winning and losing. If you are building a spaceship and are near to winning, every other player in the game must try to stop you or lose. This is a zero sum game. if you win, I lose. We cant both win.

Conquered land is every bit as valuable as 'main land'. I can use any number of corrupt cities quite productively , thank you . It also denies you those resources. .There is nothing wrong with cooperation at the right time but in a game where only one person can win, then if you are content to maintain your reputation for always holding to treaties then you will quickly acquire the reputation of stooge!

Reputation will be used. They are now. Dont you fear Erikk and Anarres in your games. I know I do and I'd welcome an alliance of two or three of us to take them down one at a time!

By all means keep up this moralist line - I can see how you can use it to your advantage very nicely.

 

[Kemal]

Originally posted by col


I think in terms of winning and losing. If you are building a spaceship and are near to winning, every other player in the game must try to stop you or lose. This is a zero sum game. if you win, I lose. We cant both win.

Sorry for jumping in on this discussion but there is more than one way to stop a player getting ready for a launch, as Matrix pointed out the space race and cultural victory will also win you the game.

I personally will only break the treaty in this situation if I absolutely see no other way to stop the player nearing the launch to win the game than to fight. However, if that were the case the treaty would probably have been abandoned a long time ago because any experienced player can see that situation coming from a mile's distance. However agreeing to an alliance that lasts the entire game between two tech nations can be a perfectly viable tool, both nations fighting it out for technological superiority instead of military superiority. Any other player than has the problem to stop them both, making it more difficult for them and easier for both allied parties.

I do see breaking treaties as a breach of trust that will carry over to next games. Otherwise these treaties would become hollow concepts, of very little value to both parties as they can be broken very easily. This could mean that if I can clearly see that the game is lost and a player will win, I'll congratulate him with his good play instead of becoming a treaty breaker for a lost cause and suffer the consequenses in later games. Therefore I also do not sign treaties lightly, as I expect others to act to breaking a treaty in the same way.

 

[WildFire]

Originally posted by col
You mean you would believe someone who said I'll keep this treaty even if it means that I wont win, Matrix. I don't believe you! I wouldnt want to play with players who arent trying to win. Whats the point of this game anyway??

Who was it who said that countries dont have friends or enemies only interests?

Great reasoning col! I wouldnt want to play against someone who wasnt trying to win either! And what is really makin me steamed is that yesterday, i found out (after playing a 3 player hotseat 'free for all' game) that my older brother said that if he is attacked, he will quit. His reasoning: We invited to play him, so what is the point of declaring war? My reasoning: LAND (its a small map).


I just hope i can trust you when playing th OCC since your my neighbor.

 

[col]

Originally posted by WildFire444


I just hope i can trust you when playing th OCC since your my neighbor.

If you cant trust me, then who can you trust?

 

[col]

Originally posted by Kemal


Sorry for jumping in on this discussion but there is more than one way to stop a player getting ready for a launch, as Matrix pointed out the space race and cultural victory will also win you the game.

Of course, sign all the treaties you want that will stop other players attacking you and hope that they keep their word. Just dont expect other players to roll over automatically. It is perfectly legitimate to do all one can to mislead an opponent. An innocent face helps at poker.

I personally will only break the treaty in this situation if I absolutely see no other way to stop the player nearing the launch to win the game than to fight. However, if that were the case the treaty would probably have been abandoned a long time ago because any experienced player can see that situation coming from a mile's distance. However agreeing to an alliance that lasts the entire game between two tech nations can be a perfectly viable tool, both nations fighting it out for technological superiority instead of military superiority. Any other player than has the problem to stop them both, making it more difficult for them and easier for both allied parties.

There's nothing 'honourable' about this. Youre just making a choice that you think will give you the best chance of winning.
But if two players are obviously playing together like that, the other players will need to tally ogether too. The danger of a Juggernaut is well known in other games.

I do see breaking treaties as a breach of trust that will carry over to next games. Otherwise these treaties would become hollow concepts, of very little value to both parties as they can be broken very easily. This could mean that if I can clearly see that the game is lost and a player will win, I'll congratulate him with his good play instead of becoming a treaty breaker for a lost cause and suffer the consequenses in later games. Therefore I also do not sign treaties lightly, as I expect others to act to breaking a treaty in the same way.

This is what I object to. The game was perhaps lost because you refused to break a treaty earlier . You have let down the other players in the game who expect you to do all that you can to prevent someone else from winning. This is not honourable. It is cowardly. Someone who breaks a treaty to prevent this happening is not dastardly but brave and fighting for the win.

Its a question of perspective.

If you think that keeping all treaties gives you a better chance of winning then fair enough, try it. But dont pretend that it is anything more than a tactic.

 

[ERIKK]

Originally posted by Skyfish
OH NO Matrix !
You vote CDA or VVD ???????????????
Damn !
That's horrible ? How old are you ? 60 or 70 ?
I used to like you ....:saiyan:

Hope this is some form of very sarcastic joke.

You're quite direct! May I ask what you political favour is...
Btw, I am a PvdA -guy, and I am not 60!

ps;
If you are a Mat Herben adept I will ask Thunderfall to ban you

 

[ERIKK]

Originally posted by Kemal
I do see breaking treaties as a breach of trust that will carry over to next games. Otherwise these treaties would become hollow concepts, of very little value to both parties as they can be broken very easily. This could mean that if I can clearly see that the game is lost and a player will win, I'll congratulate him with his good play instead of becoming a treaty breaker for a lost cause and suffer the consequenses in later games. Therefore I also do not sign treaties lightly, as I expect others to act to breaking a treaty in the same way.

Kemal is right about this point and I also think that this is the gameplay where we will end up with. Everybody will try to be as loyal as he/she can be in the game. But if one player is about to get to strong, others will probably try to prevent this. Especially in a multi-human-player game, like in Diplomacy etc...

But in my ERIKK-Anarres game is would consider it very low if I or Anarres would attack during our agreement, as none of us is in a winning position of something like that. But if in hindsight one us found out that he misses an important resource I will judge the action much more legitimate. You need a good reason to attack other than be an untrustworty bastard trying to win by decieving others. Of course this can be a tactic but I am sure I will bounce back in your other games....

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Good points fr all sides in the argument. My own feel on the matter though is once you've given your word (in writing), you shldn't break it (now that with human vs human, there's a new layer of offgame treaties). If you think you're going to break it, shldn't negotiate the 'treaty' in the first place. I'm not referring to the general 'peace' treaty that's the minimal in the game...

As for carrying the rep fr game to game, once I've been betrayed by someone in a game; I'm going to watch him very carefully in the next and probably will repay him the favour (and be damn his whatever playing 'style' for different games).

 

[col]

Originally posted by ERIKK


Kemal is right about this point and I also think that this is the gameplay where we will end up with. Everybody will try to be as loyal as he/she can be in the game. But if one player is about to get to strong, others will probably try to prevent this. Especially in a multi-human-player game, like in Diplomacy etc...

But in my ERIKK-Anarres game is would consider it very low if I or Anarres would attack during our agreement, as none of us is in a winning position of something like that. But if in hindsight one us found out that he misses an important resource I will judge the action much more legitimate. You need a good reason to attack other than be an untrustworty bastard trying to win by decieving others. Of course this can be a tactic but I am sure I will bounce back in your other games....

I couldnt disagree more. Its not about being 'low'. Honour demands that you try to win at all times. and defend yourself at all times If you dont want to be hit, then dont get into the ring.

The point is not that whether or not you are in a winning position or missing an essential resource. The game is effectively over once one person achieves a winning position.Its like being a piece up at chess. If I can achieve a winning position by breaking an agreement then I will do so and so should you. To do otherwise is not to play your best to win. This is not low or dishonourable. Its what the game is about. If my best chance of winning is to attack now, then I am honour bound to attack now. If I can mislead you as to my intentions then I must do everything I can to do this. Its the essence of the game.

To regard this as 'low' or dishonourable is miss the point of strategy gaming.

What is the point of being trustworthy if you lose? If you are a strong player, you have a vested interest in trying to get everyone else to play the game your way. That way you win.
Nice tactic.

 

[Skyfish]

If I ever see Mat Herben I'll personally spank him !
Hum...maybe not I think he would enjoy it

I am direct ?

At least I don't show my political colours on my signature

I'm sure I could find a clause in the fine print banning any political propaganda on this site no ?

PvdA of course is the best choice...but hey Matrix don't take it too badly it's just for fun OK?
One's gotta expect taking some slack when one supports such boring parties.

Oh by the way Mat(rix) "red het land" from what then ? I am sure you mean from "CDA & VVD"right ? since they are the ones in control right now, we have to save the country from them ?
that's what you mean no ?

Col, you a Thatcher fan ?

 

[ERIKK]

OK, Col! Maybe "low" is a bit over the top. If you use treaties as a tactic to decieve people, you should do that but remember that other people think that a treaty is first of all a treaty.

I think I will never give you a ROP. It will be to much trouble to make sure that everywhere in my territory my cities are backup'ed with sufficient troops.

I still will be very upset when Anarres suddenly attacks but OTOH I have all my troops at the border. What I mean is that I made the preparations for if the agreement is broken... So, I am not playing the bluff card to get agreements and build no troops but improvements and getting the advantage over the other party.

 

[col]

Originally posted by Skyfish

Col, you a Thatcher fan ?

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

I'm New labour. (who mentioned spin?)

 

[Skyfish]

Sorry for the disgression guys (a bit of local fun) :
All your arguments are good and valid Col but I think the point is that if you break a treaty, whatever you or anyone can say, it WILL have an impact on your reputation.
You will definitely be "the guy that respects treaties ONLY if/as long it suits him".
That is why the AIs have "reputations" programmed in order to behave more like a human and instead of having NO memory of what happened moments ago.
We are not saying that you were not RIGHT to break it in the 1st place it's just that we know you are a "Real Politik" proponent instead of a "man of word" who would rather suffer the impact of signing a bad treaty rather than be a traitor.

You just have to assume and not look for excuses

 

[ERIKK]

Hey Skyfish, if you wanna have a political discussion, you should post a thread over at the OT! This thread is about MP reputation

I'll be happy to join it although it seems we are on the same line

(but I am no SP-man (bloody red))

 

[Skyfish]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Skyfish

Col, you a Thatcher fan ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


Well that's what our friend Matrix is !
AHAHHHAHA

 

[col]

Originally posted by ERIKK
If you use treaties as a tactic to decieve people, you should do that but remember that other people think that a treaty is first of all a treaty.

So will I. But if someone is losing and signs a treaty withme, I'd guess they are setting me up for something.

I think I will never give you a ROP.

I cant imagine giving a ROp to any hman player. They could take you outof the game in a single turn. I dont trust anyone that much.

I still will be very upset when Anarres suddenly attacks but OTOH I have all my troops at the border. What I mean is that I made the preparations for if the agreement is broken... So, I am not playing the bluff card to get agreements and build no troops but improvements and getting the advantage over the other party. [/B]

Of course. That is the essence. You sign a treaty. It will be kept while it is in the others players interest to do so. You take precautions to keep him wanting to keep the treaty. To do otherwise is foolish - and you are far from that.

While you both feel you have more to gain than lose in keeping to the treaty it will hold. When one feels the other is getting ahead, it will break - and quite rightly. The player demonstartes his skill and judgement NOT his untrustworthiness.

The main reason you will feel upset is if you did not anticipate it and take steps to prevent it. If, hypothetically, Anarres breaks the treaty at the right moment, attacks and cripples you, then he is the better player and deserves to win.

 

[col]

Originally posted by Skyfish
You will definitely be "the guy that respects treaties ONLY if/as long it suits him".

And you wil be the guy that keeps treaties even when he loses.