Diplomacy - Franco-German Tie

123457

Posts

  • nindustrialnindustrial Word Typer Los AngelesRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Well, it was sure to come; Turkey's days are now numbered. As such, France will be the beneficiary of my demise as they were most congenial of the three toward me this game. Germany, Austria: too bad - have fun dealing with a superpowered France because I will fight the two of you to the death while I allow France to devour me from the interior.

    nindustrial on
    chstreamsig.jpg
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited November 2006
    Bump for treachery.

    Aroused Bull on
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited November 2006
    Sorry about the missed update, folks. Things happened, and by the time I got to it, it was the next day.

    Aroused Bull on
  • DynagripDynagrip destroy everything you touch Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    Holy shit, where'd France come from.

    Dynagrip on
    ok98TNK.png
  • Jolly-ollyJolly-olly Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Id love to try diplomacy if another game is started up or need a filler for a doomed nation.

    i wish id seen this earlier...

    Jolly-olly on
  • MrMisterMrMister Please demonstrate your enthusiasm for e-marking and/or e-assessment with examplesRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Dynagrip wrote:
    Holy shit, where'd France come from.

    It's true. I am awesome.

    MrMister on
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited November 2006
    Jolly-olly wrote:
    Id love to try diplomacy if another game is started up or need a filler for a doomed nation.

    i wish id seen this earlier...

    I think Thanatos said he'd be willing to adjudicate a game after this one finishes.

    Aroused Bull on
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited November 2006
    Unless there's a break in the Franco-German Alliance, this fall will be the last turn of the game.

    Aroused Bull on
  • MrMisterMrMister Please demonstrate your enthusiasm for e-marking and/or e-assessment with examplesRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Do we have to wait another turn, or can I offer than a draw immediately?

    MrMister on
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    MrMister wrote:
    Do we have to wait another turn, or can I offer than a draw immediately?

    Are you fucking kidding me? No way in hell did I play through this whole game to have it end in a draw. I want to see a single winner.

    SageinaRage on
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited November 2006
    MrMister wrote:
    Do we have to wait another turn, or can I offer than a draw immediately?
    The game can end in a tie as soon as you've finished off Turkey, if both players agree. The peanut gallery won't like it, though.

    Aroused Bull on
  • MrMisterMrMister Please demonstrate your enthusiasm for e-marking and/or e-assessment with examplesRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Well, he controls no SCs at the moment.

    But he still has units on the board.

    I take it that means we have to wait?

    MrMister on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    MrMister wrote:
    Do we have to wait another turn, or can I offer than a draw immediately?
    Are you fucking kidding me? No way in hell did I play through this whole game to have it end in a draw. I want to see a single winner.
    Maybe you should have played it to the end, then. :P

    Thanatos on
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited November 2006
    Game over! If possible, I would like to play in the next game, since people seem to be expressing interest in one.

    Aroused Bull on
  • MrMisterMrMister Please demonstrate your enthusiasm for e-marking and/or e-assessment with examplesRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    I call in as well. (I only got to join part way through, as well)

    We might even have enough demand for two games.

    MrMister on
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    This is depressing. I didn't even know it was possible to end in a draw. This seriously changes the mechanics of the game to a point where I don't even like it any more. What's the point of having a game about treachery and backstabbing when it's possible to take a single alliance to complete victory which doesn't need to be broken?

    SageinaRage on
  • nindustrialnindustrial Word Typer Los AngelesRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    This is depressing. I didn't even know it was possible to end in a draw. This seriously changes the mechanics of the game to a point where I don't even like it any more. What's the point of having a game about treachery and backstabbing when it's possible to take a single alliance to complete victory which doesn't need to be broken?

    Yeah... I know what you mean. I would like to point out that it was indeed a draw. As in, neither of them actually won the game. But it is still disappointing; not all that exciting to play against a perma-alliance for the whole game because they're nigh undefeatable unless another group of countries does the same thing, thereby defeating the purpose of the game.

    EDIT: Oh, and also based on the calling of the draw, Austria actually shares equally in it, because he still had a piece on the board.

    nindustrial on
    chstreamsig.jpg
  • GT RacerGT Racer Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    This is depressing. I didn't even know it was possible to end in a draw. This seriously changes the mechanics of the game to a point where I don't even like it any more. What's the point of having a game about treachery and backstabbing when it's possible to take a single alliance to complete victory which doesn't need to be broken?

    Yeah... I know what you mean. I would like to point out that it was indeed a draw. As in, neither of them actually won the game. But it is still disappointing; not all that exciting to play against a perma-alliance for the whole game because they're nigh undefeatable unless another group of countries does the same thing, thereby defeating the purpose of the game.

    EDIT: Oh, and also based on the calling of the draw, Austria actually shares equally in it, because he still had a piece on the board.

    Theres no such thing as a "perma-alliance". I mean, you can *agree* to a perma-alliance, but theres no level of guarantee that its gonna be upheld.
    Honestly, in my gaming group, the perma-alliance practically means "lets go hit turkey. Syke. I'm hitting you in 3 seasons"

    Its called diplomacy for a reason guys. If you see two countries coming at you on a team, its your job to either
    A: gain support from other nations. Turn people against the alliance.
    B: Try to convince one of the nations in the alliance that its in their best interest to keep up the charade for awhile, then backstab for "teh glory!!!"

    Theres no way you can win this game on your own
    "Trust Me"(I use this phrase in Diplo more than any other). even the nations in the alliance would have preferred an all out victory, but that would just drag the game on.

    Anyway, Count me in for the next game if you guys have room.

    GT Racer on
  • ElderCatElderCat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    A very good reason to allow agreed draws is the existence of "stalemate lines." The way to map is laid out there are several sets of troop arrangements that, with the proper support orders, cannot be broken. Most games that try to play to the end face a stalemate line eventually.

    ElderCat on
    signature.png

  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    GT Racer wrote:
    This is depressing. I didn't even know it was possible to end in a draw. This seriously changes the mechanics of the game to a point where I don't even like it any more. What's the point of having a game about treachery and backstabbing when it's possible to take a single alliance to complete victory which doesn't need to be broken?

    Yeah... I know what you mean. I would like to point out that it was indeed a draw. As in, neither of them actually won the game. But it is still disappointing; not all that exciting to play against a perma-alliance for the whole game because they're nigh undefeatable unless another group of countries does the same thing, thereby defeating the purpose of the game.

    EDIT: Oh, and also based on the calling of the draw, Austria actually shares equally in it, because he still had a piece on the board.

    Theres no such thing as a "perma-alliance". I mean, you can *agree* to a perma-alliance, but theres no level of guarantee that its gonna be upheld.
    Honestly, in my gaming group, the perma-alliance practically means "lets go hit turkey. Syke. I'm hitting you in 3 seasons"

    I'd like to think that, but...there's no in game mechanic to promote breaking alliances. This makes it much more beneficial to enter an alliance and never leave it.
    Its called diplomacy for a reason guys. If you see two countries coming at you on a team, its your job to either
    A: gain support from other nations. Turn people against the alliance.
    B: Try to convince one of the nations in the alliance that its in their best interest to keep up the charade for awhile, then backstab for "teh glory!!!"

    Why would it be in their best interest to backstab? They can still win without it.
    Theres no way you can win this game on your own
    "Trust Me"(I use this phrase in Diplo more than any other). even the nations in the alliance would have preferred an all out victory, but that would just drag the game on.

    Would they? They never made any overtures towards attacking each other at all, and were both ready to call a draw as soon as all the other countries were eliminated.

    I understand what you're saying the game SHOULD be, but this rule changes that.

    I hope I'm not coming off as upset that I lost; that was probably going to happen anyway. I do genuinely think that this rule is bad for the game in general.

    SageinaRage on
  • GT RacerGT Racer Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Their interest in backstabbing is so that they could "win"

    Even with a permanent alliance I'd prefer a solo victory over a draw.
    Like the old Navy coach said when he went for 2 with no time left rather than kick the field goal for a tie "A tie is like kissing your sister"

    It sounds like they were playing for a draw the whole game, which is just boring and sounds like no fun at all.
    grats on not winning anything guys.

    GT Racer on
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    GT Racer wrote:
    Their interest in backstabbing is so that they could "win"

    Even with a permanent alliance I'd prefer a solo victory over a draw.
    Like the old Navy coach said when he went for 2 with no time left rather than kick the field goal for a tie "A tie is like kissing your sister"

    It sounds like they were playing for a draw the whole game, which is just boring and sounds like no fun at all.
    grats on not winning anything guys.

    That's the thing - they DID win. The rules say they won, and the title of this thread calls them winners.

    I agree with you that a single winner game is MUCH more interesting, especially because it ENSURES that there are no permanent alliances.

    SageinaRage on
  • nindustrialnindustrial Word Typer Los AngelesRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    First off, I'd like to agree with Sage in that I hope I'm not coming across as a poor sport, because I certainly had a great time playing and would love to play again; but anyway:
    GT Racer wrote:
    Their interest in backstabbing is so that they could "win"

    Even with a permanent alliance I'd prefer a solo victory over a draw.
    Like the old Navy coach said when he went for 2 with no time left rather than kick the field goal for a tie "A tie is like kissing your sister"

    It sounds like they were playing for a draw the whole game, which is just boring and sounds like no fun at all.
    grats on not winning anything guys.

    That's a better way of putting the point I was getting at with the "perma-alliance" thing: that it seemed as though they played for a draw the entire time.
    That's the thing - they DID win. The rules say they won, and the title of this thread calls them winners.

    I agree with you that a single winner game is MUCH more interesting, especially because it ENSURES that there are no permanent alliances.

    Actually, they didn't win though. On like.. the first page of the rules I think (wherever it is that they cover the objective of the game), it says that to win you need 18 centers, but players still in can call a draw at any time and the players with pieces still on the board at the time all share equally, hence my point that Austria also shared in the draw. It's not considered an actual win, though, regardless of how the thread has been labled. What I've gathered from articles I've read is that a draw is more of something to shoot for when you know you're no longer in the running to win (and in the case of stalemate lines, as was pointed out). Toward the very end, I was hoping to shoot for a draw if I could've only turned Germany or France on the other, but I think it's obvious I failed :lol:

    Anyway, no animosity meant, I just would've liked to see who was going to stab the other right at the end - France only needed one SC.

    As for further games, I'd love to play again if that's how this shakes out; I'm not sure how many new people are interested and how many from this last game are - whether we have enough for two games or just too many for one, etc.

    nindustrial on
    chstreamsig.jpg
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited November 2006
    I can understand that people feel ripped off to see a draw at the end of the game. There's not really much I could have done about that - it's in the rules; changing them halfway through the game just to create a more exciting finale would be unfair to the players involved. Thanatos is running next game, so if you feel a tie to be an unfair victory condition, take it up with him before the game starts.
    Austria wasn't counted as sharing in the draw because MadJazz had surrendered.

    Aroused Bull on
  • Jolly-ollyJolly-olly Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Also, it seems when youre down to two, there isnt a whole lot of backstabbing going on, its just all out war. The game wasnt really made to deal with that in depth, so most of the fun is gone once its down to 2 major players like that.

    Jolly-olly on
  • DoronronDoronron Registered User
    edited November 2006
    Ummm.

    If you guys are having a problem with how the alliance turned out, you might want to give Imperial Diplomacy a shot. It tends to lend itself well to multiple geopolitical alliances in a traditional Diplomacy setting. Another possiblity is Balance of Power, which I don't have a link for, but can find copies of. It has a turn limit and a caveat that if no one has met the victory conditions by the end, there is no winner.

    Bear in mind, both of these are global maps. Imperial is the smaller of the two requiring 13 people. Balance needs 17.

    Doronron on
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Jolly-olly wrote:
    Also, it seems when youre down to two, there isnt a whole lot of backstabbing going on, its just all out war. The game wasnt really made to deal with that in depth, so most of the fun is gone once its down to 2 major players like that.

    I can appreciate the tedium that sets in once the game gets down to two people.

    But here's my position: If this game gets down to two people, and it's a stalemate, then the players fucked up. One of them should have made a move earlier, if they wanted to win, or protected the last other power against the enemy. The fact that it's possible for two evenly matched players to remain in a stalemate just highlights the importance of external powers and alliances. I see this as a plus to the game.

    I do think there should be a contingency in case a stalemate does happen, but I think it should be determined by the arbiter, or a pre-determined set of conditions, like...if a whole year goes by and no territory changes hands. Or something like that, where the players can't choose on their own. And, it should mean that the game has no winner.

    SageinaRage on
  • MrMisterMrMister Please demonstrate your enthusiasm for e-marking and/or e-assessment with examplesRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    I don't think you guys actually get it. First off, two-way draws are supremely difficult to engineer. For example, had I wanted to, I could have screwed Thanatos over and won the game on one of the last couple moves. He could have done the same to me beforehand. We only drew because we had a "carebear" alliance--e.g. one where we weren't behaving as perfectly rational actors (in the single game setting, at least).

    Furthermore, two-player draws certainly aren't overpowered. In tournament Diplomacy scoring, you receive points based on being in the game when it finishes. The formula is each player gets seven points divided by the number of people remaining. Therefore, Thanatos and I each got 3.5 victory points (7/2), a result literally half as good as a single player win.

    Finally, as was pointed out, stalemate lines exist on the board. You can look them up if you'd like, there are plenty of articles on them. There need to be draws, because there are certain groups of supply centers which are indefinitely defensible against any possible combination of moves.

    I think you guys are all freaking out because this was your first game, but I've played hundreds and this is one of the only times I've ever had a two-player draw.

    MrMister on
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    MrMister wrote:
    I don't think you guys actually get it. First off, two-way draws are supremely difficult to engineer. For example, had I wanted to, I could have screwed Thanatos over and won the game on one of the last couple moves. He could have done the same to me beforehand. We only drew because we had a "carebear" alliance--e.g. one where we weren't behaving as perfectly rational actors (in the single game setting, at least).

    So why didn't you screw him over? Because it wasn't in your best interests to do so. If you're given the option of not having to betray your ally, then it's better for you if you don't.
    Furthermore, two-player draws certainly aren't overpowered. In tournament Diplomacy scoring, you receive points based on being in the game when it finishes. The formula is each player gets seven points divided by the number of people remaining. Therefore, Thanatos and I each got 3.5 victory points (7/2), a result literally half as good as a single player win.

    Which is still much better than a loss, I'm assuming. Unless losers get points based on when they were eliminated, it's still in your best interests to get a draw.
    Finally, as was pointed out, stalemate lines exist on the board. You can look them up if you'd like, there are plenty of articles on them. There need to be draws, because there are certain groups of supply centers which are indefinitely defensible against any possible combination of moves.

    And I already posted what I think is a better solution.
    I think you guys are all freaking out because this was your first game, but I've played hundreds and this is one of the only times I've ever had a two-player draw.

    Just because it doesn't happen often doesn't mean it's not a problem.

    SageinaRage on
  • MrMisterMrMister Please demonstrate your enthusiasm for e-marking and/or e-assessment with examplesRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    So why didn't you screw him over? Because it wasn't in your best interests to do so. If you're given the option of not having to betray your ally, then it's better for you if you don't.

    I didn't screw him over because I was generally being a nice guy, and same with him. It's somewhat funny that you don't realise the amount of trust that went into that, as the majority of our correspondence from the second half of the game amounted to "if you betray me I will congradulate you on the win, then drive to your house and brutally fucking murder you. We clear?"

    Either of us could have doubled out points by betraying the other. Of course a tie is better than a loss, but at the same time a win is just as much better than a tie. And while having an airtight alliance allowed us a lot more tactical freedom and overall benefited us, it's no wonder that if you can trust someone and they can trust you then you'll be more effective working together. That's part of the whole point. If there were no possible benefit to ever trusting someone, then there wouldn't be any actual Diplomacy going on.
    Which is still much better than a loss, I'm assuming. Unless losers get points based on when they were eliminated, it's still in your best interests to get a draw.

    No, it's in your best interests to lead someone on as if you wanted a draw, then steal the win at the end with a precisely timed betrayal.
    And I already posted what I think is a better solution.

    That solution is already part of the rules: if three years go by with no supply centers changing hands then the game ends in a draw. However, notice that allowing the remaining players to declare a draw is just a shortcut to do something that is already allowed: if they were just to hold for three years then it would take a lot longer but achieve the exact same effect.
    I think you guys are all freaking out because this was your first game, but I've played hundreds and this is one of the only times I've ever had a two-player draw.

    Just because it doesn't happen often doesn't mean it's not a problem.

    If it hardly ever happens, maybe that's indicative that it's not the game-warping strategy you see it as.

    MrMister on
  • nindustrialnindustrial Word Typer Los AngelesRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Well, overall, I was very happy with the game and think we should move on to setting up the next one! Should we start a new thread since RBB isn't judging this one? And we need to know who wants in.

    I'd like to play if possible.

    nindustrial on
    chstreamsig.jpg
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    MrMister wrote:
    So why didn't you screw him over? Because it wasn't in your best interests to do so. If you're given the option of not having to betray your ally, then it's better for you if you don't.

    I didn't screw him over because I was generally being a nice guy, and same with him. It's somewhat funny that you don't realise the amount of trust that went into that, as the majority of our correspondence from the second half of the game amounted to "if you betray me I will congradulate you on the win, then drive to your house and brutally fucking murder you. We clear?"

    Either of us could have doubled out points by betraying the other. Of course a tie is better than a loss, but at the same time a win is just as much better than a tie. And while having an airtight alliance allowed us a lot more tactical freedom and overall benefited us, it's no wonder that if you can trust someone and they can trust you then you'll be more effective working together. That's part of the whole point. If there were no possible benefit to ever trusting someone, then there wouldn't be any actual Diplomacy going on.

    I can definitely appreciate the amount of work that goes into a good alliance, as I definitely put some work into the ones I was in. And, I realize the value of a good airtight alliance. That's exactly what my point is - your alliance was airtight, and much stronger than any other. And it carried with it less risk, because both of you were willing to settle for a draw.

    Look at it this way: In order to win a typical game of diplomacy, with a single winner, the player has to do two things:

    1) Join alliances - obviously, a player must have some friends in order to make any progress at all.

    2) Betray those same alliances - when a single winner is allowed, the player must choose the right time to leave those allances and strike out for themselves.

    If you allow for draws as win conditions, then you're negating half of the entire game. What's the point in even playing then?
    Which is still much better than a loss, I'm assuming. Unless losers get points based on when they were eliminated, it's still in your best interests to get a draw.

    No, it's in your best interests to lead someone on as if you wanted a draw, then steal the win at the end with a precisely timed betrayal.

    Then why didn't you? Obviously it wasn't in your best interests.
    I think you guys are all freaking out because this was your first game, but I've played hundreds and this is one of the only times I've ever had a two-player draw.

    Just because it doesn't happen often doesn't mean it's not a problem.

    If it hardly ever happens, maybe that's indicative that it's not the game-warping strategy you see it as.

    Or maybe most diplomacy players aren't familiar with the prisoner's dilemma. Or maybe it's not that big a deal, and only comes into play rarely. Shouldn't it still be fixed anyway? The manual covers situations that arise only on a single spot on the board with specific army and fleet locations.

    SageinaRage on
  • MrMisterMrMister Please demonstrate your enthusiasm for e-marking and/or e-assessment with examplesRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    MrMister wrote:
    No, it's in your best interests to lead someone on as if you wanted a draw, then steal the win at the end with a precisely timed betrayal.

    Then why didn't you? Obviously it wasn't in your best interests.

    It was in my best interests to betray Thanatos if I simply wanted to win the game as best possible. Given that my real life goals also include honesty, my more extended interests lead me to keep our deal.

    Cooperative strategies only win the prisioner's dilemma over multiple round games. Similarly, while there may be an in-game advantage to establishing yourself as an honest broker, it's irrelevant if you're not going to be playing with the same people over and over.

    I don't intend to offend, but you need to play more than once before going Chicken Little. Diplomacy is a fairly deep game on which there exists mountains of literature. It is not "solved" and there is no forced win by two-person team. It's as if you were to play a single game of chess and then declare that the whole game is silly because the King's Indian opening line is unstoppable.

    Anyhow, I too would like to play in Than's game, whenever he chooses to run it. I'll even pledge not to willingly draw if that's what everyone wants, but I think y'all overreacted more than a little.

    MrMister on
  • JebuJebu Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    A lot of times in Diplomacy tournaments a point structure is made such that a solo win is worth many, many more points than a two way draw, to the point where getting one solo can almost guarantee you first place in the tournament, and there is a similar difference between a two way and a three way draw. It's kind of difficult to provide the same incentive within a single game, but I know when I've played this among my friends we consider a draw, no matter how many people involved to be a loss for everyone, and the only true win to be a solo. It leads to a lot more shaky alliances and people constantly eyeing each other for backstabbing opportunities, but we find it more fun that way.

    Jebu on
  • Knotts Comma DonKnotts Comma Don Registered User
    edited November 2006
    So should the next (set of) games(s) be set up in tournament structure, or more just fun and enjoyment, even if most don't like the results?

    Knotts Comma Don on
    donsig1.png
  • GT RacerGT Racer Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Aside from a general agreement to play for the win, The main problem I see (saw) is that there is alot of player turnover.
    Its hard to sub a player in, as they have no previous correspondance with the other countries, so the new player often gets taken out as soon as they step in.
    Ive been on the losing end in diplomacy numerous times. in fact, I rather enjoy playing the part of the stubborn resistance, and try to bring my aggressor down with me.

    GT Racer on
  • DynagripDynagrip destroy everything you touch Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    Dynagrip wrote:
    Kusu and Thanatos are planning on teaming up.
    Damn, I'm good.

    Dynagrip on
    ok98TNK.png
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    MrMister wrote:
    MrMister wrote:
    No, it's in your best interests to lead someone on as if you wanted a draw, then steal the win at the end with a precisely timed betrayal.

    Then why didn't you? Obviously it wasn't in your best interests.

    It was in my best interests to betray Thanatos if I simply wanted to win the game as best possible. Given that my real life goals also include honesty, my more extended interests lead me to keep our deal.

    Man, what? This is diplomacy, right? Where the whole point of the game is lying to people?

    I don't intend to offend, but you need to play more than once before going Chicken Little. Diplomacy is a fairly deep game on which there exists mountains of literature. It is not "solved" and there is no forced win by two-person team. It's as if you were to play a single game of chess and then declare that the whole game is silly because the King's Indian opening line is unstoppable.

    Telling me that you know more than me isn't going to convince me, as you've failed to prove it thus far. I'm not saying that it's 'unbeatable', and to a certain extent, I'm not even saying that it's 'unbalanced'. I'm mainly saying that it goes against the entire purpose of the game. The game is about earning trust, and betraying it. Why even play the game if you're not going to do that? It would be like playing tag where you could tag someone by proxy, using...a stick or something. You could win just by throwing sticks at people - what's the point of playing TAG?
    Anyhow, I too would like to play in Than's game, whenever he chooses to run it. I'll even pledge not to willingly draw if that's what everyone wants, but I think y'all overreacted more than a little.

    <shrug> I like discussing game design and theory. I'm actually very interested in potential solutions to what I see as a minor problem with a very good system.

    SageinaRage on
  • MrMisterMrMister Please demonstrate your enthusiasm for e-marking and/or e-assessment with examplesRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Man, what? This is diplomacy, right? Where the whole point of the game is lying to people?...

    I'm mainly saying that it goes against the entire purpose of the game. The game is about earning trust, and betraying it. Why even play the game if you're not going to do that? It would be like playing tag where you could tag someone by proxy, using...a stick or something. You could win just by throwing sticks at people - what's the point of playing TAG?

    I'd submit that the point of the game is conquering Europe, and that lying is one way to get there.

    If the whole point of the game were lying and betraying trust then there would be no point in actual diplomacy. You might as well play gunboat (where the players aren't allowed to communicate) since it's not like it matters what anyone says anyway.

    One part of the strategy of the game is being able to peg people as lying weasels and goodie-two-shoes, and being able to tell when someone is giving you their word for real real and when someone is just trying to smooth your feathers before planting the knife in your back.

    MrMister on
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    MrMister wrote:
    Man, what? This is diplomacy, right? Where the whole point of the game is lying to people?...

    I'm mainly saying that it goes against the entire purpose of the game. The game is about earning trust, and betraying it. Why even play the game if you're not going to do that? It would be like playing tag where you could tag someone by proxy, using...a stick or something. You could win just by throwing sticks at people - what's the point of playing TAG?

    I'd submit that the point of the game is conquering Europe, and that lying is one way to get there.

    If the whole point of the game were lying and betraying trust then there would be no point in actual diplomacy. You might as well play gunboat (where the players aren't allowed to communicate) since it's not like it matters what anyone says anyway.

    One part of the strategy of the game is being able to peg people as lying weasels and goodie-two-shoes, and being able to tell when someone is giving you their word for real real and when someone is just trying to smooth your feathers before planting the knife in your back.

    I would submit that the gameplay mechanic is lying to people, and conquering Europe is the win condition.

    The problem with your argument here, is that you know ahead of time that no one is completely trustworthy - you're competing with each other in a game. It's completely possible to have a good working diplomatic relationship, and not trust each other completely. It's just like real life this way - you basically never have allies that you trust completely, they're all working in their own best interest.

    You're saying that having the possibility of betrayal ruins any kind of good diplomatic relationship, I'm saying that this possibility of betrayal is what defines the gameplay.

    SageinaRage on
Sign In or Register to comment.