Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Discussion on Diplomacy Options
Alamaze was designed as a full diplomacy game.  Some kingdoms depend more on diplomacy and the quid pro quos (Egads!  Am I allowed to use that phrase?) of negotiation and trade.  Even the more direct kingdoms, say The Red Dragon, need "diplomacy" and the threats to be a power multiplier.

Silent games eliminate the burden of diplomacy, and was a wish of most players because in 2nd Cycle and into The Choosing, some "power diplomats" were forming wolf packs on turn 0 or turn 1 and attacking a joint neighbor who did not join the pact.  This was the core to the "Game Long NAP" (no aggression for an entire game no matter what) and so a leader assured by many through NAPS would strong arm without resistance to a victory.   So Silent forbade all diplomacy.  This does make it easier to plan strategy and complete turns without sort of the additional element of communicating with others, as well as having assurance no one was gaining advantage on them through their diplomacy with others.

It evolved a bit in Forum Only diplomacy, and then Season Only Forum Diplomacy, where in both cases all diplomacy is allowed only on a game thread on the forum and all diplomacy known to all, if sometimes mysterious if not knowing the details of what is discussed (move three areas north of the area you are presently in, etc.).  The Seasonal Diplomacy also makes for a bit of strategy on the diplomacy front, as you have to anticipate the next season's developments, and also only are exercising diplomacy at the end of any season. 

Importantly, we have now implemented a no NAP condition in forum diplomacy games.  So agreements are to be tactical generally - trade, PC exchange, etc.  This in itself seems to resolve most of the sharpest points against full diplomacy.

We also have now Quasi Silent games, where there is banter on the forum but no agreements.  Just sharing universal results and some smack mostly.

SO, open to comments and suggestions, but am mainly trying to see if the default game type regarding diplomacy might by consensus be Seasonal Diplomacy, as what seems to be a middle ground here with no NAPS and no back channel talk on 3 v 1 issues because of that.  Doesn't mean we wouldn't have other types, but would kind of be a migration from mostly strict Silent games to Seasonal (once every three turns) Diplomacy with no NAPS.

I know there is wide opinion but we can't have four camps of 25% in each.  I'm seeing players doing fine in forum diplomacy without participating in the diplomacy, so again, I'm looking for that middle ground for the default, not saying we won't do the other formats.
Full diplomacy forum email all. And agreed on terms for game play: ie: naps, allies, you could even make a 4-6 turn rule of non aggression towards a new player playing. As long as it is all agreed on, I don’t see a problem. Imo
We can see from the game sign ups which types are more popular.  A few players prefer silent.  The last silent game was hard to fill.  Just a little flexibility and compromise can be the difference in getting a game launched.
We to continue to provide options if we want to keep all of our players.
I think full diplomacy should be allowed if for no other reason it is very difficult to enforce people backchanneling. Although I do prefer communication only on the boards. I am not a huge fan of the communication only on certain turns simply because the more games you have the harder it becomes just to keep track of them.

Trade is also very important to other kingdoms than just the ones that you would think. Almost everyone can use a little extra food now and then for building.

In the future, I would prefer to see communication built directly into the game and delivered on the turn sheets and be able to be intercepted by agents, etc...
Live your life, so that when your time comes to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with fear of death, so that when their time comes, they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way.

Sing Your Death Song And Die Like A Warrior Going Home.
Tecumseh, Shawnee Chief
I’d love to see personas created for each game where I communicate as the leader of that Kingdom and the others do not know what account is behind it.

Too much now is based on reputation and actions from prior games.
(10-24-2019, 03:47 PM)Calidor Wrote: I’d love to see personas created for each game where I communicate as the leader of that Kingdom and the others do not know what account is behind it.

Too much now is based on reputation and actions from prior games.

Bonus points if we have to do it in character! Even more bonus points if that character is based on some sort of random attribute generator. So we could end up with bashful Dragons, self-hating Necromancers, warmongering Halflings (my favorite), etc. Sign up for a game and get a system generated email: "Congrats, Brekk, you are playing the role of 'Narcissistic (insert kingdom choice here which is probably AN) with a stutter'. Please select your region based on the remaining options."
That could be an option/variant but probably not the default Smile
Hahahaha That would be fun
Ry Vor, your fans have spoken!
When the game was PBM in the 90’s there was an option to send messages to other kingdoms via interface, and were like form letters. Could that be something worth exploring again. So you can’t say anything you want like “hit the town at jj while I hit lo”. Much more generic but proposed trades, alliance, etc.

Could there be something there?

Neutered diplomacy where you “can’t ask for help” etc is banal since it is just name calling and posturing. This devolves the game into who can find popcenters and surprise attack first winning most of the time.

Should be a medium somewhere.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)