RBPB4 Lurker Thread

[Serdoa]

Well, I do not agree that no one trusts me - though I probably should get out of the game where indeed it seems that everyone has decided not to trust me because doing diplo in that sort of environment is rather exhausting - but my actual question is not if someone trusts me but: What exactly is one supposed to do when he can't obviously attack but also can't be friends - which sometimes is simply a given by the lay of the land? People talk about "honest" diplomacy and rego and I are pegged as untrustworthy but when I actually look around in the threads, I see many players do similar things then rego and I did. Trying to set people up against each other, lieing about how much land they have to expand into, lieing about how much and what map info they have, lieing about their army strenght, lieing about whom they intend to attack. But those are still trusted. As example, look at PBEM3, scooter and the information agreement he had with Sandover. Broken deal and from what one can read not a simple oversight but broken on purpose. It's not what one does but how he is able to "sell" it.

Bottom line: I think some players are more in the focus then others when it comes to "trust", but I don't think this game has an especially great amount of untrustworthy players.

[Gazzahk]

Thanks for the comments.

I have to say I feel closer to Serdoa's point of view as expressed here. I feel, and am happy to bow to other's experiences and skill, that this diplomacy issue is pretty much the nub of the game besides obvious city, resource and civ management. It seems vital in most MP to avoid early wars; it seems that this is achieved through diplomacy rather than building a 'big stick' to deter and thus wasting scarce resources. This 'trustworthy' issue troubles me. I had been assuming that each game can be vastly different to previous ones and I further assume that one has to adapt the playing style accordingly to how the game unfolds.

Do you guys really plan never to trust LP in future games because of his performance here? As a new player to this MP realm I feel he has played a blinder to achieve his current lead / advantages. Should he really answer questions completely openly and fulsomely about unsettled lands to avoid the 'untrustworthy' label and so sacrifice his game plan? Could it not be argued that he has skilfully manipulated the other's with all these long NAPs, misdirections and other negotiating tactics? He appears to be 'in it to win it'. As I commented before, the others were not compelled to fall for his tactics all the time - yet they appear to have entered into these various agreements willingly. Even where they have doubted what he has said none of them have acted on those doubts but have sailed merrily onwards seemingly bending to LP's will.

I am finding this all incredibly compelling and frankly motivating to go to the next stage from lurking to playing in MP myself. Thanks again for your insights.

[Krill]

Let me get this straight... he's annoyed because we won't pay him to spread our religion in his lands? Uh, ok...

What exactly is one supposed to do when he can't obviously attack but also can't be friends - which sometimes is simply a given by the lay of the land?

That's a non sequitur - just because you can't be friends doesn't mean you can break agreements. For instance in PBEM10 where you said you were going to drop knights off to help Cyneheard but instead you attacked him with them.When you say you are going to do something but then do something else, has lasting implications for how believable you are. Other examples would be Darrell in PBEM2 with basically all of his diplomacy, but he attempted to sort that out after he realised he screwed up by offering numerous concessions to different parties.

People talk about "honest" diplomacy and rego and I are pegged as untrustworthy but when I actually look around in the threads, I see many players do similar things then rego and I did.

They act in similar ways in somethings, and because of that they are held at some level of suspicion. The more devious a player is the more suspicion they are held under.

Trying to set people up against each other, lieing about how much land they have to expand into, lieing about how much and what map info they have, lieing about their army strenght, lieing about whom they intend to attack.

So we all do that? Or, perhaps some people do some of those things? And not all of those things are the same nor does doing them have the same consequence.

But those are still trusted. As example, look at PBEM3, scooter and the information agreement he had with Sandover. Broken deal and from what one can read not a simple oversight but broken on purpose. It's not what one does but how he is able to "sell" it.

See above.

[Krill]

Thanks for the comments.

I have to say I feel closer to Serdoa's point of view as expressed here. I feel, and am happy to bow to other's experiences and skill, that this diplomacy issue is pretty much the nub of the game besides obvious city, resource and civ management. It seems vital in most MP to avoid early wars; it seems that this is achieved through diplomacy rather than building a 'big stick' to deter and thus wasting scarce resources. This 'trustworthy' issue troubles me. I had been assuming that each game can be vastly different to previous ones and I further assume that one has to adapt the playing style accordingly to how the game unfolds.

Do you guys really plan never to trust LP in future games because of his performance here? As a new player to this MP realm I feel he has played a blinder to achieve his current lead / advantages. Should he really answer questions completely openly and fulsomely about unsettled lands to avoid the 'untrustworthy' label and so sacrifice his game plan? Could it not be argued that he has skilfully manipulated the other's with all these long NAPs, misdirections and other negotiating tactics? He appears to be 'in it to win it'. As I commented before, the others were not compelled to fall for his tactics all the time - yet they appear to have entered into these various agreements willingly. Even where they have doubted what he has said none of them have acted on those doubts but have sailed merrily onwards seemingly bending to LP's will.

I am finding this all incredibly compelling and frankly motivating to go to the next stage from lurking to playing in MP myself. Thanks again for your insights.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me...This is why you don't break NAPs, and unfortunately for LP there should be a fair few people who remember him refusing to follow through a multi-part tech trade in a previous game that screwed over another team. At the very least rego and Plako should remember.

[bato]

Looking at WK last "stack" wouldnt it have been better if he had promoted one archer to drill 3 to minimise collateral damage from catapults?

[Krill]

Still gets beaten by a C2 HA.

[Ruff_Hi]

Diplo ruled the day in PBEM #1 ... but those early days were much less stressful and warlike than later pbems and pitboss games. RB certainly has turned more aggressive .

[Krill]

Sorry.

[Gold Ergo Sum]

Do you guys really plan never to trust LP in future games because of his performance here? As a new player to this MP realm I feel he has played a blinder to achieve his current lead / advantages. Should he really answer questions completely openly and fulsomely about unsettled lands to avoid the 'untrustworthy' label and so sacrifice his game plan? Could it not be argued that he has skilfully manipulated the other's with all these long NAPs, misdirections and other negotiating tactics? He appears to be 'in it to win it'. As I commented before, the others were not compelled to fall for his tactics all the time - yet they appear to have entered into these various agreements willingly. Even where they have doubted what he has said none of them have acted on those doubts but have sailed merrily onwards seemingly bending to LP's will.

What he has done this game has indeed been extremely impressive. I've said so since well before he was in the lead. But no, I probably wouldn't work with him in another game. Why work with somebody who you know is never going to make a trade that isn't more beneficial to himself than you? That kind of stone cold calculation will only help someone win if the other people in the game allow it to happen.

[Serdoa]

Why work with somebody who you know is never going to make a trade that isn't more beneficial to himself than you? That kind of stone cold calculation will only help someone win if the other people in the game allow it to happen.

Sometimes you do trade in a way that the other does win more by it - in order to gain diplomatic benefits. So, in a way you still try to benefit more from the deal then the other. I do not see a difference except for how you make it sound, not what you really do or intend.

For example, PBEM10: meatbalz gave me Iron - which I had no source available to me - without getting any payment for it. So that trade did benefit me much more then him at first glance. But he gained an ally who would not attack him at all and keep open borders, giving him a safe flank and trade routes for TGL (btw: so much for trustworthy, it always depends on the circumstances). Exactly what he needed at that time. With a crippled neighbour on his other flank, he gained in the end much more by this trade. It is just not comparable easily and opinions will differ but to expect that people really will do fair trades or trades which do benefit the other more then themselves is not realistic I feel. Fair trades is the best you will get - and even that only because people hope to get more out of you later on.