Diplo game thought experiment

[Ellimist]

It sounds like WilliamLP's goal in his original post is a game where deals will still be made but with a greater level of uncertainty about whether they'll be carried out.


What about...

FFH game with unrestricted leaders. Each player has a different civ with Perpentach as the leader.

Agreements between players are automatically cancelled if either player experiences one of Perpentach's random trait swaps.

[WilliamLP]

Honestly, you just want AI diplo...but with the ability to chat, right?

I'd say that you need to re-use the PB7 concept but be picky about who plays in the game.

Basically yes, but I'm thinking something like the bachelor party in Vegas of Civ games, where everyone agrees before the game starts (very explicitly) that whatever happens there stays there and it's only a game. There can be no drama about out-of-channel diplo because there are no restrictions. Maybe the game consisting of players who would otherwise only ever play an AI diplo game might help. We probably don't give a fuck whether we have a reputation that we might say we'll do something on turn 75 in an email but then mess you up on turn 60 for profit.

I've played in a full diplo game that was started with this same idea few years back. In practice it didn't work as intended.

I'm very interested if you want to elaborate on what didn't work and why?

[Krill]

You want a game with different victory decisions. The Apolyton crew run diplogames...and they judge the games off points that are gained from everyoine scoring the roleplay that occurs in the diplo thread. You basically need to go and create new VC, such as cities captured, or units destroyed, and play with a fixed turn limit, to change player behaviour.

[WilliamLP]

It sounds like WilliamLP's goal in his original post is a game where deals will still be made but with a greater level of uncertainty about whether they'll be carried out.

Sure, and also for everyone to view deals with more than a grain of salt, and for people to read "NAP" and start thinking "hmm, how could I exploit that he thinks we're in a NAP in order to win this game?" And for the lurkers and other players to see that as a fun and clever move.

[flugauto]

It sounds like WilliamLP's goal in his original post is a game where deals will still be made but with a greater level of uncertainty about whether they'll be carried out.

Sure, and also for everyone to view deals with more than a grain of salt, and for people to read "NAP" and start thinking "hmm, how could I exploit that he thinks we're in a NAP in order to win this game?" And for the lurkers and other players to see that as a fun and clever move.

Why do you think anybody will think there is a NAP if everybody knows there is no NAP, but only a friendly chat where everybody acts like they make deals? It is not a deal if it is not a deal, if it is not binding, but only is called a deal.

[WilliamLP]

Sure, and also for everyone to view deals with more than a grain of salt, and for people to read "NAP" and start thinking "hmm, how could I exploit that he thinks we're in a NAP in order to win this game?" And for the lurkers and other players to see that as a fun and clever move.

Why do you think anybody will think there is a NAP if everybody knows there is no NAP, but only a friendly chat where everybody acts like they make deals? It is not a deal if it is not a deal, if it is not binding, but only is called a deal.

Maybe someone will think in the terms that Krill thinks everyone will inevitably will, and they can be exploited? I don't know!

[Krill]

You do realize I stopped playing diplo games just because of the level of restrictions diplomacy creates, right?

[Tasunke]

It sounds like WilliamLP's goal in his original post is a game where deals will still be made but with a greater level of uncertainty about whether they'll be carried out.


What about...

FFH game with unrestricted leaders. Each player has a different civ with Perpentach as the leader.

Agreements between players are automatically cancelled if either player experiences one of Perpentach's random trait swaps.

Now that you think about it, the Insane trait is about as close as you can get to experiencing a variety of leaders on down the line. Rhyse and Fall does this same thing with the leader art, while perpentach accomplishes it with the traits.

[Bacchus]

This is a culturally fascinating discussion. We ran a private Pitboss among a group of acquaintances, some of whom were fairly close friends before the game start, but some of whom barely new each other. The game was full diplo, and Gavagai looked for a sub on this very forum after a player dropped out. There, we didn't even discuss the points suggested by WilliamLP, it was just assumed by us, that diplomacy is going to be a viper's nest of intrigue and fraud. And of course that's the way it turned out. No-one was unhappy at the end of it, I don't think, but make no mistake — players went for weeks with discussing two or even three versions of a strategic plan with apparent allies, some of whom then ended up as enemies, so there was a lot of surprise and destruction of in-game trust. Especially when the enemies realised, that they were designated as such pretty much since the start of the negotiations, which were a complete fig leaf.

We now play AI Diplo, but not for the judgement reasons, rather for time-saving.

Another game that comes to mind is Game of Thrones Board Game — there both agreements and backstabbing are rampant; and the latter don't preclude the former, as staying out of diplomacy completely for fear of betrayal is still worse than taking the risk and signing up to some deals. And, of course, Diplomacy itself was already mentioned.

Hopefully, I understood William's original post correctly as talking about judgement of personal character, rather than a player's in-game reputation. After all, the player's game style and disposition doesn't have to do much at all with his personal traits; some of the nastiest backstabbers are dependable rocks IRL

[suttree]

It sounds like WilliamLP's goal in his original post is a game where deals will still be made but with a greater level of uncertainty about whether they'll be carried out.

What about...

FFH game with unrestricted leaders. Each player has a different civ with Perpentach as the leader.

Agreements between players are automatically cancelled if either player experiences one of Perpentach's random trait swaps.

That might work: introduce a game mechanic that gives players "permission" to be bad - Civ4 Mardi Gras!

The problem is that deceit requires a decent amount of planning. If the players are already inclined to negotiate and keep long treaties as their default strategy, they won't be in a position to capitalize on the break. So again the problem of culturing players to be self-serving in diplomacy.

I read some of PBEM4v and it doesn't look like removing graphs had all that much of an effect. I still like the idea of increasing the incentive for conflict over cooperation - its difficult to trust someone if they have the ability to build an army in secret.

It also goes to the heart of why RB culture is the way it is: "good" play means "playing civ" well. Clever micro, solid buildering, and tactics rooted in a deep understanding of the game design. Perhaps inherited from the tradition of succession games and adventures. Its true that the game design makes aggression predictable (graphs) and easy to counter (whips/drafts) but that doesn't fully explain the meta.

The design is equally compatible with a culture that values aggression and constant war. A pitboss where all the players value aggression and believe they are going to be rushed, and so a pitboss where all the players build early military and constantly harass their neighbours is also an equilibrium. Individual players who try to try to break the meta by building in peace are either crushed or forced to comply with the meta by their more aggressive neighbours. You might further reinforce the meta by labeling the peaceful players as "wimpy" and "stupid" - the expert players in the community know that early aggression is the only way to go! They spend all their time in the forum talking about ways to psych out opponents and all sorts of tactical tricks and traps for warfare and diplomacy.

Its only when you get a group of players who agree that war is stupid that the meta begins to shift to the current equilibrium. If you have enough players with this belief, some of them still get rushed, but one player, somewhere, is left to build in peace for long enough to secure an economic advantage and win the game. Everyone forgets about the other losing teams, remembers the winning team, and adjusts their behaviour accordingly. The shift is reinforced by a value system that rewards peaceful play (that micro was awesome!) and a shift in culture - now everybody is talking about efficient worker movement and optimized city development. They keep elaborate threads that document their economic development and share interesting tidbits about game mechanics. The game hasn't changed but the way players play it has.

So Will, if you're serious about playing a game where players break their agreements without bad feelings you need some way to break the meta that cooperation is the one right way to play civ4. Otherwise, since I want to win, I'm going to use diplo to cooperate with my neighbours and enforce that cooperation by throwing a hissy fit if they betray me.

A long way of saying that Q/Krill are probably right that a PB7 style game with the right group of players is the way to go.