Adaptive Diplomacy

Here you can find, hints, strategies and other info for VGA Planets, PHost and it's many addon's and utilities.

Moderators: BitMask, Havok

User avatar
B A N E
Posts: 3777

Adaptive Diplomacy

Post#1 » Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:10 pm

Since my return from VGAP retirement in 05, I haven't seen
much in the way of adaptive diplomacy.

I wonder if long term treaties are partly due to victory conditions.

What sort of game conditions do players think would encourage
limited adaptive diplomacy?

ie: If player A is in first place and Players B,C,D... want
to win, diplomatically, they need to change their situation
to be able to bring about that desire.

Instead of games becoming landslides where players see the end
being inevitable, diplomacy can make it a murky thing where the
current high scoring player gets blitzed by a short term alliance
with the goal of bringing them down.

Thoughts, ideas?
Last edited by B A N E on Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Your side,
their side,
and the truth.

User avatar
Gilgamesh
Posts: 4938
Contact:

Post#2 » Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:12 pm

Is there any specific situation you have in mind, here? :lol:
QI'DaS tuQ SoSlI'

User avatar
B A N E
Posts: 3777

Post#3 » Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:15 pm

No, not a specific game or situation...
My thoughts are more along the trend I see.

How can games be extended where the outcome isn't perceived
as inevitable within 50 turns?
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Your side,
their side,
and the truth.

User avatar
B A N E
Posts: 3777

Post#4 » Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:21 pm

What I think I am getting at is; how can a game of planets be
more Machiavellian without ruining player's reputations?
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Your side,
their side,
and the truth.

User avatar
Cardno
Posts: 3706
Contact:

Re: Adaptive Diplomacy

Post#5 » Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:30 pm

B A N E wrote:Since my return from VGAP retirement in 05, I haven't seen
much in the way of adaptive diplomacy.

I wonder if long term treaties are partly due to victory conditions.

What sort of game conditions do players think would encourage
limited adaptive diplomacy?

ie: If player A is in first place and Players B,C,D... want
to win, diplomatically, they need to change their situation
to be able to bring about that desire.

Instead of games becoming landslides where players see the end
being inevitable, diplomacy can make it a murky thing where the
current high scoring player gets blitzed by a short term alliance
with the goal of bringing them down.

Thoughts, ideas?
Perhaps we could try this in Tempest :lol:

User avatar
Hawkeye
Posts: 1029

Post#6 » Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:58 pm

How about having a game where the alliance rules are preset... For instance, players in positions 11-4 are allied + fighting all others, Positions 2-3 can have a NAP between themselves + fighting all others, position 1 is fighting everybody. The positions are only reviewed every 5 turns after turn 25.

Just an idea to get other ideas flowing. :)

User avatar
Samuelt86
Posts: 170
Contact:

Post#7 » Tue Oct 20, 2009 5:43 pm

This could be a long discussion. I can think of three elements which helped bring about permanant alliances. Each can be a discussion in and of themselves.

1)a natural evolution of the game toward alliances.
2)scoring system (not an indication of strength or who to take down)
3)victory conditions (no cut-throat target\ incentive)

Obviously, an alliance does better in the game. There are not a lot of new players coming in. We get to know each other and who is reliable. There is nothing like allying with a player who cannot be relied upon. So the veterens tend to ally with each other. These alliances don't break. I don't see that there is a lot you can do about this. If you go the one ally or no ally type rules, then you don't get the smaller players grouping together to take down the big guy.

Our scoring system is really a measure of bases, tech levels and distance from our homeworld. It is not a measure of strength except in a derivitive way. I always take solice in the fact, I will do well under any system. If your going to pick on the big buy, you have to know who he is. Our games look a lot closer than they are. A giant player will not look so big because he doesn't tech up torp levels if he is a carrier type of race (fighters and torps are not counted.) He can hide is strength. (I myself don't tech up engines or beams except on a select few bases and will use recycle to get engines/beams at my bases.) But when it comes to fighting he will crush his opponents. He doesn't look that big so the little guys don't join in to knock him down a peg - that is until it is too late.

There is only one winner. Everyone else is a loser. Sharing victory spots with first, second and third takes away incentive to vie for that coveted #1 spot.

But even in the old days, a player often ran away with it.

User avatar
Captain Blood
Posts: 294

Post#8 » Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:50 am

When the veterens tend to ally with each other it is because, they can be realtively sure to win the game that way. Since it takes a equal match of players to stand against them.

Naturally when the two veteran players ally early, one of them have already lost the chance to win the game. In most cases it can be predicted who will end on first place when the alliance is made. So obviusly the junior partner is less veteran than the other.

There is no such thing as "allied victory" unless playing in a team game.

"There is only one winner. Everyone else is a loser." If just the junior partners would rememer that I think the games would be much more interesting.

That is why I was asking for a no diplomacy/blind game to let the players test there fighting skills, and hopefully create the ragnarok you where looking for Bane.
Regards,

Captain Blood

User avatar
Logain
Posts: 720

Post#9 » Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:14 pm

I personally view the diplomatic piece as one of the more enjoyable aspects of the game (just ask FLETCH :roll: ). Here are some of my opinions on why the game has (d)evolved in this way:

1) Some folks want the advantage of multiple shiplists or additional services (Borg clan growth colonies, free fighter production, cloakers/decloakers, mega-carriers, etc.) available through an alliance rather than exercising a few diplomatic brain cells and trading for what they need. (Note: Some see ship trading as an alliance action. I don’t agree. A ship is just a commodity in this game...)
2) Part of the problem stems from the 125 turn limit most games have in order to accommodate our short attention spans (A 125 turn game only lasts about a year...). A lot of folks are determined to do as much mischief as they can for 125 turns and want secure borders at their backs through a game-long NAP or an alliance.
3) Short-term NAPs are a useful tool that most folks don’t want to utilize. Negotiate a secure border for awhile as you build your fleet. Then you can get a feel for whether you want to take on that neighbor or not... It appears most folks want to set it and forget it. Situations can change and too many alliance members or game-long NAPs may leave you without anyone to fight...
4) As far as the comment about veterans forming alliances... I agree to a point. If I join in an alliance, I understand someone will be 1st and someone won't... I don't agree to be a doormat though. Someone was already going to lose before the alliance was made. First one to the top of the heap wins :lol: I doubt if too many of us have ever agreed to be the "junior partner" in any alliance.

I'll ally/form a NAP with anyone (newbie or veteran) if the situation dictates and I haven't had issues with that person in the past. I'm almost legalistic on the terms though in order to prevent misunderstandings later in the game.

One of my most memorable games was AQ1. As the Romulan, I opted to terminate a short-term NAP (after it's initial term expired) with the dominant player in the game (Klingon played by Raven2) and joined in a coalition to counter his juggernaut. The game was a hard fought stalemate for almost 100 turns before the Orion (Gavan) tipped the balance of power. Lots of politics in that game
:D

User avatar
B A N E
Posts: 3777

Post#10 » Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:57 pm

I am trying to focus on how to make a game that encourages
short term situational diplomacy.

Something like when we were kids and played king of mountain.
One person fighting off the horde, then when he gets dethroned,
he joins the horde trying to dethrone the new king.
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Your side,
their side,
and the truth.

User avatar
Hawkeye
Posts: 1029

Post#11 » Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:17 pm

B A N E wrote:I am trying to focus on how to make a game that encourages
short term situational diplomacy.

Something like when we were kids and played king of mountain.
One person fighting off the horde, then when he gets dethroned,
he joins the horde trying to dethrone the new king.
What might be needed is an economic or military incentive to attack the strongest player - maybe a reward system of 2 x PBPs for instance.

User avatar
B A N E
Posts: 3777

Post#12 » Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:23 pm

Hawkeye,

In TimHost, the only way that is doable is via external addon.
In PHost, I assume external, but do not now if avail internally.
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Your side,
their side,
and the truth.

User avatar
Captain Blood
Posts: 294

Post#13 » Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:36 pm

You are looking for the perfect game :)
Regards,

Captain Blood

User avatar
B A N E
Posts: 3777

Post#14 » Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:55 pm

Something wild & woolly and the only prediction is that if you
are on top, everyone is going to shoot at you.
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Your side,
their side,
and the truth.

User avatar
Logain
Posts: 720

Post#15 » Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:57 pm

Is there any way to impose "No Ally" on only one player?

Return to “Intel”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron