Civothy wrote:I would like to ask, so there is no subterfuge in games with humans? I understand outright lying being objectionable, but someone stalling for a few desperate turns while they try and finish off the walls that will keep their city safe, the enemy ready to pounce at a moment's notice? That sounds like high drama and good play. Instead they're getting called out in a thread that is not going to end in any kind of well...
Actually, that would be perfectly legit, except that what you describe was nothing like the real situation. Besides, there is something illogical in what you say: if peace is already on the table, there is no desperation involved, why not go along with negotiations and solve the problem as a whole? But since the deceit happened, there is no other course than complete destruction because there can be no future deals, ever.
Can I start a thread where I will call out players who refused to accept my offers of peace because they would rather run me over with military might? Or extract higher tribute from me? I find that objectionable, especially since I want to play a long time in this game and eliminating me early, while not forbidden by any rules, I feel I should let everyone know about such players and how they can only be dealt with with the very pointy end of a very sharp spear. Talking with them, unless from a position of superiority, will get you nowhere.
Absolutely. Actually, I would very much like if everybody would write down their experiences with diplomacy, encounters with other players. It would be great if there was a news service that would report on events that are happening in the game because it's a thousand times more fun if you actually know what is going on in your surroundings.
A lot of the above post is over the top. I intended it that way. I do not intend to shame anyone, but I think that's what this thread is only going to do.
No. This thread is going to (or should) create a database that people will look into while negotiating so that they get some information about who they are negotiating with. There will probably be some counterinformation, but that only means that everyone will have to sift through the data and decide for themselves what is accurate. The more the fun.
It would be extremely helpful if you could tell us all what constitutes fair play. I do not want to be labelled a cheater, liar, or manipulator because I did not understand the unwritten rules of a game I just started playing.
Couldn't be simpler. Fair-play is not "saying one thing and then doing something completely different". Or "breaking your word". Really, simple.
On an unrelated note, I strongly advise that you never, ever, ever play a game called "Diplomacy." You will find it utterly hateful.
Played it, loved it, won, lost, backstabbed, been backstabbed, the whole thing. But that is a completely different game. There you have to fight, that is, attack, it's a war game. In Civilization, you don't have to attack anyone, you don't have to fight (unless you have aggressive neighbours) and you have plenty of other things to do.
In Diplomacy you don't really have to backstab, but sometimes it's a valid tactic. In Civilization it may also be a valid tactic if it is the only way to survive. But if that is the case and you end up in this thread, a discussion will ensue and the whole case will be explained from more sides.