1661

Dawn of dominions, open letter

From Yngvar,Marvernibane, Prophet of Sven Vanson the scourge of the north,

Hail to you my respected Marverni adversary,

do you hear the howl of the north? It is the cry for marverni blood, it will only be sated when every marverni village is put to the torch, every marveni man put to the sword and every marverni women and child sold into slavery.

There will be no mercy wether asked nor given…

In the year 2 of our lord sven vanson,

Yngvar

1662

Ugh, turmoil-3? If I find myself needing the points from turmoil-3 for a strategy, I toss that strategy and find a new one. Turmoil-3 is never a good idea in my book.

1663

Obelix doesn’t like it when people hit him from behind.

(turmoil 3 + luck 3. I figured it would make things interesting. Particularly since I was going for a resource-centric strategy. … also, thinking about it, I can think of several cases where high turmoil wouldn’t be that big of a problem. Money is nice but sometimes other things are better)

1664

Ok well to be on the safe side I guess I will take the timers off my servers until next week…

1665

I don’t know if it’s really viable, but turmoil 3 + luck 3 sure is a fun way to play. Every turn you get a bunch of little presents.

1666

Yeah, I don’t think I found any fire gem sites (have done very little site searching, been busy fighting) but I’ve alchemized about 30 fire gems for money over the past few turns.

I’m not sure if it works out statistically as making up for the turmoil loss of income, but it sure helps, and if it wasn’t for the immediate war-induced money crunch all that magic would be being put to other things.

1667

QT3-Lictor - Eh? Mictlan just got extinguished due to lack of dominion. Did someone forget to blood sacrifice?

That leaves what, 6 of us? Plus a pack of renegade ghouls somewhere.

1668

Tumoil is fun, but it’s essentially a handicap, even for Pangaea who gets extra benefit out of Turmoil. Someone with Order 3 will have about 50% more gross income and roughly twice the net gold income of someone with Turmoil 3. This is a substantial difference for the 80 points between Turmoil 3 + Luck 3, and Order 3 + Misfortune 1.

Gold events have been increased in frequency as of Dom 3.01, but the income you get is still unreliable and on average much smaller. It doesn’t help that frequently “good luck” events are of dubious value: Flagellents, Militia, +10 Defense to a defense 1 province, Magic gems your mages can’t use, Oddball magic items.

1669

Letter from Midgard to all nations in Bommerlunder game.

Greetings noble Lords.

We would like to inform you, that Giants in our game (played by Clark) are completely dishonorable and treacherous race, which should not be trusted in any diplomatic or trade deal by any other nation.

We have signed Non-Aggression Pact with them 1 turn ago, with 3 turns minimum warning. We have also agreed on the borders between our nations. As a gesture of good will, and to facilitate future friendship between our nations, we even went far beyond the terms of Pact, and send them gift of money last turn.

To our disbelief, the next turn after we signed NA Pact, the Giants have treacherously attacked us with several armies, invading our territory.

Needless to say, we will do our best to make them pay dearly for such despicable treachery.

Meanwhile to all present and future neighbors of Giants, here is our warning - Giants are nations of treacherous scum, who has no understanding of honor. Any diplomatic or trade treaty signed with them will not worth the cost of paper on which it was written.

If you are considering dealing with Giants in our game now or in the future, you have been warned.

Oberon, Lord of Midgard

P.S. Out-of-character: Frankly I find Clark’s actions to be quite lame. I have played many Dom games, but I never saw any serious players acting in such way. When I asked Clark why he did it, his only response was a small piece of weak role-playing, which basic meaning was “I didn’t want to, but my pretender god ordered me to do it.” shrug

I am not naive, and I understand very well that behind the scenes diplomacy is always part of the game. But it’s very different from breaking some basic unwritten rules in MP. We are talking about basic stuff like “I will send you 10 death gems, in exchange for 10 earth gems”, or “I will send you 1000 gp in exchange for that province”, etc.

IMHO acting the way like Clark did, is simply taking advantage of the fact that Dominions, unfortunately, has no in-game support mechanism for safe trading or for any diplomatic agreement. To overcome these in-game limitations and to make MP gameplay experience richer for everyone, players are expected to keep a certain very basic rules. But acting the way Clark did in our game, would make most of the diplomacy or trade completely meaningless, which in turn would diminishes the game experience for all players, IMHO.

This is my personal opinion of course. But like I said, in all MP Dom2 games I have played, I never saw any non-newbie player acting in such way. I’ve never played with Clark before, but if I ever will do it in the future, I will know for sure that he cannot be trusted in any deal. Player’s reputation goes a long way in games like this.

For your information, here is the list of nations and games Clark is currently playing:

Giants in Bommerlunder game;
Giants in QT3-Lictor game;

1670

We had this argument last thread.

But acting the way Clark did in our game, would make most of the diplomacy or trade completely meaningless,

No it doesn’t. It makes diplomacy just another set of input data, which you can weight to a greater or lesser extent in guessing what they’ll do. Same as in real international agreements.

Figuring out what the other player is going to do is part of the game. If they choose to show their hand completely and be absolutely bound to the letter of an agreement, that is their choice; but there’s no reason they should be forced to do so.

In this case, it sounds like Clark decided that 1) given your two respective positions, the two of you were probably going to conflict sooner or later, 2) a 3-turn warning would give you too much of an advantage and severely hamper him, 3) you might be in a comparatively weak position since you’re asking for a NAP right away, 4) since you included a clause for exactly how to turn hostile, you are planning on doing so.

And, in light of all those facts, hitting first and early is a perfectly rational and predictable thing to do.

This is not hard stuff to figure out. If you choose to ignore the information in the game that might lead him to think that way, or the possibility that he might think that way, you’ve really only yourself to blame.

What’s the solution? Simple. Hit back. Make it clear that fighting you is more costly than he expected. Make it so his self-interest dictates that he not do things you don’t like. If you can’t, well, that’s what you have armies for, and that’s why there’s only one winner.

(Alternatively, only make alliances with people you know treat them the same way you do. But you’ll be cutting yourself off from people who WOULD make good allies because it’s in their interest to do so, even if you don’t see it.)

1671

Um, yeah. There are no alliance victories in this game. I’m a total noob to Dominions, but I trust everyone just as far as I can see their armies, promises of neutrality notwithstanding.

Of course you are free to share that information with us, which will make it difficult for him to wheedle any other treaty from anyone else :)

1672

The lack of hardwired trading is intentional. What we have here is a clash of expectations. When you enter a game with people that you do not previously know it is good to be aware that they might not share your expectations of unwritten rules. Stuff like this has been an occasional feature of the development team games since the earliest dom 1 betas, it is not an oversight that it is a possibility.

1673

To Rollory:

As I wrote is my post, all this is my opinion. You obviously have a different one, just like Clark. However the following few facts are hard to dispute:

  1. I can safely say that my opinion is shared by majority of MP Dom players, since I’ve played in many MP Dom games with different people and on four different internet forums, but never saw any non-newbie player acting like this.

  2. The person who act like this is certainly damaging his long-term reputation as a honorable player, which means other people will be much less likely to enter into diplomatic or trade agreement with him ever again, knowing that his word is worthless and that he will betray them as soon as it “fits his interests” as you put it, or will “forget” to send them items or gems that he promised, et cetera…

(And when I say “betray”, I mean very basic things like “break his word and dump whatever treaty he has signed with you down the drain”, and not “going at war against you at some point in the future” when there are no agreements to prevent it, or engage in a some diplomacy against you.)

  1. Player who acts like this in one game against some nation can certainly and even likely do it again against another nation, in the same or in different game. Since other people are not stupid and understand this simple fact, that’s why I said player’s reputation is important.

It’s like real life diplomacy Rollory - when certain rogue state repeatedly lies to other countries during their diplomatic negotiations, those other countries will form very specific opinion about their lying partner, and will be extremely reluctant to trust it again in any negotiations.

True, and that’s exactly why I shared this info Marcin. As I made it clear in my post, I have very low opinion of such behavior. And by sharing this information with other players I made it certain that other nations who play in the same games with Clark would know that for him treaties are meaningless, and will likely treat his nation accordingly, just as you said in your post.

1674

Correct. And once it is known that they do not share common expectations of unwritten rules, those players stop being “unknown people” and become “known people who do not keep their promises in Dom games”. And by knowing this you become aware of what to expect from them in the future and can act accordingly. Or not to act - it is entirely up to you. >;)

1675

Which means, in essence; don’t backstab with a spoon. And don’t waste your backstab on the butler.

1676

You’re some guy talking on a message board. You can claim whatever you like, that doesn’t make it true.

From what I have seen, there are some people who make a big deal about things like this as you have, some who think it’s perfectly natural, and most who just deal with situations as they arise.

never saw any non-newbie player acting like this.

Then you’ve been playing with people who (essentially) have voluntarily forfeited more than a few games. Maybe that’s more fun for them. I don’t play these to come in second.

If we’re playing anecdotes, I’ve been playing strategy games online since the early 1990s, and backstabs like this - and the resulting arguments over them, like this one - have been a staple of all such games the entire time. The people who do the backstabs usually are the better players.

  1. The person who act like this is certainly damaging his long-term reputation as a honorable player,

Which is irrelevant, because he is building his reputation as being a rational player. Rationality and sober assessment of the actual strategic situation is more useful and interesting to me than ironbound holding to previously stated intentions.

If I know another player is rational, I’ll be more likely to make deals with them for the long term, because I know I’ll be better able to predict what they will do - and because I know they will be more likely to be successful.

I also know that someone who doesn’t understand this kind of thinking is not of much use as an ally, because they won’t be able to understand the actual balance of real power in the game.

  1. Player who acts like this in one game against some nation can certainly and even likely do it again against another nation, in the same or in different game.

Of course. Or not. What matters is the rational assessment of the given strategic situation in each case. People who understand that won’t have this fear of betrayal you’re talking about.

Clark knows that for him treaties are meaningless,

Treaties without any rational reason behind them are meaningless, yes.

Treaties are formalizations of previously existing mutual interests. Treaties that are spun out of hope and moonbeams should be meaningless. Treaties that ignore mutual interests or counter them should be meaningless, and people who put faith in them are refusing to think, and deserve to lose.

1677

Rollory, you are also just some guy talking on a message board. So what? Are you implying that I am lying?

Then you’ve been playing with people who (essentially) have voluntarily forfeited more than a few games. Maybe that’s more fun for them. I don’t play these to come in second.

Thank you for sharing this info with me, it’s very good to know. :)

If we’re playing anecdotes, I’ve been playing strategy games online since the early 1990s, and backstabs like this - and the resulting arguments over them, like this one - have been a staple of all such games the entire time. The people who do the backstabs usually are the better players.

Bullshit. In those very few cases I saw it in my Dom2 games those people who did it lost.

And BTW, all strategic games are different. As someone who has been playing them since 1990s, you should know this.

Which is irrelevant, because he is building his reputation as being a rational player. Rationality and sober assessment of the actual strategic situation is more useful and interesting to me than ironbound holding to previously stated intentions.

Good for you. So just ignore my post than. Like I said, you are entitled to your own opinion, I am not saying that you must play game this way. However I am entitled to mine, and I can share info of what happened with other people, who may choose to act or not to act based upon it. As two people who have already posted on this thread indicated, the information that one player tend to break his treaties clearly valuable to them. If you choose to ignore it, it’s totally up to you.

If I know another player is rational, I’ll be more likely to make deals with them for the long term, because I know I’ll be better able to predict what they will do - and because I know they will be more likely to be successful.

I also know that someone who doesn’t understand this kind of thinking is not of much use as an ally, because they won’t be able to understand the actual balance of real power in the game.

Wrong again. Knowing that other person keeps his word make him more predictable, not less.

Of course. Or not. What matters is the rational assessment of the given strategic situation in each case. People who understand that won’t have this fear of betrayal you’re talking about.

I don’t have fear of betrayal - you have. :D You said yourself that you play your Dom2 games expecting that you trade or diplomatic partners would break their agreement with you at any time.

Treaties without any rational reason behind them are meaningless, yes.

Treaties are formalizations of previously existing mutual interests. Treaties that are spun out of hope and moonbeams should be meaningless. Treaties that ignore mutual interests or counter them should be meaningless, and people who put faith in them are refusing to think, and deserve to lose.

Nobody forces anybody into treaties. If you do not think it is your best interests, you can always simply choose not sign it. If you do, that either means that you believe it is in your best interests, or that you are stupid, or that you are masochistic. :)

Rollory, you sound very sure of yourself. All this is simply your opinion, nothing more. My personal experience, based upon several dozens game with different people over 2+ years, tells me that you are very wrong. (note that unlike you, I am not implying that you are lying, I am simply saying that I believe you are wrong.)

If for no other reason than because I always keep my word in Dom2 games, and at the same time I tend to win them quite often. I also always try to play with experienced players. And if you don’t believe me, I couldn’t care less.

Anyway, like I said, you are perfectly entitled to your own opinion.

1678

Backstabs happen. You have to be ready for that!

So he went back on his word. Yeah maybe that means he has less (or no) honour… but there are no “unwritten rules” in Dom or any other game with free diplomacy. If you play by your own set of “unwritten rules” then you are simply straitjacketing yourself, no one else is required to abide by your honour code.

I stick to my agreements for the most part becuase it’s good policy. However I will not abide by the letter of an agreement if it will ultimately result in my own destruction. Some people have even weaker criteria for breaking agreements. It’s pretty subjective!

1679

Let me ask you something. Why do you think it is a good policy?

1680

Because its nice to have a peaceful border, or a staunch ally in war, or whatever the benefit of the agreement happens to be. There is an added bonus in the long term of appearing more or less honourable in the eyes of others… however I doubt very much the impact of this. I certainly don’t go examining the past record of all my opponents in Dom games. Some people might, who knows? But I think most people don’t.

Another thing, Stormbinder, sometimes agreements are made under false pretences. Like a nation misrepresenting it’s position and strength to garner allies and support. Such a thing would be an immediate casus belli in my books. If it were convenient for me anyway.

For all we know, Clark was mislead about your power and capabilities, perhaps he gained new information after the signature of the NAP that led him to beleive that were he to give you a free hand, eventually he would be swallowed up… in which case, he probably did the right thing, and the dishonour belongs to someone else.