Diplomatic Agreements in the New Engine.

[NewSheriffInTown]

Diplomatic Agreements in the New Engine.​

Hi All!

In the not too distant future, we will be creating the code for Diplomatic Agreement in the new game engine. Last night Marcos and I were outlining the rule, and we decided to get some players input to the decision making.

In the new engine, players will have the choice of creating a game with one of the following 3 options:

1) No Diplomatic Agreements
2) Non Breakable Diplomatic Agreements
3) Breakable Diplomatic Agreements

The first 2 are straightforward and will be a new feature in the new engine.

The 3rd one, "Breakable Diplomatic Agreements", is what we currently have, and it will be polished up a bit.

So the question to the community is:

What should be the punishment for breaking a diplomatic truce?

Some ideas we had were:

If a player breaks a truce,

1) then that would automatically void all other agreements they have with any other players in that game.
2) then they will forfeit getting a card at the end of their turn.
3) then they will lose a certain percentage of troops from the attacking country.
4) then they can only attack that one country and then their turn ends.

And some other ideas...

But we would like to hear your suggestions!

Let us know below!

Thanks!

 

[engineerairborne]

I would say that with the inclusion of the first 2 options I would leave the 3rd the way it is now. Call it showing your true colors. take away points from there honorability like now, and move on. I have to imagine most people are going to choose one 1 or 2 when starting most games. I personal would like to see for 3 player games no diplo chat, or diplos period.

 

[Hortik]

I do not really like the titel of "Breakable Diplomatic Agreements", it sounds like the person creating such a game has already a plan to break the diplos.

Anyway, this on the side, I would like to see indeed more punishments when this happens and I like points 2,3 and 4 that you mentioned earlier.
I personally wouldnt agree with point one. If you do point one, it means that by breaking one diplo, you have a highway on the other diplos with the same players. Seems like you are more punishing the player that got "screwed" than the one not respecting the diplo.

Hortik

 

[NewSheriffInTown]

I would say that with the inclusion of the first 2 options I would leave the 3rd the way it is now. Call it showing your true colors. take away points from there honorability like now, and move on. I have to imagine most people are going to choose one 1 or 2 when starting most games. I personal would like to see for 3 player games no diplo chat, or diplos period.

We can still use a scoring system to track broken diplos if wanted.... though it might not be as obfuscated as the current one....

And the game creator can choose whether they want diplos in a 3 player game or not. Though it should probably be turned off by default....

 

[NewSheriffInTown]

I do not really like the titel of "Breakable Diplomatic Agreements", it sounds like the person creating such a game has already a plan to break the diplos.

Anyway, this on the side, I would like to see indeed more punishments when this happens and I like points 2,3 and 4 that you mentioned earlier.
I personally wouldnt agree with point one. If you do point one, it means that by breaking one diplo, you have a highway on the other diplos with the same players. Seems like you are more punishing the player that got "screwed" than the one not respecting the diplo.

Hortik

I do not really like the titel of "Breakable Diplomatic Agreements", it sounds like the person creating such a game has already a plan to break the diplos.

Anyway, this on the side, I would like to see indeed more punishments when this happens and I like points 2,3 and 4 that you mentioned earlier.
I personally wouldnt agree with point one. If you do point one, it means that by breaking one diplo, you have a highway on the other diplos with the same players. Seems like you are more punishing the player that got "screwed" than the one not respecting the diplo.

Hortik

Good point twice.

Okay, we should call them:

• Diplomatic Agreements
• Non Breakable Diplomatic Agreements
• No Diplomatic Agreements

As for the other treaties being voided.... What if the other treaties were only voided once the offending player ended his turn?

Though I guess, if you're going to break a treaty, there's no stopping you from breaking all of them on the same turn anyway.... but knowing that once your turn ends, everyone else can attack might mean something.... yes, no?

 

[Cardinalsrule]

I guess I favor leaving the system the same as it currently is. But in the 'find a game' is it going to display which it is? If so, then you join those games at your peril.

 

[haWD96lz]

I second Cards. If you have the option to have games with unbreakable truces then punishing in games with breakable ones is silly. Most of the time people are already punished by the other players.

What I would like to see is that the other players have the option to void treaties with that player.

 

[BearNecessities]

What I would like to see is that the other players have the option to void treaties with that player.

That's a really interesting idea. I like how it moves the responsibility for punishment to the players who know the context best.

 

[micky]

I would only like to have "Diplomatic Agreements" and "No Diplomatic Agreements" - if you feel you have to change anything in that regard. I find the option "Breakable - " or "Non Breakable Diplomatic Agreement" not serious and misleading.
I would leave it as is now.
You may want to make it impossible to request a diplo when there are only 3 players left.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

You may want to make it impossible to request a diplo when there are only 3 players left.

I like that idea.

 

[ndrm31]

I like that idea.

I would only like to have "Diplomatic Agreements" and "No Diplomatic Agreements" - if you feel you have to change anything in that regard. I find the option "Breakable - " or "Non Breakable Diplomatic Agreement" not serious and misleading.
I would leave it as is now.
You may want to make it impossible to request a diplo when there are only 3 players left.

+1

 

[NewSheriffInTown]

If you have the option to have games with unbreakable truces then punishing in games with breakable ones is silly.

I see the point... but then I would ask, is it really silly, or does it add another layer of strategy?

I mean, what's the point of having a treaty if you can just break it and it doesn't mean anything.... However, given the choice to respect a treaty, or break it and forfeit getting a card, well, that is something the player then needs to think about....

I would only like to have "Diplomatic Agreements" and "No Diplomatic Agreements" - if you feel you have to change anything in that regard. I find the option "Breakable - " or "Non Breakable Diplomatic Agreement" not serious and misleading.

Hmmm.... Maybe at the game creation level we can have the "Diplomatic Agreements" and "No Diplomatic Agreements" options, but at the time of requesting a Diplomatic Agreement during the game, the player has the option to make it non-breakable, and/or set a penalty for breaking it....

You may want to make it impossible to request a diplo when there are only 3 players left.

Yeah, that's a good idea.

 

[micky]

Hmmm.... Maybe at the game creation level we can have the "Diplomatic Agreements" and "No Diplomatic Agreements" options, but at the time of requesting a Diplomatic Agreement during the game, the player has the option to make it non-breakable, and/or set a penalty for breaking it....

I don't quite understand the point of making a diplo breakable or unbreakable. I mean, you make a treaty - you adhere to it (after all, it's yr choice to make it for 2 or 20 rounds). I myself don't want this choice (it sounds like making a promise with crossed fingers behind the back).
If I agree to a diplo and reinforce my bordering, protecting troops away because of it, the player who requested the diplo may break it next turn and my 1troop region will be overrun
If I can't have the principle of honoring a diplo I don't need to make a diplo as I need to leave my protecting troops because the basis of confidence/trust is not there (or maybe I simply don't understand what you mean with breakable/unbreakable diplos?)
At the moment, if one is about to break a diplo, a warning tab comes up indicating that a diplo is about to be broken. The player decides if he/she plays honorably or not. A diplomatic agreement, imo, is to be respected. The rate on the profile page of players is a good indicator as to the person's character/temper I find. Why change something good?

 

[Tapeworm]

If we go with all three, I would call them as such:

Diplomatic Agreements
Enforced Diplomatic Agreements
No Diplomatic Agreements

I like things how they are. I like that agreements are breakable, and that every well liked and respected player abhors contract breaking and almost never does it. With unbreakable (or "enforced" as I would term it) everybody HAS to be nice. Granted I generally behave as nice and honorable, but I like that the freedom to be bad exists. Does that make sense? I would probably create games and tournaments with our current ruleset even after we have the other options. That said, I'm glad you guys are creating this, and grateful you've brought up this discussion topic!

I think the most important aspect of this discussion is the difference (or lack thereof) between diplo chat and formal agreements. I would argue that people can (and will) skirt around any formal punishment if they've resorted to diplo chat "handshake" agreements to get around the "no diplo" setting, and that's going to lead to a lot of strife as to whether that's cheating or being "that guy."Especially because diplo chat is a private channel. Holy paranoia, Batman!

Regardless of what you guys design, I think it's imperative that the "no diplo" games have the diplo chat capability disabled.

 

[micky]

Regardless of what you guys design, I think it's imperative that the "no diplo" games have the diplo chat capability disabled.

That's a good point

 

[Hortik]

It is really interesting to read and hear everyone's ideas and opinion and it gives a feeling of "The whole MC community wants to improve this site to have a master MC website". I feel soo excited about the final version guys!

That said, you all brought awesome remarks and point of views, it is true that it sounds silly to have "breakable agreements/Diplomatic Agreements" if you have "non-breakable agreements/Enforced Diplomatic Agreements" (I like how your terms sound Tapeworm), however like NewSheriff mentioned, maybe this adds one more layer of strategy to the game since people will know that by joining such a game, there is NO way out of the diplo but to wait untill it is over.

In regards to the "not serious" or "misleading" aspects of having Diplomatic Agreements vs Enforced Diplomatic Agreements (Those names make it already less misleading imo), I would not see this as misleading, I see it more as a "protection" for the people taking the Enforced one. Isnt it so "frustrating" if your diplo agreement is broken by the one who actually asked it? Isnt it so frustrating to lose this command who might have brought you the victory because of someone not respecting the diplo? Isnt it so frustrating to get eliminated by a "less honorable" player? To me, it is all frustrating, however if you chose for an "Enforce Diplomatic" game, you will avoid those frustrations.
Not that I often get frustrated in a game, I would say maybe one game out of 30 where something like that happens, but still it is frustrating.
Anyway, all this to say that I have a confused feeling about having a seperation between the Diplo's or not.
One thing is sure, having the option for a non-diplomatic game-choice is something that no-one discussed, seems like it is approved by everyone

As from 3 players left, no diplo, I like!
Maybe a small box to thick for the creator of the games?

Diplo chat disabled with no diplo games, true!
Speaks for itself, but good to highlight it.

 

[Tapeworm]

I would actually boil it down.

Diplomatic Agreements
Enforced Agreements
No Agreements

 

[riskyone]

I would actually boil it down.

Diplomatic Agreements
Enforced Agreements
No Agreements

I like what Tape says. I might have missed it, but one thing that's grey to me. I don't do this, but it isn't against the rules, but when I send two or three diplo's to the same player over the same tert. and they agree to part, I like all or none as an option if possible.

 

[youredead]

Hello, i like the idea of making impossible to break treaties, in fact at the beginning of my experience here i thought it was like that. I don't understand the present system that punishes good or decent players and benefits the bad ones who make tactic mistakes signing too long deals and then win the game breaking the treaty.

The diplonatic score, if i'm not wrong, is kind of useless because there are players who just break a treaty to win a game and still have a good score because they respect the rest of the deals which don't matter much.

So the options in my opinion should be Non Breakable diplomatic agreements and No Diplomatic agreements (i understand this may be an interesting feature for some games).

With these 2 options, who would join a Breakable Diplo Game? It's clear that the creator of the game would break all diplos when he\she needs it, so what would be the point?

As for eliminating the diplo messages in no diplo games, i don't understand the proposal, those messages are not for mandatory deals but for other negotiations ("if you leave france i will leave brazil" and so on). And anyway, players could still communicate through private messages, right?

and they agree to part, I like all or none as an option if possible.

I agree with this too of course.

Another important failure of the present system is that treaties last for official rounds, giving an unfair advantage to the players who play first. Treaties should start and finish in the moment of the round they are signed.

Thanks for asking.

 

[engineerairborne]

Another important failure of the present system is that treaties last for official rounds, giving an unfair advantage to the players who play first. Treaties should start and finish in the moment of the round they are signed.

Thanks for asking.

This is a good point, However just as in poker you have to know who has the button, and realize your strength of position. There is an inherent flaw in this type of strategy game in that the player that goes first has an advantage especially in a 1 v 1 game. I think that it is just matter of you have to know your situation in everything when it comes to this game, and this is one of those.