Home World Forum: The Bar » Diplomacy in Stars: Love it or Leave it?

Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » Diplomacy in Stars: Love it or Leave it?

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

Diplomacy in Stars: Love it or Leave it?

Wed, 13 March 2013 10:12

skoormit

Lieutenant

Messages: 665
Registered: July 2008
Location: Alabama

There are some players who like the diplomacy aspects of multi-player Stars. There are others who would rather play a silent game.

I'm in the latter camp. It's not that I dislike diplomacy; rather it's maybe that I like it too much, and will spend way, way too much time on it if it is allowed. When I do that, I find myself spending less time actually playing Stars and more time discussing/planning/negotiating.

A silent game is also more tense. No NAPs. No declarations of hostility. Nothing but the silence of the void. I really enjoy that tension.

I also generally dislike alliances in Stars. I don't like games where tech trading is allowed. I prefer games where all players must be set to enemy, but the only way to guarantee that alliances are not agreed upon is to disallow all communications. I trust players not to cheat on that.

What about the rest of y'all? Do you like or dislike diplomacy in Stars? Why/why not?

What we need's a few good taters.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Diplomacy in Stars: Love it or Leave it?

Wed, 13 March 2013 12:06

nmid

Commander

Messages: 1608
Registered: January 2011
Location: GMT +5.5

skoormit wrote on Wed, 13 March 2013 19:42

I trust players not to cheat on that.

I would play in such a game only if I know all the players (or possibly if the host checks every turn, every few years).

Prefer the 1st option of knowing (and trusting) all the players, as it is very probable that despite no comms being allowed, 2 races can just cooperate by attacking the same race at the same time..

Add to that the fact that not being able to cry monster (who might have become one, just because of a flawed race being a neighbour.. or a noob) spoils all the time I'm going to put in playing the game.

So I'm ok with no tech-trading, that's easily checkable.
I'm ok with no cooperation, but this is where the line starts getting messy.
I'm definitely not ok with no comms.

I know my minefields.. but I'm a chaff sweeper.
I used to curse when I got stuck in traffic... till I realised I AM traffic.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Diplomacy in Stars: Love it or Leave it?

Wed, 13 March 2013 14:06

m.a@stars

Commander

Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left

skoormit wrote on Wed, 13 March 2013 15:12

There are some players who like the diplomacy aspects of multi-player Stars. There are others who would rather play a silent game.

It's almost like 2 different kinds of games for me, played with the same "engine". Rolling Eyes

Alas, in a galaxy where some player(s) manage a diplomatic advantage, all the "silent" types are likely to lose everything. Shocked

Quote:

I find myself spending less time actually playing Stars and more time discussing/planning/negotiating.

Think of it as Roleplaying. It can be very time-consuming but funnier than the game itself. Laughing

Quote:

the only way to guarantee that alliances are not agreed upon is to disallow all communications.

That's far from a safe rule. It's easier (and better) to directly say that the Top Players must be at war with each other. Dueling

So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Report message to a moderator

Re: Diplomacy in Stars: Love it or Leave it?

Wed, 13 March 2013 14:36

LittleEddie

Lieutenant
Helped track down one or more Stars bugs

Messages: 517
Registered: February 2011
Location: Delaware

I'm now hosting my second game of the silent type.

Only 4 players in a Small Normal"
All Players must be set to Enemy in Player Relations and All Battle Orders 'Attack Who' must be set to 'Enemies'
No Tech Trading: Tech must be earned by research or valid warfare.
No Alliances: Therefore no coordination between players. As in no coordination.
Communications between players outside of the game is not banned but it is discouraged.

With an Observer race and I must be keep up to date with the race password if it's changed.

I'm looking for something like playing a game against the AI in Stars!, now the AIs are not very smart, but the people here are. And to be sure everyone plays by the same rules I will be looking over everyone's shoulder, That's why I've limited it to 4 players and special rules.

Something fast, like a Dual but with 4 players

Report message to a moderator

Re: Diplomacy in Stars: Love it or Leave it?

Wed, 13 March 2013 14:39

m.a@stars

Commander

Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left

What will happen in that game when a leader emerges? Confused

So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Report message to a moderator

Re: Diplomacy in Stars: Love it or Leave it?

Wed, 13 March 2013 14:45

skoormit

Lieutenant

Messages: 665
Registered: July 2008
Location: Alabama

m.a@stars wrote on Wed, 13 March 2013 13:06

...It's easier (and better) to directly say that the Top Players must be at war with each other.

I should have stated that my assumption is that a no-comms game means all players must have all others set to enemy.

What we need's a few good taters.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Diplomacy in Stars: Love it or Leave it?

Wed, 13 March 2013 14:47

skoormit

Lieutenant

Messages: 665
Registered: July 2008
Location: Alabama

m.a@stars wrote on Wed, 13 March 2013 13:39

What will happen in that game when a leader emerges?

Probably the leader will...lead? Maybe until slower-developing races catch up? Maybe for the rest of the game.

Are you implying that

1) The absence of comms means it won't be easy to play gang-up-on-the-leader
and 2) That's a bad thing?

What we need's a few good taters.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Diplomacy in Stars: Love it or Leave it?

Wed, 13 March 2013 14:48

m.a@stars

Commander

Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left

skoormit wrote on Wed, 13 March 2013 19:45

my assumption is that a no-comms game means all players must have all others set to enemy.

You're assuming that they won't *want* to cooperate, either. Rolling Eyes

So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Report message to a moderator

Re: Diplomacy in Stars: Love it or Leave it?

Wed, 13 March 2013 14:51

m.a@stars

Commander

Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left

skoormit wrote on Wed, 13 March 2013 19:47

Probably the leader will...lead?

As in "stomp stomp stomp" Shocked

Quote:

The absence of comms means it won't be easy to play gang-up-on-the-leader

Also the absence of cooperation (of any kind, I assume)

Quote:

That's a bad thing?

For some games, yes. Perhaps not for this one. Confused

So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Report message to a moderator

Re: Diplomacy in Stars: Love it or Leave it?

Wed, 13 March 2013 16:07

LittleEddie

Lieutenant
Helped track down one or more Stars bugs

Messages: 517
Registered: February 2011
Location: Delaware

No, they can gang up on anyone they want.

They just can't plan it together as in ship movements and which planets to attack so as to avoid battle between themselves.
In the fog of war you sometimes kill your friends as everyone is locked and loaded.

That's the hard part of being the host and why I needed the Observer race so I can keep track of things and give warnings when something doesn't look right. Like when a player does something that looks like it's base on information he shouldn't have.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Diplomacy in Stars: Love it or Leave it?

Sat, 16 March 2013 12:09

Marduk

Ensign

Messages: 345
Registered: January 2003
Location: Dayton, OH

I am generally against diplomacy for two reasons: time, and 'alliances' where it is one monster being supported and protected by pawns. That last especially annoys me. People who want peace so they build up quietly, apparently not realizing that pacifistic slow-building monsters are easy prey for fast-building monsters. They will sacrifice whatever the fast race wants to buy time, and when they figure out that they are going to stay the weaker race they keep giving the real monster whatever he wants so he won't kill them. Then they'll do the same thing again, game after game - apparently thinking it will be different.

When I have more time and the has people who know what they are doing, I don't mind diplomacy.

One out of five dentists recommends occasional random executions to keep the peasants cowed and servile.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Diplomacy in Stars: Love it or Leave it?

Wed, 20 March 2013 18:36

brassj

Crewman 3rd Class

Messages: 6
Registered: July 2004
Location: Texas

I'm not much of a 'role-player', but I do like to be able to make agreements that 'lesson the tension' you spoke of. IE: national borders. cease fires, and the hated alliances. Smile

It shrinks down the avenues of attack. I havn't played a silent game, mainly because all of my multi-player games were amongst friends at College. We never used the in game messages because there were so many other opportunities to discuss the game. IE: meal times, phones, in each other's dorms, before class, etc. Finally, sometimes its just better to be a live pawn than a dead monster. Wink

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic:	Playing two races in one game?
Next Topic:	Replacement needed - Lowtek

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

Current Time: Sat Apr 27 12:51:30 EDT 2024