Home World Forum
Stars! AutoHost web forums

 Jump to Stars! AutoHost

 
 
Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » End Game Diplomacy and Backstabbing  () 2 Votes
Re: End Game Diplomacy and Backstabbing Wed, 09 April 2003 11:04 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
overworked is currently offline overworked

 
Lt. Junior Grade

Messages: 403
Registered: November 2002
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
yucaf wrote on Sun, 06 April 2003 15:45


For all the above, I don't like to play "one winner only" games. I would rather engage in a more open game and see if I have the possibility at some point to go alone to the victory, which is a rewarding finish. Which takes us back to the subject of the thread about backstabbing... If you are in that position, the temptation to backstabb an ally would become very strong Twisted Evil

I do admit that the rule "one winner" is interesting in the sense that all players should be aware that in this context no ally is "forever", nobody should intersettle, diplomacy and exchanges should be very equilibrated (making for great negociations) and always should take care of his "friend"'s movements and development, but it is a rule very hard to enforce and many games have been spoiled because of that. Not a perfect world Wink

my 2 cents

YucaF


I've used the "one winner only" VC condition in my last two hosted games simply to make clear that I will not officially recognize a declared "alliance victory". My congratulatory post-game message will just recognize the 1st place race as the winner.

Beyond that I'm basically refusing to judge things to a large extent. Per my earlier post I think the conditions a race is operating under affects how they react - some are willing to simply ride coattails; others are willing to try to turn a game. You could probably go heavily into game theory and come up with defendable reasons for most of these behaviors. Especially once you start dipping into Meta-game factors such as time investment, other interests, what constitutes "fun" to them in Stars, and all the other associated opportunity costs of "Real Life".

Also, does a galactic conquest necessarily have to be military? or complete in the "view" that we have. Some of the game ending "empires" seem to essentially be the formation of a dual monarchy surrounded by a set of satellite lesser states. Something like the Austro-Hungarian Empire to draw a very loose parallel to European history.

Along the lines of non-military victory and drawing parallels we see various cultures gaining great influence due to non-military exploits - economic, technology, or cultural in general. Historically speaking you see a great deal of Latin influence in the European Middle Ages, French influence in the 19th century, and American influence in the present day. These effects being without infantry in the streets - or well after they've left.

[Aside: This is not a political statement. I'm just drawing parallels to known Earth history.]

Though, in Stars!, what we might be seeing is probably closer to "gunboat dioplomacy" where a fleet turns up to keep a rowdy small state behaving. Perhaps dropping some Hush-a-booms to make a point. (don't want to destroy the infrastructure since your investors will get upset. Smile )

Hmm, I seem to have wandered afield...

I also have the opinion that strict (and complicated) diplomacy rules are potentially as harmful as the preceived abuses of no rules at all. From the sets I've seen so far I think there will always be scenarios where the rules seem to constrict player options unduly. However, it's still a host/player decision to use them. I can simply opt to not play in any such game. I also fear the questions of enforcement and rules lawyering. Just read some of the cheat/chaff threads.

To Summarize (and make a quotable section to maintain context)
1. What a given player wants from a given game of Stars! probably varies widely. And quite possibly changes during the game.
2. Is "victory" in a RP-sense always purely military in nature? (* - see below)
3. Do stricter diplomacy rules necessarily make a better game?

(*)- As posted previously I theorize that the win occurs when the opponent has psychologically conceded. This often seems to occur previous to absolute military or economic supremacy being established.

- Kurt
 ...

[ Show the rest of the message ]

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message icon1.gif
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Temporary Player needed for game
Next Topic: Temporary replacement needed
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Jun 10 08:17:44 EDT 2024
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.3.
Copyright ©2001-2011 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software