SpielByWeb

[Rebelslayer]

With wally tournaments in action, I wonder what the thoughts are of proposing non-aggression pacts or peace treaty's?

[Knave]

Note: I am not in the tournament


Offhand, I would be against making such deals. Obviously, if those in the tournament were interested, that would be reasonable. However, I asked this same question a few months ago, and a very good point was brought up. Essentially, allowing for treaties favours those who share a timezone with the other players.

In a BSW game where everybody spoke the same language, treaties might be reasonable. But, in a time-delayed game such as what we play with at SBW, it is probably inappropriate. Make treaties through your actions, not your words.

[NoMoreCheese]

I haven't been in on the discussions, but I remember reading some threads on this topic some time ago*, and the general consensus was that as long as the people playing in the game agree to it, no problems.

The problem with two players making agreements while the others aren't aware that it's happening is that you have people in the same game playing under different conditions/rules. The simple example can be made where a player is anticipating an opponents resources to be split against two threats, while in fact they'll be going in only one direction.

I would say that for purposes of this Tourney, no treaties ought to be made between players, as I believe the common belief amongst us was that there wouldn't be such. However, from a personal point of view, I enjoy the idea of playing with treaties (in-game, see below). If there is enough interest, I'd be glad to set up a tourney.

I'll echo Rebelslayer's question - What are your thoughts on this?


*An interesting sub-topic (to me) from that thread was whether such communications ought to be done via private email or with in-game messaging. Either way is a compromise against the face-to-face equivalent, where you know whether two people are talking (message), but you don't know what the agreement was (email).

[NoMoreCheese]

Excellent points Knave. Didn't think about the delays caused. Which made me think of another problem - the interface itself. Once you've chosen your actions, you cannot rearrange them (no undo), so couldn't react to offered treaties, for or against.

[Knave]

My background in games is as a "Diplomacy" player. I was very good at that game, top 10 on the online ratings list. If I am allowed to negotiate, it might possibly be to my advantage .

Offhand, the best type of negotiation for this site (IMHO) would be what, in Diplomacy, would be called "white broadcast press". That is, everyone would see what everyone else was saying.

That said, the time requirements for a negotiation-type game are substantially higher than for a "no press" game which is what we generally play on this site. Also, I already negotiate in every game I play here: I negotiate in Amun Re by building a 2nd pyramid in round 2 on the same spot when somebody thinks that they have secured most on side by building one extra brick in round 1. I negotiate in Bus by taking the clock stone, and mentally daring people to try to Vroom. I negotiate in Wally by building 12 armies in a place that can hit in 2 directions, with 2 different players, and trying to take the later move so I can punish the guy who dares to attack me.

None of the above requires wordy negotiations, but my intentions are usually rather blatant . I'm certainly no expert at Wally, but all the games I have played have had treaties of some sort, they have just all been of the implicit-kind.