Diplomacy strategies in multiplayer games
Moderator: Oberlus
Diplomacy strategies in multiplayer games
What are the criteria you use when forging alliances in a multiplayer game?
Do you prefer to ally the player(s) you know/like most? ("Friendship" criterion)
Or the empire(s)that allows yours to better reduce the borders to other enemies? ("Layout" criterion)
Or the empires with the species that better complement yours (because no environment competence, or because one is good at research and the other at production, etc.)? (<insert name here>)
Do you wait for the game to develop to mid game before picking your best ally? ("We'll talk later, let's see how this goes first").
Or what do you do?
Do you prefer to ally the player(s) you know/like most? ("Friendship" criterion)
Or the empire(s)that allows yours to better reduce the borders to other enemies? ("Layout" criterion)
Or the empires with the species that better complement yours (because no environment competence, or because one is good at research and the other at production, etc.)? (<insert name here>)
Do you wait for the game to develop to mid game before picking your best ally? ("We'll talk later, let's see how this goes first").
Or what do you do?
Re: Diplomacy strategies in multiplayer games
I haven't played a game yet where I could choose my own alliances but I think positioning and complementing species would be near the top for me.
Re: Diplomacy strategies in multiplayer games
"With malice towards none..."
I try to approach all my immediate and potential neighbors with plans which will give positive results for both sides. It helps if i can make the case that we have substantially different habitat preferences, so that we don't have immediate competition for new colonies, but i don't limit negotiations to only those species.
I try to be wary of clearly one-sided proposals. Those aren't serious, they're just checking to see if i'm gullible.
Jon
Re: Diplomacy strategies in multiplayer games
I let myself to be strongly influenced by my starting species and the corresponding roleplay. If I'm Gyisache I'll try to be coward and abuse numbers. If I'm Eaxaw or Trith I'll hate the guts of everyone else. If I'm Egassem, which I deem warlike, I'll only respect the military strongest empires and disdain the ones focused on research. Etc.
Appart from that, positioning is my priority, then species complementarity.
Player affinity could play a role too, but I really like you all so it makes no difference here.
Appart from that, positioning is my priority, then species complementarity.
Player affinity could play a role too, but I really like you all so it makes no difference here.
Re: Diplomacy strategies in multiplayer games
Like swaq i haven't played a game of FreeOrion with diplomacy enabled, but on principle i'm an opportunist, if i'm being honest. Generally speaking, war is detrimental to both sides, so i try to avoid it unless i feel i can overwhelm an opponent with minimal (or at least acceptable for what territory i'm gaining) losses.
Alliances i would view with similar opportunism. Generally for me, this is more about positional factors (can we unite against a common local enemy) than matters of planetary compatibility (in most cases i will stand to gain as much as i lose regardless), but it is dependent on circumstances.
Or that's how i imagine it will play out for me, anyways.
Alliances i would view with similar opportunism. Generally for me, this is more about positional factors (can we unite against a common local enemy) than matters of planetary compatibility (in most cases i will stand to gain as much as i lose regardless), but it is dependent on circumstances.
Or that's how i imagine it will play out for me, anyways.
Re: Diplomacy strategies in multiplayer games
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant. Need as well as greed have followed us to the stars, and the rewards of wealth still await those wise enough to recognize this deep thrumming of our common pulse.
Team S.M.A.C.: play multiplayer with us!
Re: Diplomacy strategies in multiplayer games
There are three rules affect diplomacy:
"Allowed diplomacy" simply disables diplomacy so there no sense to describe it here.
"Only allied players win" disallows to declare victory if alive players aren't allied. It don't affects diplomacy much because even if last players at war in the end of the game they can simply propose alliance.
The main here is "Max human player winners" manages how many player should alive to be winners. If you end up in a big alliance, it have to be broken sooner or later.
I prefer to get allies at start and follow it until the end. The game doesn't forbid to break alliances to achieve victory, but I think it doesn't fair.
"Allowed diplomacy" simply disables diplomacy so there no sense to describe it here.
"Only allied players win" disallows to declare victory if alive players aren't allied. It don't affects diplomacy much because even if last players at war in the end of the game they can simply propose alliance.
The main here is "Max human player winners" manages how many player should alive to be winners. If you end up in a big alliance, it have to be broken sooner or later.
I prefer to get allies at start and follow it until the end. The game doesn't forbid to break alliances to achieve victory, but I think it doesn't fair.
Gentoo Linux x64, gcc-11.2, boost-1.78.0
Ubuntu Server 22.04 x64, gcc-12, boost-1.74.0
Welcome to the slow multiplayer game at freeorion-lt.dedyn.io.Version 2024-04-14.ad50e93.
Donations're welcome:BTC:bc1q007qldm6eppqcukewtfkfcj0naut9njj7audnm
Ubuntu Server 22.04 x64, gcc-12, boost-1.74.0
Welcome to the slow multiplayer game at freeorion-lt.dedyn.io.Version 2024-04-14.ad50e93.
Donations're welcome:BTC:bc1q007qldm6eppqcukewtfkfcj0naut9njj7audnm
Re: Diplomacy strategies in multiplayer games
There's a distinction to be made between "allowed" and "fair".
Also, one need to be a bit wary of "fair", since it can mean "allowed under game rules", or it can be intended to mean "intended to make players of dissimilar strength able to compete more evenly", or even "upholding a moral and/or ethical code".
That last one is especially fraught, since different people regard different things as "moral" or "ethical".
If once believe it is "not fair" for a larger number of players to act in concert against a smaller number of players, on is arguing against a basic tactic in games.
It's also very difficult to enforce, of course.
Jon
Also, one need to be a bit wary of "fair", since it can mean "allowed under game rules", or it can be intended to mean "intended to make players of dissimilar strength able to compete more evenly", or even "upholding a moral and/or ethical code".
That last one is especially fraught, since different people regard different things as "moral" or "ethical".
If once believe it is "not fair" for a larger number of players to act in concert against a smaller number of players, on is arguing against a basic tactic in games.
It's also very difficult to enforce, of course.
Jon
Re: Diplomacy strategies in multiplayer games
Do you think planet and colony/outpost ship gifting is OP?
It can be used by well-coordinated allied players to boost growth.
It can be used by well-coordinated allied players to boost growth.
- The Silent One
- Graphics
- Posts: 1129
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:27 pm
Re: Diplomacy strategies in multiplayer games
Gifting needs a game rule, I guess!?
If I provided any images, code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0.
Re: Diplomacy strategies in multiplayer games
I think warship gifting is OP.
Team S.M.A.C.: play multiplayer with us!