If you don't know, there is a part of the games called "diplo", where you don't just play deathgames, but have to declare war, think about alliances and coalitions, dealing up with UN and other "civil" things. By other words - you play today's politics (but without internal problems).
I've been through a lot of such games and seen a bunch of different sets of rules. Starting with "declare war before the attack" to monstrosity of rules, subrules and exceptions.
So, the question is: what are the rules, that are optimal to you?
And, secondly, let's make forum's laws of diplo - something we all agree is good and works the best?
Well, things like Declare one turn before, break the alliance one turn before, or breaking rules make you PE, are rules that are already automatically assumed in all diplo games I have played so for. Even if the host didnt write them down.
Dear Cata Cauda, yes, that is the basics, but if you have experience in diplo, you will see major flows. Such as 2 superpower alliance, coalitions apropriate forming, becoming PE or not by attacking without taking the territory and so much more.
That's why I ask about examples of optimal rules for you, rules that you enjoy the most or feel the most comfortable.
I'm with poon on this one, more and more I'm prefering no rules in my Diplo games, I think they make for more insteresting games, and PEs often ruin things, so I just take them out of the game entirely.
I have spent a lot of time perfecting scenarios that allow for a Diplomatic atmosphere naturally. The main technique involves having starting armies much higher than available bonuses, almost making war "not profitable" and making it hard to eliminate a player from the start without help.
That and a few other things make sure great games usually :)
The best way to play diplomacy games is free. The rules just hold back most of the fun. Backstabbing people and quickly making/breaking alliances to put yourself in the best position to take land. That's how it should be played but some rules just ruin that fun.
It actually depends on what the core group of players + the scenario ask for. In a scenario with little roleplay basis it is indeed a FFA with truces and alliances, so rules go around limiting alliances, giving superpowers penalties and all systems to weaken whoever is the strongest player. In a scenario deeply based on roleplaying you'll be looking for the least possible amount of wars and people eliminated, so rules will be forcing players not to eliminate others.
The glorified FFAs with special rules (like the pretty damn fun ones fleece does) and pretty much every real-time open game falls into the first category. Your main goal is to win and the fun in the proccess is a collateral effect.
Those clan/interclan games people host and any other invite-only diplomacy with a set scenario or storyline fall into the second. Your main goal is to have fun during the game and winning is a collateral effect.
Both of them have very different rulesets, and games inside these also have their own variations and unique rules. Fleece likes to make it a FFA with alliances. Open games like making games that gravitates over keeping the balance of power. I myself enjoy protective rules that force people to keep someone alive. And so on. It's the host's decision and that's the fun of it.
And I defo agree, it's up the the host, and the rules of each specific scenario should be clearly laid out, and also read by all those joining! :)
I also enjoy a lot of the historical Diplomacies other players make, that recreate famous battles of WW2 and such, and a lot of rules can often be in place to make sure that important political factors are taken into account, not just war, and those can be a lot of fun too.
Posts 1 - 15 of 15
Post a reply to this thread
Before posting, please proofread to ensure your post uses proper grammar and is free of spelling mistakes or typos.