Conquer Club

I am wandering if people use hard diplomacy.

Obviously I am referring to high rated players (because low rated players often does not use diplomacy at all) and flat rate multi player games.

In my opinion hard diplomacy include but it is not limited to:

1) Suicide threat. For example you can say: ''blue if you attack me there I believe I have no chances to win the game anymore and I will suicide on you''

2) Blackmailing. For example: (in freestyle games) ''blue start your turn now or I will eliminate you'' or ''do that or I will start killing slowly our stacks'' and then start pressing assault to one of his big stacks every 10 sec!.

3) Funny threats: lets say you are the leader but you can not win because the others team up against you. You can say: ''If you people always team up against the leader that game will never end. I need a free slot for a tournament. So the first who will attack me I will eliminate him'' and then reinforce all your troops at one region ready to attack.

I am just wondering if there are people who use them. I have used the first two and saw the third one at one game and got jealous!

I've considered it, but I've never seen it used. Honestly, if a decently ranked player tried that on me, he'd see his threat called. It will cost him more points in the long run than he'll gain.

Echospree wrote:I've considered it, but I've never seen it used. Honestly, if a decently ranked player tried that on me, he'd see his threat called. It will cost him more points in the long run than he'll gain.

Why?

Do you believe that this is cheap tactics and not very good, advanced diplomacy?

I've seen it used to get a card spot in Escalating spoils. One player might say, "Leave a carding spot open or I start hitting stacks." But to threaten to suicide on someone? Seems like a cheap shot to me.

whatever floats your boat... dont come swimming to me though when it sinks

I usually use it as a last resort. If people chip my stack significantly when I'm not the game leader then I will likely retaliate unless it's a terminator game.

I thing that every good player should use the suicide threat.

In many cases it is the only way to stay alive.

For example in three people game lets say that the two others succeeded to team up against you.
The only thing you can do is start attacking the weaker and threaten him that if he do not cooperate against the stronger you will suicide on him and give the game to the stronger.

I do not think just wait to kill you the two of them is a good idea.

I don't think it is a good strategy to use such diplomacy (at least most of the time). I've seen people to it several times, with the result that they get attacked because they're pissing someone off. At the very least, even if it succeeds, it can plant the seeds for later resentment and annoyance. If someone gets unhinged, guess who he's going to attack most? The guy who threatened him before, right? People, for the most part, don't like bullies. I personally ignore them, but they don't usually try to bully me.

On a related note, I played a game of Risk with some friends a while ago, and I arranged a truce with a neighbor (I was in Africa, she in SA). Another player said, "If you form a truce, I'm going to attack you, even if it means I lose the game." I said, "Okay, that's you're choice if you want to do that." I ignored his threat, and he ended up not attacking me, being too busy with the guy in Australia.

Don't forget, sometimes it is to your advantage for someone to attack you.

People put too much stock in being "the leader." As a game progresses, I try to make good progress without getting too far ahead of the others, to avoid getting teamed up on. Thus I don't have to resort to threats. It is usually better strategy to stay on good terms with most players and don't get upset if someone takes you down a notch (assuming it doesn't destroy both your games altogether).

Most of the time a threat like that will get you killed. I recall only two games where someone explicitly threatened me like that, and in both cases I made a point of killing him.

I'm not saying it's "never" a good idea. Never say "never" as the expression goes. For every rule there is an exception, and I can imagine hypothetical situations where a threat like that would be a good idea. But in most cases it will just get you a determined enemy.









.

seems vindictive and petty

Mc05025, I suggest you read this page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game

There's a great explanation on how (unfair) threats that should rationally be accepted end up being (perhaps irrationally) rejected.

Rodion wrote:Mc05025, I suggest you read this page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game

There's a great explanation on how (unfair) threats that should rationally be accepted end up being (perhaps irrationally) rejected.

Thanks. Very interesting research and strongly related to my point.