On diplomacy and neutral nations From: Mark G Jaede <jaede@acsu.buffalo.edu> Date: Sat, 09 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0000 Greetings all. In an attempt to find a superior discussion topic to one which shall remain nameless, I submit the following. I will be speaking in terms of MEPBM, but the problems I describe could arise in any game wherein inter-player diplomacy exists, especially if there is some an element of "neutral" nations being courted by two or more alliances. Here's the basic problem I have encountered. Some players seem to be unable to separate the personal from the game aspects of diplomacy, and to become personally offended when things don't go their way. Example 1: "You're calling me a liar." In MEPBM, the conventional wisdom is that no neutral nation can be trusted until it formally and irrevocably chooses sides. So it is fairly common that an alliance will be skeptical about representations made by a neutral unless they are verifiable. This is not impugning the character of the neutral *player*, it is doubting the trustworthiness of the neutral *nation* in the game. In-game duplicity is perfectly legal, so one must guard against it. (The reverse case of a neutral reasonably mistrusting an alliance also occurs, though the neutral has the upper hand in that the alliances are trying to woo them.) Example 2: "I never attacked you, why are you attacking me?" In ME, there may come a time when a neutral looks weak enough to be conquered, poses a potential threat, and has not responded (soon enough) to offers of alliance. The prudent course may be for the alliance to attack it. The impetus to strike becomes greater if it looks like the neutral is growing stronger, or the opposing alliance may soon be in a position to defend it. When such a time comes, the alliance will rarely issue any warning or ultimatum. Alas, some neutral players seem to think that this is some sort of personal slight, especially when they in fact had no malicious designs against the alliance. (The opposite case here is VERY common. Neutrals launch surprise attacks all the time. They are foolish not to once they have decided which alliance to join.) Example 3: "You lied to me." This one is more complicated. Outright lying is rarely a wise negotiating tactic, and is especially unwise when you plan on playing the game again and might have to negotiate again with the same player. And firm promises should not be broken. Still, as in real-world diplomacy, there are many times when one must be vague or practice a bit of indirection. An alliance is not going to confess its weaknesses to a neutral, nor is it going to say that it is beginning to distrust the neutral. The alliance may be obliged to maintain negotiations even when war seems imminent. (But again, the reverse is frequently true for neutrals). I think you see where I am going with these examples. But I know not everyone agrees with me. Some players seem to think a more personal approach -- and a thinner line between player and nation --are more appropriate. Some think it's just not possible to separate the two. Many just don't think about it. What do you think, fellow newsgroup readers? I am interested in hearing replies both from players in MEPBM and those in other games. Maybe I could learn something from the diplomatic cultures of other games. -- Mark G. Jaede: jaede@acsu.buffalo.edu Ph.D. candidate, SUNY at Buffalo Department of History Lecturer, Buffalo State College Dept. of History and Social Studies Education Visit my Latin America Homepage at http://www.buffalostate.edu/~jaedemg/index.html Referenced By Up