"Peace?" -- quiz time

Strategy, feedback, or anything SUBTERFUGE-related
Fri Jan 22, 2016 3:37 pm

  • We do this every game. "Would you like to make a peace agreement?" is probably one of the first things you hear in a game. But what are you agreeing to exactly?

    My most recent game hinged entirely on the fact that the players had wildly different interpretations of what a peace agreement was. A room exclusive to players in the top 30, some of which who had been playing since beta, had completely different understandings of the most basic and common form of diplomacy used in Subterfuge. Needless to say, this difference in understanding shaped the entire game, and led to a few heated conversations.

    To keep the thread from spiraling into chaos, I'm going to frame this as a multiple choice question. Feel free to add additional choices of your own, choose more than one choice, or add more details onto the choices I provide to be more specific. The key points of contention were over how long the peace is to last (time frame), and ways in which the peace may be broken (agreement voided).

    Please answer the way YOU think/play, not what you think most other players would agree on. Also answer with what you think you actually agreed on, not whether you/they actually do it.

    Time Frame:
    "Do you agree to..." (the other party answers "Yes.")

    1. "Peace?"
    2. "Peace agreement?"
    3. "Peace with a 24hr warning?"

    a) Lasts till the end of the game, or until voided by the other party.
    b) Lasts until one party gives 24hr warning, and that party may only launch attacks after 24hrs, or if non-warning party launches first.
    c) Lasts until one party gives 24hr warning, and that party may only land attacks after 24hrs, or if non-warning party launches first.
    d) Lasts until one party gives 24hr warning, but we all know 24hrs doesn't really mean a full 24hrs, and the warning party is going to launch maybe after a short delay, but mostly just once their drills are in place.
    e) Because there are not enough details given about the time frame, there is no time frame. Because there is no time frame, either party can attack whenever they want. Any warning given would be purely a courtesy.
    f) All peace agreements always assume a 24hr warning, unless explicitly agreed to otherwise. (also include either b, c, or d in addition if choosing this option).
    g) All agreements assume a 24hr warning, unless explicitly agreed to otherwise. (also include either b, c, or d in addition if choosing this option).

    Agreement Voided:
    Below is a list of perspectives on how an agreement might be voided. Proceed to the following list of scenarios, and place each scenario under the perspective you would use.

    4. The agreement is void. I can attack anytime I want, and I have no obligation to give notice that they voided the agreement.
    5. The agreement is void. I can attack anytime I want, but need to notify them immediately that their action has voided the agreement.
    6. The agreement is not void. If it bothers me I can give my 48hr warning as agreed.
    7. I must warn them that if they do not stop their actions or do nothing to remedy the problem, I will consider their actions as voiding our agreement.
    8. I must warn them to stop their actions or remedy the problem. However, I have no obligation to warn them that our agreement will be considered void if they do not comply.

    (Both parties explicitly agreed to a "Peace agreement, with 48hr warning before launching attacks." However, the other party just...)

    a) accidentally attacked me, because of vision limitation or unexpected change in time machine prediction.
    b) threatened to attack me.
    c) insulted me.
    d) lied to his enemy.
    e) lied to me.
    f) lied to his non-enemy.
    g) lied to his own ally.
    h) conspired with a 3rd party against me.
    i) attacked my ally.
    j) attacked his own ally.
    k) can fund me, but refuses to.
    l) funds me and my enemy.
    m) funds my enemy, but refuses to fund me.
    n) can give me critical information about my enemy, but refuses to.
    o) gifts outposts, specialists and/or drills to my enemy.
    p) directly intentionally attacks me.

    Or if you think you can succinctly answer all scenarios with a single sentence or short paragraph which doesnt change given ANY of the various scenarios I present, by all means, just say that and forget the entire test.
    User avatar
    kevlargolem
     
    Posts: 266
    Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:56 am

Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:56 pm

  • Yeah, so I think this is a quirk of Subterfuge. Miscommunication happens all the time, especially with peace agreements. Anyways, this is how I feel when I'm dealing with these things, but I don't ever assume that everyone feels the same way, which is why I always ask for demilitarized borders instead of a 24 hour warning. If you see them moving drillers, you'll have your warning. Anyways, this whole thing is a grey area and it's always best to clarify. However, here are my answers:

    1. e
    It's just words if you say "peace" only. Normally I'll suggest demilitarized border to create peace if I go this route, but if I see the other party moving drillers toward me, it's probably war. "Peace" is just too vague to be a formal agreement.
    2. a or e
    This depends on the amount of talk the two parties have. If it's just a quick conversation at the beginning, then we're talking e. If both parties talk to each other, then it's a.
    3. c
    Definitely c. I know that a lot of players feel it should be b, and I can see why they feel that way. But to me, I don't think war starts until there's actual conflict. However, I'd recommend that you clarify with the other party before agreeing.
    4. b, m, o, p
    These are acts of war. Ask any world leader. However, b, m, and o can be ignored if you don't feel powerful enough to risk war, so this only means you can go this far.
    5. h
    This is the kind of thing enemies do, but, since it's not directly against you... meh
    6. a, c, f, g, j, n
    People screw up, people say dumb things, people push the envelope, people have their own agendas. But that doesn't mean they're voiding the agreement.
    7. i, k
    Ehhhh these are grey areas. Just ask for clarification.
    8. Oddly enough, this is the one that would bug me the most if someone did it to me. I assume that if someone opens up negotiations, it means that they want to negotiate. To open negotiations then attack without warning is lame.
    "Can I make a suggestion that doesn't involve violence, or is this the wrong crowd for that?" -Hoban 'Wash' Washburn, Serenity
    User avatar
    roadkiehl
     
    Posts: 777
    Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:43 pm
    Location: Above It All

Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:28 pm

  • I tend to avoid anything with the word "peace" involved, as it is very limiting in my opinion. Peace means no war and in a game where drillers can either fight or mine, you limit yourself. Of course when fighting multiple enemies (or expecting to), peace is a good option if not looking for the "Don't care about winning as long as the person who betrayed me is dead" (sorry kevlargolem, I'm gonna hold off on replying in multiple choice style)

    The terms I like to use are:
    "DMZ" (de-militarized zone) - in which two parties both agree to keep their driller count at a certain level on agreed border outposts (usually 6 for factories and 12 for generators). One of the parties may have to be reminded to reduce driller count. As such, if the other party pretends to feign ignorance or says "Im gonna build a mine" or some other reason to keep drillers, you can know they are likely to attack you. DMZs require minimal commitment, and at the least can temporarily ensure peace for a day if the enemy has minimal speed units to go against the DMZ agreement. Instances in which I have kept DMZs are higher than I have broken: people only tend to break DMZs if they have no other wars, or their DMZ partner is the weakest of all DMZ partners a player has and he/she wants to expand.
    "alliance" variants- best way to prevent neighbors from turning on you is to direct them elsewhere, so having a common enemy to fight against is ideal. Variants include "defensive" - in which an ally only helps if the other is the defendant and not the aggressor.
    "pact" - most close to a timed peace agreement - usually happens in beginning when two people have starting outposts right next to each other and want to avoid loosing drillers early on. This usually means guaranteed peace until all nearby dormant outposts have been taken by other agreements.

    Now that I have described how I deal with peace, I'm gonna answer your quiz:
    1. e (I assume the worst and stay cautions, and may reduce driller count on the border by a fourth. If the offer is sent during war, this typically means peace till the end of the game if you give favorable conditions)
    2. e (same as above. adding 'agreement' doesn't change anything for me)
    3. d (always assume the worst unless you know otherwise)
    Sorry I reversed the choices to make it easier for myself to answer!
    a. 7
    b. 5
    c. 1 (must defend personal honor!, although I've never had anyone insult me before)
    d. 6 (that's his deal and does not affect me)
    e. 7 (if they lie again, I'll attack them)
    f. 6
    g. 6
    h. 5
    i. 5
    j. 6
    k. 6 (funding is not mandatory for alliances in my opinion, so I don't get offended)
    l. 7 (I question their loyalty)
    m. 7 (since I don't have an alliance, only peace, I can't really call them out on betrayal)
    n. 6 (not risking war over)
    o. 7 (call him out for Kingmaking if apparant)
    p. 4 (most common scenario in my opinion)

    So it looks like I'm more lenient than roadkiehl when it comes to this!
    Reporting from the Bridge
    User avatar
    pandasecret
     
    Posts: 648
    Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 3:53 am

Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:50 pm

  • pandasecret wrote:(I assume the worst and stay cautions


    Remember Im trying to avoid talking about this in practical sense about how hopeful you are that the other side follows through on the agreement. I'm purely asking what the agreement actually was.

    I tend to be cautious of everyone, it doesn't mean the terms of our agreement changed because I don't fully trust the person I made the deal with.
    User avatar
    kevlargolem
     
    Posts: 266
    Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:56 am

Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:45 pm

  • So before I begin the quiz, I would like to point out that these answers could change depending on how I felt about the person in general. Maybe how they talk to me, or how they treat others.

    Time Frame:

    1. e
    2. e
    3. c, d

    Agreement Voided:

    I think I will also answer this one backwards.
    a. 8 - they can always gift the drills, if they don't, its an intentional attack.
    b. 4 - I don't like threats.
    c. 6 - This usually doesn't bother me.
    d. 6 - This will probably work in my favor. Plus it's kinda what the game is about.
    e. 6 - Depending on what the lie is of course. If it means I lose a battle due to bad info, then maybe 5
    f. 6
    g. 6
    h. 6 - this person is not my ally, they are free to do what they want as long as they don't attack me. depending on the extent of the situation I may give my notice.
    I. 8 - I usually take my alliances pretty seriously.
    j. 6 - This probably works in my favor. Hopefully his ally is my enemy!
    k. 6 - I don't blame him. Why fund the competition?
    l. 6 - At this point ill just be grateful I'm getting funding as well. lol
    m. 6- Sucks, but they probably made a better deal than I did with the funder. Or, they just like the other guy better.
    n. 6- I hate to be stuck in the middle too. So this doesn't bother me.
    o. 6 - This greatly depends on how many and If I am winning or not. If I am not winning, well there isn't much I can do about it. If I am winning, the poor guy needs the help.
    p. 4 - no need to warn the jerk I'm coming. :D
    User avatar
    redqueenn
     
    Posts: 22
    Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2015 7:02 am

Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:21 pm

  • I think that a lot of this game is people using words in a special, thought-out manner so they can gain an advantage. A consensus might lessen the effect of this
    Kings aren't OP

    "Imagination is more important than knowledge"
    ----Albert Einstein
    User avatar
    tw2000
     
    Posts: 1135
    Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 3:52 pm
    Location: New Zealand

Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:42 pm

  • Its funny that people are answering the second half in reverse, because I had actually written it in reverse, then switched it because I thought it was simpler the way it is now. Apparently not, lol.
    User avatar
    kevlargolem
     
    Posts: 266
    Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:56 am

Sat Jan 23, 2016 11:39 am

  • A peace treaty is valid until it no longer serves my interests that it remains valid.

    That usually means either that

    1) you are building troops on my boarder despite warnings from me not to do so - it looks to me as if you may attack me.

    Or

    2) you are actively helping my enemy - either through funding or direct gifts / engagements. If you are aiding those I am fighting against it can't be in my interests to just ignore that.

    Or

    I've just eliminated another player on my far boarder and you are next.... (Yes sometimes I'm mean like that - but it's usually because of either 1 or 2 that I "ignored" whilst I finished off the other player)
    seethestar
     
    Posts: 37
    Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 12:06 pm

Sat Jan 23, 2016 12:08 pm

  • seethestar wrote:A peace treaty is valid until it no longer serves my interests that it remains valid.


    Vicious! Ok, this is interesting. So does that mean if someone so eagerly dismisses diplomacy in the same way, would you moan and complain that you were betrayed, to try to get people on your side? Or do you just accept it, turn and try to counter with force as best as possible?

    In other words, do you play a double-standard where you drop diplomacy when convenient but would feel/act as though they lied to you if they did the same?
    User avatar
    kevlargolem
     
    Posts: 266
    Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:56 am

Sat Jan 23, 2016 1:24 pm

  • kevlargolem wrote:
    seethestar wrote:A peace treaty is valid until it no longer serves my interests that it remains valid.


    Vicious! Ok, this is interesting. So does that mean if someone so eagerly dismisses diplomacy in the same way, would you moan and complain that you were betrayed, to try to get people on your side? Or do you just accept it, turn and try to counter with force as best as possible?

    In other words, do you play a double-standard where you drop diplomacy when convenient but would feel/act as though they lied to you if they did the same?


    Absolutely - but if you play it right that never happens. Far far better to be the betrayer than the betrayed - just as it is always better to be the attacker rather than the attacked...

    All too often I see people go down with a sinking ship because they hang on to their alliances even though they no longer server their aims. I have absolutely no qualms in telling player A I'm helping him by attacking player B and then telling player B I'm helping him with player A - whilst I really ignore both of them and go after player C.

    Of course I also have a rule to try to avoid playing multiple games with the same clientele... But so far I'm 12 first places from 12 public games played.
    seethestar
     
    Posts: 37
    Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 12:06 pm

Next


Return to General




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests
cron