Psychological Warfare: do you employ it?

Darsnan · February 23, 2002, 09:35

I'm still relatively new to PBEM, and am wondering what is acceptable as far as putting misleading/ manipulative/ boastful/ taunting content into your posts/ diplomatic messages? I am involved in several games now where there will be no diplomatic solution to the arising crisis', and before I take the shackles off my Propaganda Minister, I'd like to ensure I am proceeding according to the etiquette of this site.

Mongoose · February 23, 2002, 12:44

Of course!!!! I've found that to be at least half the fun of PBEM SMAC/SMAX. You can make even a losing position fun to play if all or most of the players are doing likewise.

Isn't a whole lot of fun if you're the only one, though.

Flubber · February 26, 2002, 11:24

I think there are two things here-- one is roleplaying, which I do a lot when i have time. It can make a game fun whether you win or lose.

The second is psychological warfare or using diplomacy/lies etc to advantage. i will use deception or misdirection in general messages BUT I always keep my word if we agree to pact to the end, or a non-agression pact or if we set up a tech trade to happen over a couple of turns. A deal, once reached is a deal and I have always thought that to violate a clear deal was a cheat. I mean it would just stink to break your pact with someone you had pledged to co-op victory with right on the turn before you transcend. I'd like to think my reputation for keeping my word would become known but I doubt that actually happens.

But for anyone else, they are all potential enemies and you use whatever tools are at your diposal in dealing with them. I lost axt 043 because i believed a treaty mate who indicated his plan to attack the AI. About 5 turns later he jumped me and I was not sufficiently armed to deal with it. It was an outtright lie he told, and on some levels I did not like it . . . but he had promised me nothing so I considered it to be fair ball within the game parameters and a lesson for the future. I tend to believe people less and keep myself better armed, even when I have no current offensive plans

knowhow2 · February 26, 2002, 12:19

In the real world sometimes breaking some promises would eventually get to you. Players could pay back in other games. So be careful what you're doing.

Other than that I have to say that using the psychological warfare generally gives the game yet another dimension.

Flubber · February 26, 2002, 13:15

Also I like to employ a form of psychological warfare that is never verbalized in the game messages as well. You know, provide escorts for units that they probably thought were unknown to you, popping a unit into sight of their sensor in an unsuspected place.

While I try to play each game separately and roleplay them a bit, there will be carryover from game to game. Attacking me in one game would have no implications in another, but if you use deception in one game, you have to expect that your victims will be more wary in other games. Thats one reason I keep my word . . I play with a lot of the same players in different games

Kassiopeia · February 26, 2002, 18:58

In a LAN game, that is very entertaining. So yes, bring it on! I just have bad experiences on going two-faced on to players much more succesfull (in that particular game) then me.

Blake · February 26, 2002, 19:20

LAN games are great fun. Especially if you know the other players well bluffing can be an exceptionally effective strategy. (but it only works on some players - thats why it helps to know them).

Another strategy which can work is "spooking", basically a suprise attack (but not a sneak attack) which delivers a seemingly crushing blow against a base or 3. Never mind that you don't have the resources to continue the attack, some players see how strong your initial attack was and keel over.
(OTOH, if you have an impressive display of your massive army rolling across the land to crush them, the player has time to pysch themselves up to the fight)

These strategies tend to work best against non-veteran players, when there isn't a lot of time to think or rationalise

mark13 · February 27, 2002, 15:15

I wouldn't go as far as 'anything goes' as this is not a game like, say, Diplomacy where you can only really win by stabbing effectively and well. If you have entered into what you or the other person has stated will be a 'do-or-die' pact, then you breaking the pact to pursue a solo win is extremely underhand, and certainly frowned upon (and, as has been noted, may come back to haunt you in another game - there's no way in hell they'll trust you again!). Still, apart from that, pretty much anything goes.

(which games would these be then?

)

MariOne · February 28, 2002, 08:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Flubber
... I mean it would just stink to break your pact with someone you had pledged to co-op victory with right on the turn before you transcend...

...IF he did not give you a valid IN-GAME reason to do it!!!

I remember that in BCGBS I desperately in the last turns attempted to provoke and piss-off Mongoose to drive him to do something I could reasonably object to and end our Pact!
But, no, he swallowed every provocation and accepted to let me Transcend and get the highest score too despite having only the 3rd or 4th ranked population, but "morally" forcing to keep the Pact and share the Victory!

This is to say:
Of course, if you dump a pactmate on the turn before victory "just because" the interface allows you to do it, it make no sense from a game-meaning PoV itself (imho)
But any in-game pretext:

I faked to be friend with you from the start, as on turn 2143 you did me unrecoverable offense that I promised to make you pay in the end

I wanted to share Victory with you and Player B, but Player B refused to share it with you, I had to choose, and I owed him, I had to be more grateful with him than with you...

What? OK coop Victory, but game history showed that *I* need to get the front page honors. I won't accept to share it if you don't ensure that *I* trigger the Victory condition and *I* get the highest score....

...

IF such pretext is true, then you'd be morally justified, from an in-game PoV, to break even a Pact-to-Victory.

Otherwise, I agree that breaking your word without a reason would just spoil the fun for yourself, don't you think?

DIFFERENT would be if you'd be playing with NO-COOPERATIVE Victory option.
Then of course only one would win, and every Pactmate would know it from the start, and that would make it a bit more like Diplomacy The Game.

Jac de Molay · February 28, 2002, 10:02

Yes, Psych ops fit well since I traditionally play as Yang in MP action.

Dave

Flubber · February 28, 2002, 10:53

Note to self . . . never trust marione to keep a pact

Seriously-- I see what you are saying to a point if there has been prior in-game deception or offense that warrants deception or offense in return.

I just think of a game like sealurk alert where paul and I agreed to co-op till the end. We coordinated techs for about 40 or 50 years and he gave me a LOT of cash. I did build the Voice and the Ascent myself but if on the turn before building the ascent, I had broken our pact I could have technically claimed a solo victory. But IMHO the player that would do that is a schmuck and really, what has such a player won or proven ?? It would be like a baseball team cutting a player (who had 6 RBI in THAT game) from the team with 1 out to go and then saying they had done it without him

.

Perhaps I have a misplaced sentiment here but if my partner in pact was a major reason in the victory, well they deserve to share in the victory.

Shai-Hulud · March 1, 2002, 08:36

One of the most important reasons why I play SMAC in MP is the possibility of cooperative victory. It's a whole new dimension and I often seek for an alliance which I tend to keep until the end. I think Pact with human player is quite a different thing than a Pact with an impersonal AI.

Deception comes back to you. Everyone is going to know you "cheated" your pactmate. You simply loose all your reliability and no single victory is worth it. When you're going to win why not to share it with those who made it possible. I think anyone who swears a pact 'till the end does it because s/he needs other faction in order to win...It's just incredibly lame to brake it.

What comes to psychological warfare and propaganda...that makes it all THAT much more fun

. Whenever, wherever you need to present yourself as invinsible and perfect for every other player. You can win a lot of time and space with succesful propaganda. Even if the others don't really know whether your faction is what it's showing off to be it will make them suspicious and less confident about themselves.