Ending a Pact

[Darius]

This is related to the recent thread on Psychological Warfare, but I wanted to explore some of these ideas further.

Often in multiplayer games, when meeting a human player in the game, I will agree to a treaty and soon upgrade to a pact. Usually, it is pretty casual (Player 1: "Want a pact?" Player 2: "Yeah, OK") and just for the mutual benefit of the commerce income. At least to me, a pact till the end is not implied.

In one of my games now I am in pacts with all of the players but one, and treatied with him. It's around midgame, and I am far in the lead. Assuming I can go on to win (always a big assumption), I don't want to have a cooperative victory with everybody. Maybe with one other person, if we work well together as a team. So it's time to start reducing the number of pacts. And here's another scenario: suppose in a game like I described, there is an opportunity to go on the offensive and eliminate a weaker human faction, but they happen to be a pactmate.

So here are my two questions:

1. What do you all think about the ethics or etiquette of making "pacts of convenience" with human players and later ending them?

2. What about attacking a pactmate?

(And don't tell the people in my game. )

[Mongoose]

Well in a certain respect, all's fair. Go ahead...BUT...

There is a larger, ongoing issue involved. Like it or not, reputation DOES carry from one game to another, and word gets around in the pbem community. An out of the blue stab of a pactmate will probably result in nobody that knows about it ever trusting you in any game again. Also sure to be repaid by somebody else, sometime, just for the generalhell of it. I say this even were it a masterful stroke that won the game for you.

And by all means, don't launch such a stab and fail, or even fall short of eradicating the poor chap!

[big_canuk]

If you are pacted with another PBEMer and she trancends, then you do *not* win. She wins, and you loose. If she wins a military victory, *then* it is a co-op.

OTOH, if you have a pact-to-the-end, or perma-pact, then it would be up to her to declare that you are a co-winner.

I sometimes make pact-to-the-ends out of convienience. If co-op is allowed in MP games, then it is almost a must in 7 player games.

However in 4 player tournament games, I try to make somewhat more limited pacts. IE: pact for 50 years, pact until x tech. pact for this plan gov elec, and the next. That sort of thing.

If the others are aware of the metagame, then they should gang up on you 3 on 1 before you run away with it, but so far, I have found that when you are big and strong, then they are all afraid to be your enemy.

[Googlie]

Originally posted by big_canuk
If you are pacted with another PBEMer and she trancends, then you do *not* win. She wins, and you loose. If she wins a military victory, *then* it is a co-op.

My understanding is that if you are pacted with a player who transcends, conquers or gets voted supreme leader, you do enjoy the co-operative victory. You get the "consolation" prize of the return to earth movie - (Epilogue 2, Interlude 18 from Interludes.txt)

Epilogue 1, Interlude 17 covers your winning by transcendence, interlude 19 is your conquest, and interlude 20 is you being voted el supremo. Any pactmmate of yours in all 3 situations will get the Interlude 18

I think the reason in PBEMs that we don't see the co-op victory movie for pactmates is that players rarely play the next turn after the winner transcends.

G.

[Mongoose]

I don't think you CAN play the next turn after a player transcends in PBEM.

[big_canuk]

G., I agree with you that a pactmate in the game in a "sub-winner." They share in the triumph of the end of game movies.

I am talking for PBEM scoring, or points status.

For example, Misotu trancended in AXT007, with 2 of us pacted to her. She was outright winner.

I got elected supreme leader in AXT036. Paul was pacted with me. I was outright winner.

However, If you were pacted with someone, and you had a military victory, then that would nescesssarily be "co-op." All pacted members would presumably have contributed, therefore the shared status.

Also, of course, any of the other victories could be co-op, it that agreement was made ahead of time in the form of a permenant pact. Here, of course, it would be up to the victor, to announce that she had co-winners.

[Googlie]

Aha - that clarifies things (and Mongoose - you are right - it's only in SP games where an AI pactmate transcends that you get the "lessor victory" movie)

Not all PBEMs whose turn reporting threads are here are tourney matches with points attached - maybe about half? I realize now that b_c was answering from the narrower viewpoint.

G.

[MariOne]

b_c, I don't understand your distinction between "outright winner" and the rest.

I read what is reported in the datalinks, and it's NOT like you say. Maybe the scoring doesn't work till the last decimal with shared victories. Actually, I admit that I have problems to verify the correctness of the Datalinks regarding the way the popualtion points are ac****ed for in the final score.

But I always went with the DL version, as it was never proved the contrary to me. Maybe was it debated here long ago?

IF "co-op" victory is enabled, and this is an initial setting of te game, ANY kind of victory is co-op.
True, you don't need to eradicate every non-Pactmate with Transcendence, Diplomatic or Economic Victories.

The nature of those Victories is that you CAN win with enemies alive (or neutral leaders).
The nature of Conquest Victory is that you MUST kill at least someone to win, and precisely ALL those who are not Pacted with you (yes no neutral friends allowed).To avoid making it to easy it was determined that at most 3 factions can share it.

But when co-op Victory game setting is enabled, for ANY kind of Victory, ALL the Pactmates of the one triggering the Victory condition DO participate in the victory.
THIS is the meaning of the *concept* of co-op Victory, THIS is the way the game works as far as I could realise in these 3 years of SP and PBEM play.

Then, you could argue whether the "front-page" glory, or the bigger AC scoring, have a greater importance within the winning *coalition*.

___

So if you were giving an answer/warning to Darius and Mongoose about how SMAC pbem victory works, your statements are totally misleading, IMHO.

What you say DOES NOT apply to a pbem game winning and AC SCORING.
That is, not to a GENERIC pbem, even played at Apolyton.

It is a CUSTOM, private convention about how to handle a private scroing system outside of the single game, which only applies to the PBEMs played in the frame of the Apolyton Tournament.

If you say those things to a generic SMACer anywhere, you'd be giving him false infos....

___

Just to make a last point clear: in AT, you need for players to declare perma-pacts beforehand and the winner decides who of his/her pactmates he wants to share the victory with (for the purposes of your custommeta-scoring ONLY).

In REAL, NORMAL play instead, if you don't end the Pact with a player before getting a Victory, that player will have all the right to claim that in that match he shared the Victory with you, notwithstanding what your intentions were.

[Darius]

My understanding has always been like MariOne's, that all pactmates share in a cooperative victory. But that was not really my point. And whether the one player who triggers the victory gets a higher score is quite irrelevant to me. I never even look at the score. I only play to win or lose, not to get a higher score. But all that is not the point either.

What I wanted to discuss was this: First, do you regard a pact as permanent? big_canuk has said that he sometimes places specific time limits or other limits when forming a pact. What about everyone else? And second, if you do decide you no longer want a pact with someone, what is an honorable way out? Do you just say you don't want a pact any more, or do you need a more concrete reason to withdraw from a pact?

[Flubber]

darius

I try to play "honorably" and in character so i take a dim view on pactmates attacking each other . . . To me it would be as if the US suddenly invaded Great Britain . . .it just makes no sense ideologically and in relating the game to any "realistic" situation, a 50 year ally just does not attack without some form of warning.

But this is just a "game" and I understand that many people feel differently.

I will agree with bc that there are different types of pacts

pact to the end --- you should keep those always
pact for trade -- a simple convenience with no obligations
other pacts -- depends on the agreement


With humans playing, the relationship is never as simple as vendetta/truce/treaty/pact and to me it is the underlying relationship that is key. A treaty with a lot of mutual promises might carry more weight than a pact for trade.

[Googlie]

Like Flubber, I use pacts in roughly the same 3 ways:

A Pact of Intent - to win the game together or die together in the attempting - inviolate

A Sunset Pact - with a specific term limit, renewable by default unless notice is given otherwise prior to the term expiration

A Pact of Convenience - solely for the commerce income, or because we are on the same continent and it makes sense for this particular stage of the game not to worry about borders. Or perhaps to leapfrog another player with a huge tech lead where we pact for the convenience of seeing each other's techs and research goals

While Pacts among human PBEMers usually can be abrogated by due notice (and surprise attacks are hard - as on cancelling the Pact all units are returned to nearest base - but not impossible if chop and drop, for example, is used) I've found in practice that Pacts get broken only for a go-it-alone attempt at transcendence.

I would not personally hold it against another player if he/she abrogated a pact for a run at solo transcendence (ie I would still play subsequent games with that player - but would be wary of pacting in future games)

G.

[big_canuk]

Well...

It looks like it is a good thing we discuss this. Thanks Darius, for bringing it up.

I am a relative newcomer here, so I was only speaking my impression of what I have learned in my games so far. It is certainly up to the designers and players of a game, how they want to treat other "co-op" type victories.

I guess I *was* misleading, in implying that a pactmate of a player who trancends would *not win*, unless a permenant pact had been promised.

I am always *very* careful when making a pact to say;

1. "This is permenant"
2. "This is temporary(though it has the possibility of becoming permenant)"
3. "This is temporary and has no possibility of becoming permenant, because I already have enough, or the limit of permenant pactmates."

If you have a non-permenant pactmate along for the ride, and approach trancendence, I think it would be just cheesy to cancel the pact just before trancendence. A more "honourable" way, IMHO is to trancend pacted, with her having the knowledge that she has lost to you.

The reason I made the distiction for a military victory, is that probably a pactmate would have participated in a military victory. I am in a game now, where I am about to eliminate the last AI, having already eliminated 2 other AIs, and a human player.

Before I eliminate the last AI base, I will have to drop one of my pactmates to treaty status, for one turn. We can then go back to pact. I have no problem doing this, as both pactmates understand that we do not all have a pact to the death, and that they have not both materially contributed to the military win.

OTOH, if 3 of us had been allied to take down a superior MP human, unless it was explicitly stated otherwise before hand, I would be honour bound to co-op with the others, even if I was way ahead of them, because without their help, I would have lost.

This is not about the datalinks. This is about who wins the game. Hey, I try to be explicit. If I wasn't and someone misunderstands, I would be first in line to share victory.

After all, why do we play this game? I would rather a very difficult well fought loss, than an easy victory. Scoring is just something extra, so that we can make more fun future pairings. It's baggage we need, so we can get to the point:

*fun gaming, with the best: smac.*

bc

edit: x-post with G.

[big_canuk]

Originally posted by Darius

What I wanted to discuss was this: First, do you regard a pact as permanent?

This is the question. I suggest instead of saying, "Want a pact?" in the diplo screen, taking the time to be more specific. Almost always, i start out slow, and build to the permapact.

And second, if you do decide you no longer want a pact with someone, what is an honorable way out? Do you just say you don't want a pact any more, or do you need a more concrete reason to withdraw from a pact?

This depends on the type of pact. I have never and will never initiate the cancellation of a permenant pact. I suppose there could be reasons, but i can't think of any gamers that are that close to my personal life.

For temporary pacts, I think that if you have a non-aggression pact for a certain # of years, and that if your pactmate was threating you too early, you could end the pact. I however would be hesitant to end and attack, all in the same turn.

Pacts of convience or just economics are just that. I have had those ended and been attacked in the same turn. I was a bit unprepared, but not surprised. If they had not attacked then, they would have been toast by now.

It all boils down to what you think is fair, and how the others feel too. I try to be as specific as possible.

Darius, if you haven't so far, you should ask your pactmates, what they think the terms of the pact are. In all likelyhood, you will all feel the same. If not, I am inclined to be generous. You must do as you see fit.

I guess this brings to mind WDRS. In that one, Darius was in a tight spot. Mark and I tried to save him from a Jungle-Yang, right beside him, but could not. I offered Darius a possible submissive pact. I was Morgan, and in character, I offered him a loan, with fairly reasonable(though not overly generous) terms of repayment. The condition was, that if he didn't make the payments, he would become my submissive.

This also brings up the point: do others have to know the nature of your pacts? I would say, probably not. You should be able to see, if you have infiltration, the different behaviours of a permenant, versus a non-permenant pact. On the other hand, misleading a player into thinking a temporary pact could become permenant, when it could not, or would not, would be IMHO, a bit unfair.

I don't know if it is possible to state all the rules for pacts and breaking them ahead of time. You should be as explicit as possible. Or perhaps if you have something sneaky planned, you should be as unexplicit as possible. Then it would be up to you pactmate to extract explicitness from you. It is all part of the game.

And don't forget. Your reputation does follow you. I know mine does.

bc

bc

[Flubber]

On a related note, how far are you supposed to go in trying to maintain a treaty?

In a MP game I have pledged treaty and peace to a player on a neighboring continent ( met 60 years ago or so and treatied since). We both then attacked an AI separately and took a good chunk of the jungle (on my friends continent). MY friend then proposed an arrangement where we each gave back two bases to the AI to keep a buffer between us. I agreed and in the course of the next two turns, he surrendered 2 bases to the AI one per turn and I one (AI would not answer my second call which I informed my friend). In the meantime I suprise-attacked and eradicated another human player (whom I only had a truce with and promised nothing) over the course of 3-4 years. Then without warning ( and starting within 5 years of our base surrenders) my "friend" took pretty much all the lands in the jungle from the AI including the previously surrendered bases. When questioned, he says that our agreement had no time frame and therefore he is not violating anything. Also he says that my aggressive acts elsewhere give me little reason to complain. Now I find a unit of his in the fungus behind my jungle base (on the far side from his territory).

So a couple of questions arise from this

1. Do most people think that an attack on a party not allied to either of the treaty mates should invalidate an agreement ? Or is it irrelevant ?

2. How specific do people get in their treaties ? When someone says lets "keep" a buffer am I wrong to expect more than 5 turns of its existence or is it practice to go into great detail. ( I'm a lawyer --I want a game to be a game and defining sub-clauses seems too much like work). Can any goodwill be assumed or do you always have to specify every detail as if it were a legal document?

3. Can you envision any acceptable excuse for finding an unannounced unit hiding in the fungus in the base radii of a base you have held for about 15 years? (and shame on me for not putting up a sensor LOL)


I am waiting for the response of my friend now but I have often been curious as to how people generally do treaties and this current example raised a few questions

[big_canuk]

Flub:

The treaty you had, seemed to mean, "We will probably fight in the future, but we will put if off for a while, so I can get in a better position to do so." -- with "I" meaning that each party thought they could benefit more from the delay.

So...

You improved markedly by consuming another MP player. Of course he broke the treaty. But he had to do something. He probably thought by waiting, he would improve by more than you. He did not. He decided to take the Jungle to compensate, at the risk of provoking you. You ask is attacking a third party justification for breaking the treaty. The question should be, is anything you do that would give you a decisive road to victory, grounds for breaking a treaty. I would say yes.

As I see myself pulling ahead, either in military, research, or size (the big three), I will solidify my lead by diverting resources to the one where I am least ahead. When you have a commanding lead in all three, then there is nothing the other can do. Lag in just one, and it can be the undoing of a lead in the other 2.

You can wait further, or attack now if the time is right. Or you can apply some of that legal mumbo jumbo, and make a more specific treaty. Realize that during the "negotiation", you will both be improving. Who will improve more. If it's him, then you may wish to bypass the negotiations.

As to the unit in the fungus, I will do this sometimes too. I hate to soil my reputation, by being the attacker. Especially if I am ahead. So I needle my opponents. Then they attack me, and I just protect myself (by eradicating them ).

I couldn't help notice that you were over on his continent. Did you have your own as well, or were you sharing just one? I would say that if you had your own, plus part of his, that would be justification enough for him to be "concerned."

[Mongoose]

Flubber, you've been stabbed. Attack the SOB.

IMO, his annexation is a clear violation of the buffer agreement. True, no end date was specified. In that case, hiowever, it is only reasonable to assume the agreement remains in effect until renegotiated or violated. Violated applies here. Combined with the inexcusable presence of his unit in your territory ($5 to a donut hole there are more somewhere.) a reasonable man could only concude that open hostilities are imminent, needing only the ripening of his plans to take you unawares.

Attack the SOB.

[big_canuk]

I cross posted with Mongoose.

He said it better than I.

[Flubber]

Thanks for the input. Unfortunately for my chances for winning, I have chosen to role-play this one a bit. I am the Cult and my "friend" is the Gaians. Since they are ecologically sensitive, I am playing the cult as doing cartwheels to try to keep the only other ecologically sensitive faction at peace with us.

However, I am not playing them as being totally stupid so I have rushed a bunch of military to dissuade an attack from him.

Also on a metagame level , the human-controlled peacekeepers are about as powerful as the Gaians and I so fighting each other and bashing each other senseless would likely allow the PKs to rule the day.

[johndmuller]

So, from what I gather in the (Poly PBEM) "Rules" thread here, coop victories are allowed except on the tournament map ('and why might that be', he wonders). It is detailed a little further by "Coop victory is limited to two non-submissive players." although for me that doesn't come totally clear - I think it means no more than two factions altogether, but maybe it could conceivably mean two factions in addition to yourself (I think someone said that they were a lawyer earlier ).

I can't say that the nature of our pacts has been discussed thoroughly, if at all, in the non tournament-map tournament games I'm in; from what it says in the "rules", coop arrangements are allowed, so the pacts could be expected to last all game, except that there are pacts of more than 2 people, so not all of these pacts can last the entire game (unless outside forces conveniently eliminate just the right number of pactmates). That being said, there are different kinds of relationships between the various players, so perhaps we all know on some level where these pacts are at. Raising the issue into the light of day well into the game, however, could be regarded with suspicion, but I suppose it is better than the alternatives. Perhaps I'll just reference this thread in the game thread.

Of course, now I can't say anything substantive about my wonderful pactmates-for-life .

When new players come into an existing game there are other complications. First, apparently they may or may not be playing the game for keeps (I gather that there is an option to decide some time after seeing what you are in for). The other players may not know whether the substitutes are vested or not (in a game in which I am the substitute, I don't even know whether or not I am playing for real ). Also, when there are replacement players, any agreements that the departed player had made are not necessarily going to be honored by the incoming player and the new player may have a different concept of any pacts that they may inherit.

[Mongoose]

Originally posted by Flubber
Thanks for the input. Unfortunately for my chances for winning, I have chosen to role-play this one a bit. I am the Cult and my "friend" is the Gaians. Since they are ecologically sensitive, I am playing the cult as doing cartwheels to try to keep the only other ecologically sensitive faction at peace with us.

--snip--

Fine, wait for them to build a borehole, THEN attack the SOB.

[vitamin j]

Being the SOB you're referring to, I have to add a couple things. Flubber excused his unprovoked sneak attack on the Drones by saying they only had a truce, and he never promised anything. Legalese? We never specified a duration for our jungle DMZ, and more importantly, the actual deal between us was still pending when I re-attacked the Cyborgs - he had not completed his part of the bargain. His attack of the Drones, who had done nothing to him, immediately changed the diplomatic situation.

He also tried to justify his attack with some ecological mumbo-jumbo - Drones can't run green, they might cause eco-damage, etc. Now he has at least one base generating eco-damage. So much for his eco pretense.

Flubber, go ahead and attack me. I'll give you a head-start. I know you've been planning on it all along. Don't try to make out like you've been wronged in some way. Any willingness I had to cooperate with you went up in smoke when you sneak-attacked the Drones without provocation. You're losing to a newbie. Deal with it, don't come whining here.

[Flubber]

vitaminj

a few points in response

1. I did not name you or the game as it was not my intent to "whine" but simply to understand how others view diplomacy. I was using this game as an example. I have only completed a couple of games and was curious on more experienced players "take" on various diplomatic situations. You seemed so emphatic in your views that I questioned whether my "take" was unreasonable.

2. I chose the Cult as I intended to roleplay this game from the beginning. The Drones are natural enemies and I played them as such, refusing treaties since i was playing a ROLE. It did help my chances to take them out but that was just part of it. Its roleplaying pure and simple . . . and my arms build up in your areas is because I do not trust you

3. I don't have to "deal" with anything. I may win, I may lose, so what? I get enjoyment out of playing the "role" whether I win or lose. The Cult are widely proclaimed as the weakest faction, yet I freely choose them because they are fun and different to play.