 |
| |
|
|
Togas
|
 |
California
Jun 2002
time: 21:26
|
|
It's about time this society resurfaced. I'm more than happy to be the first one to bring it back.
Today's discussion topic is: How to be successful in foreign affairs in a PBEM setting..
First off, it needs to be noted that there seem to be distinctly different styles of head to head play. Some PBEM games are tactical wars with very little correspondence and little active diplomacy. Some games (like the PTW team game) are filled with interaction, propoganda, complex negotiations, and ripe for a situation where the Machivelli Society can prosper.
I'll start out with 4 things I've learned, and some examples of each.
1) Tech deals can be negotiated far before tech is actually received.
While it's far easier and less confusing to line up tech trades after you get a tech, it's far more productive to line up "orders" for your tech turns before you get it. Not only can you ensure that you will receive the fastest possible gain from your tech trades, you will also beat your competators to market if you can get firm deals with other nations for your work before your work (and their work) is ever done. Better yet, if you can get a firm deal to receive someone else's tech you can often get another deal to resell their tech to a neighbor or a nation that is lazy in their own negotiations.
Despite the many things Lux Invicta did in the foreign policy world that were arrogant and foolish, Trip's agressive future tech trade schemes were initially very sucessful, and allowed Lux to function on a minimal research budget while keeping at pace with the rest of the world around them. He also kept his contact with Vox well hidden and pawned off Vox's research as his own to his unsuspecting neighbors.
His mistake was in not blocking the one square that allowed access to Vox. GoW discovered this square, got contact, and destroyed Lux's scheme by releasing the knowledge to others.
2) ANYTHING can be negotiated. Ignore the limited framework Fraxis gives us and get creative. You can negotiate borders, settlement treaties, embargos, information trades, non-trade clauses, research pacts, or even demand that units not cross certain land areas.
We got into an international "scuffle" with GoW in the PTW game when a GoW warrior, doing a casual scout/mapping trip, crossed into an area we had claimed as our domain. Despite the fact that this is perfectly acceptable in the game, we were still "annoyed" by it and were able to use their refusal to leave as a legitimate issue that needed to be resolved. We were later able to bargain for their removal as a pre-condition to carrying through a deal they had counted on doing with us.
Anything can be negotiated.
3) Phrase agreements in ways that favor your agenda.
An "alliance" can be phrased in such a way that it is only activated under specific terms .... terms that you determine. Say you don't want your neighbor to use the alliance as a  to go to war? Put in that the alliance is only triggered by one of the allies getting war declared on them by another team. Say you don't want to go to war with X nation -- put in a clause that voids the alliance if you ally goes to war with that nation.
In the PTW Game we created an alliance with Lux Invicta that was purely defensive and was voided if Lux started a war. We then slipped word to Neu Dem at the brink of war that our alliance would be activated if Neu Dem declared war, but not if Lux did. As fate would have it, Lux started the war and Spain was able to escape untouched. (sidenote: The alliance was also due to run out in a turn, and we had purposely stalled negotiations ... see point 4)
4) Active ambassadors are a MUST, as most business need to be tended to quickly, but stalling tactics are extremely simple and effective in PTW.
Don't want to cheese off that neighbor's about his lame proposal or that deal you don't really want to make? Don't get back to them. Forget to respond. Respond late with vague language. Assign someone else to handle a "complex renegotiation" and then act annoyed when that person hasn't yet written back. Stall. Prolong. Bring up other issues and try to tie them to the deal. There are endless ways to very politely say "no" without saying no. Letting deals die while pretending to be reworking them is an excellent smokescreen for a top secret military attack (Pearl Harbor, anyone?)
In the PTW game Trip very persistantly kept on me about redoing the alliance between our nations and I told him we wanted to renew and that I had assigned it to jdjdjd. I told jdjdjd explicitly to add new provisions, make up new terms, and stall like mad on the deal. Jdjdjd also wasn't exceptionally active at the time due to RL work issues... a normally bad trait for an ambassador, but a good trait in this situation... and for three days I was covered because "Jdjdjd should have done that yesterday..." and "I don't understand, jdjdjd is usually very on top of these things. If he doesn't write you by tomorrow, let me know" and so forth. The process was successfully stalled, the treaty would have run out before our intentionally slow reneg process would have concluded.
These are a few examples. Please post other ideas and examples that you have observed ... from your own successful ploys to ones used by your clever opponents.
--Togas
|
|
| |
|
|
|
In a PTW MP game with all Humans players is a little different than with Computer players; that is you don't have to worry about a reputation hit about how other civs will 'feel' for you if you break some sort of agreement.
Also you don't have to worry about war weariness, you CAN attack a civ that you have a 'right of passage' agreement with, without the other civs ever knowing about it (or at least being able to verify it; as these agreements are ONLY between those two civs).
The idea of lining up tech trades in advance is a good one, especially in PBEM games where diplomacy/negotiations can take many, many turns!
In a game against all Humans and where ther are NO reprocutions (in game mechanics) to violate a treaty/agreement, it would behove us to not trust anyone nor expect that anyone trusts us. If anyone does, they are foolish and are likely to be out of the running very soon.
We all (most of us) know how to take adavantage of the Computer player. We must anticipate unorthodox moves by human players; that is, we must be ready for almost anything.
This game will be very interesting. Though we should note trends, we shouldn't count on them at all!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hot_Enamel
|
 |
Melbourne, Australia
Aug 2002
time: 14:26
|
|
Togas, I agree with everything you have said except for two major items.
quote:
Originally posted by Togas
We got into an international "scuffle" with GoW in the PTW game when a GoW warrior, doing a casual scout/mapping trip, crossed into an area we had claimed as our domain. Despite the fact that this is perfectly acceptable in the game, we were still "annoyed" by it and were able to use their refusal to leave as a legitimate issue that needed to be resolved. We were later able to bargain for their removal as a pre-condition to carrying through a deal they had counted on doing with us.
|
Thankfully, the GoW and RP have settled our differences since this “scuffle”, however I can guarantee that had the GoW been an immediate neighbor, RP would be in the same position Lux is in now. Lets ignore the arguments about who would win a war between our two teams, but if you really want to piss off another Civ, then this would be the tactic to use. I will fight any attempt by this team in using this tactic. Scouting by any warrior unit outside of our cultural borders should be allowed. And certainly do not claim land that is not even close to being settled.
quote:
Originally posted by Togas
4) Active ambassadors are a MUST, as most business need to be tended to quickly, but stalling tactics are extremely simple and effective in PTW.
Don't want to cheese off that neighbor's about his lame proposal or that deal you don't really want to make? Don't get back to them. Forget to respond. Respond late with vague language. Assign someone else to handle a "complex renegotiation" and then act annoyed when that person hasn't yet written back. Stall. Prolong. Bring up other issues and try to tie them to the deal. There are endless ways to very politely say "no" without saying no. Letting deals die while pretending to be reworking them is an excellent smokescreen for a top secret military attack (Pearl Harbor, anyone?)
--Togas |
Inevitably, we are going to let some internal team secrets out on this forum. If I could, I would link some of the discussion on the GoW board regarding RP’s negotiation tactics. GoW is fully aware that RP use stall tactics on deals they want to delay. The private joke within GoW is guessing how many additional, (or revisions of), clauses that RP will want to add. Again, I am happy that GoW has such a good relationship with RP, but it is wrong to assume that delay tactics are not transparent to other Civs. GoW worked it out very early in the game. We can use it in this game, but don’t go overboard, or we will make an enemy. I would recommend its use on the rarest of occasions. And don’t stretch anything out for more than a few turns.
Open and honest communication is far better that just delaying for the sake of delaying. If its a lame deal that we have no intention of agreeing to, then say so and let them know what else needs to be included to make a fair trade. Every deal must be seen as a win-win. And the quick agreement is far better than risking being undercut by another team. Constant haggling is detrimental to both teams.
Togas…well done on starting such a fine thread.
Last edited by Hot_Enamel on 19-02-2003 at 18:30
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Shiber
|
 |
Haifa, Israel
Jul 2002
time: 07:26
|
|
Thank you Togas, for resurrecting this fine institution. 
I'd like to respond to the matter of using delaying tactics. Sure, such tactics are acceptable, and sure, everyone will be doing this - but that's exactly why we should refrain from using such tactics ourselves (except for special cases, which should be discussed separately).
If we can create an image of "the only real honest team in the game", it will greatly benefit us.
As was proven by Hot_Enamel, GoW was not ignorant to RP's delay tactics. If we use delay tactics on the other teams, they will notice that too and may prefer to do business with more honest civs.
Study shows that people prefer to do business with banks that work fast, respond quickly and are pleasant to communicate with. Therefore, I suggest that we be as honest as we can, and refrain as much as we can from using delay tactics, which will not mislead our opponents, but just give them a headache. If we're not interested in a deal, tell the other team's ambassador that we're not interested in this deal at this time, and so on. I believe that eventually, this kind of gameplay pays off.
To sum up, call me old-fashioned, but I think that honesty is the way to go. If we choose this path, then we may establish ourselves a position where we are considered to be an "isle of honesty", or a safe haven of sanity, away from all the lying and mischief that other teams may undertake. The other teams will eventually prefer to do business with us because we are honest and pleasant to work with, and they will respect the agreements that they sign with us more than they will respect agreements signed with other civs (because in our case, the psychological refuge of "they break rules too so it's more okay if I break or bend this deal" will not apply).
Last edited by Shiber on 19-02-2003 at 21:24
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Togas
|
|
California
Jun 2002
time: 21:26
|
|
Before we go to any extremes I should like to point out that the most effective diplomacy is direct diplomacy, and the most effective ambassador is one who is perceived as trustworthy and straightfoward.
Let us not assume that I (or anyone) is supporting being obtuse as a general tactic.
This thread is to discuss tactics and ploys that have worked or alternately, tactics that have failed so that we may add to our bag of tricks in the present game.
In response to Hot_Enamel, you need to keep two things in mind:
1) The example I gave above is to show that anything can be negotiated, even things you probably shouldn't be able to do. Bottom line is results. Did it work, did it not work? If so, why or why not.
2) Stalling -- as an amusing sidenote, the "stalling" tactic I mentioned above was intentionally used only once. H_E is confusing stalling with another negotiation tactic: negotiating from strength. When you know you have the upperhand in a situation, press your advantage. What H_E and several less astute GoW members failed to see was, we knew they needed the deal more than us. In those situations, you can exploit their needs by adding in terms and insisting that your terms be followed, period. Is this a friendly way to do business? No. But we at the Machiavelli Society are dedicated to getting the best deal possible for us.
One last note, the following "tactic" is utterly irresponsible and should I be in charge of foreign policy I will sack anyone who writes anything like this:
quote:
I can see now how Roleplay is conducting their diplomacy. Roleplay is conducting as Hitler did with Britain before World War II. Roleplay is assured we won't attack them, because of both our nonagression pact and the distance from the Glory of War homeland. We have no desire to be your Chamberlain by feeding into your leadership's egomania and their continually altering demands |
 I'd like to see someone step forward and explain how this sort of pointless rhetoric acomplishes anything. Insults, absurd comparisons, name calling, and so forth have no place in intelligent foreign affairs. Machiavelli would not be proud. You get only bad results from using such language and, even worse, you start to buy into such dogma rendering your diplomacy even less effective.
Lastly, let it be known that this thread or this post is not meant to bash the GoW team in any way, as I have a great deal of respect for their cunning and opportunistic deal making. Several of the examples I cited in my first post were of GoW tactics and diplomatic sucesses. The last thing I want to see is this thread filled up with spiteful GoW people who feel that I am trying to bash them. This is not a trash talking thread. Do not reply with, "Oh yeah, well let me now cite you something dumb you wrote us!"
Please continue to share tactics, ploys, tricks, and other schemes that worked in your MP games.
--Togas
(edit: typos & broken link)
Last edited by Togas on 19-02-2003 at 22:42
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zero
|
 |
Bouncing back and forth
Sep 2002
time: 00:26
|
|
Lets leave PTW politics out of this hey? We can use PTW demo games as an example but dont bring the politics into the IDG Eventually you guys will have to kill each other anyway 
ND's also did well in stalling. When they popped the settler, we saw their settler from uphill. We immediately contacted them and attempted to make tech trades. I pointed out that we were on a favorable position because of the threat on the settler we were imposing unintentionally. Borc agreed to pretty much what we wanted (which I found odd) and told us that things needed to be polled. Unfourtunately, Trip didn't (or couldn't) hold onto the save game for 2 days. Borc came back after settler has been removed from danger and said general public rejected the treaty therefore he couldn't "sign" it. It was kind of obvious because I would have pretty much have done the same thing if I was in their shoes. But the point is that stalling (and making things seem that it has been already accepted) can buy you time enough to revert the situation. From that point on, we kept playing the "chase-the-settler-to-regain-advatage" charade... but we didnt dedicate ourselves to actually try to capture it. 
That's another thing. Everyone is so afraid to be aggressive early in the game. No one is willing to take the risks. That can screw you over. Understandably this is a Demo game and alot of people play the game so you might not wanna take such bold action such as going into war ultra early, but things like capturing the opponen't worker or settler ultra early has always benefitted me greatly in a hotseat game with my friends.
Another thing. Our crappy starting position did bless us with one thing = contact with the other continent. Other than screwing up on letting GoW unit scout over there and find Vox (heck I didnt even see GoW unit pass by, I was away and when I came back everything was ruined.. contact w/ vox, war started.. ), we had pretty much everything settled. In fact, we intentionally limited the things Vox needed to know about. For all they know, we were on some continent with NDE and on a brink of conflict so that we wouldnt trade much with them. They knew nothing about GoW and RP until GoW found them and would have been blindly robbed as we would be trading techs to GoW, ND and RP. (yes Beta, You can hate me now. )
Last edited by Zero on 19-02-2003 at 23:00
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arnelos
|
 |
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:26
|
|
BFM brings up an EXCELLENT point.
It is critically important for all diplomacy to pass through a single person or if multiple persons can authorize diplomatic statements, that it go through both or all of them and that they agree.
The biggest problems and screw-ups we've had in RP Team diplomacy have been when our diplomats weren't talking to each other or forgetting things requested by other diplomats or what authorized and not authorized by Togas.
Togas, I, and others on the team, have had to go to some length to straighten out the system and make sure that communications and lines of authority are clear. As for coordination of geopolitial strategy, everyone can comment on it, but ultimately someone has to make a decision and the ambassadors and diplomats are responsible to live with it.
After the early screw-up's and other things, I think the system we've ended up with at RP Team works rather well for staying in communication with each other, knowing what is "classified" and what has been declassified, getting instructions from the top on what is to be done, and yet still providing space for anyone on the team to offer arguments for various policies and convince the leadership to do otherwise than what it is currently doing.
A problem, as Togas has pointed out, is the need for ACTIVE ambassadors. Ambassadors need to be ON THE BALL because even though the game may move slowly in pbem, the negotiations do not. Diplomacy has consistently moved rather quickly in the inter-team game and when ambassadors have failed to keep up chatting, PMing, or communicating with a given other team, ability to make deals and press our agenda has suffered.
Ambassadors who won't stick their feet in their mouths are important, but a clarified list of what information is classified and what information is declassified is a very useful tool to help your ambassadors from saying stupid stuff (though even then, it's possible for anyone to mess up by saying something rude or dumb, even if not spilling the beans on something you didn't want shared).
The most critical quality in an ambassador is activity level. The geopolitical decisions are mostly going to be made by the FAM and leadership, the ambassador's job is to get on the ball and get that PM out the door or to get into chat with the other team/site and forward them the latest message w/o delay and get the other side's latest message back to us w/o delay. Having an ability to not put their feet in their mouths is highly important, but it only does us so much good if their behind the ball on actually talking to the other side and getting an agreement at least discussed in principle and then signed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hot_Enamel
|
|
Melbourne, Australia
Aug 2002
time: 14:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Togas
In response to Hot_Enamel, you need to keep two things in mind:
1) The example I gave above is to show that anything can be negotiated, even things you probably shouldn't be able to do. Bottom line is results. Did it work, did it not work? If so, why or why not.
2) Stalling -- as an amusing sidenote, the "stalling" tactic I mentioned above was intentionally used only once. H_E is confusing stalling with another negotiation tactic: negotiating from strength. When you know you have the upperhand in a situation, press your advantage. What H_E and several less astute GoW members failed to see was, we knew they needed the deal more than us. In those situations, you can exploit their needs by adding in terms and insisting that your terms be followed, period. Is this a friendly way to do business? No. But we at the Machiavelli Society are dedicated to getting the best deal possible for us.
|
This is my point exactly...
RP "stalled". GoW recognised it immediately. And now when we deal with RP we expect the same tactics.
RP has tarnished their reputation within GoW, and now we expect it every time we deal with them. The fact that I or GoW got it wrong the 2nd time is irrelevant. All I am saying, is that we expect these tactics now.
And again...as a sidenote...I would like to say that this is past history, and my personal comments should not be perceived as GoW's current perception of the RP team.
quote:
Originally posted by Togas
One last note, the following "tactic" is utterly irresponsible and should I be in charge of foreign policy I will sack anyone who writes anything like this:
"I can see now how Roleplay is conducting their diplomacy. Roleplay is conducting as Hitler did with Britain before World War II. Roleplay is assured we won't attack them, because of both our nonagression pact and the distance from the Glory of War homeland. We have no desire to be your Chamberlain by feeding into your leadership's egomania and their continually altering demands"
I'd like to see someone step forward and explain how this sort of pointless rhetoric acomplishes anything. Insults, absurd comparisons, name calling, and so forth have no place in intelligent foreign affairs. Machiavelli would not be proud. You get only bad results from using such language and, even worse, you start to buy into such dogma rendering your diplomacy even less effective.
|
Ahhh...And I could also post many of the correspondence we received from RP...but I see no benifits in doing this in this forum.
Togas..you posted this here so I will respond.
This response was heavily debated within our team. It is again showing 1. our frustrations of the delaying tactics used by RP, and 2. We thought we would roleplay the ignorant warmongerer for you 
quote:
Originally posted by Togas
Lastly, let it be known that this thread or this post is not meant to bash the GoW team in any way, as I have a great deal of respect for their cunning and opportunistic deal making. Several of the examples I cited in my first post were of GoW tactics and diplomatic sucesses. The last thing I want to see is this thread filled up with spiteful GoW people who feel that I am trying to bash them. This is not a trash talking thread. Do not reply with, "Oh yeah, well let me now cite you something dumb you wrote us!"
|
Fully agree 100%
Togas... I did not read your post and think it was GoW bashing. If my response came accross as though I was jumping to GoW's defense, then I appoligise. Likewise, if it seems as though I am attacking the RP team in any way, then again, this was not my intention. I was attempting to use examples between our two teams to explain my point. I would of responded the same way had you been part of the RP team or not
Regs
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Togas
|
|
California
Jun 2002
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hot_Enamel
This is my point exactly...
RP "stalled". GoW recognised it immediately. And now when we deal with RP we expect the same tactics.
RP has tarnished their reputation within GoW, and now we expect it every time we deal with them. The fact that I or GoW got it wrong the 2nd time is irrelevant. All I am saying, is that we expect these tactics now.
|
I'm glad that your proud of your team's diplomatic cunning and quick to try to point out your team's biases and bitterness about having been on the losing end of a negotiation. Your point is that team will not like being treated this way. I don't disagree with you. However, I think you inflate the importance of such considerations
In our example an atmosphere of hostility was created by team A towards team B. Once this is done, Team B will not give a damn about Team A's opinion of them. When you throw away your facade of a friendly, polite, peaceful relationship, the other side will throw away all such pretenses as well. Strong arm negotiations tactics are most common between adversaries because no relationship damage is at risk by the use of such tactics. You cannot expect a "fair" deal from your enemies, and they are fools if they give one to you.
In short, no one cares what a "enemy" thinks of them, however, individuals are far more concerned with what their "friends" think of them. We should keep this in mind.
--Togas
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hot_Enamel
|
|
Melbourne, Australia
Aug 2002
time: 14:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Togas
I'm glad that your proud of your team's diplomatic cunning and quick to try to point out your team's biases and bitterness about having been on the losing end of a negotiation.
--Togas |
Again...I am pointing out tactics that I believe should not be used in this ISDG. What has happened in the internal game is history..very OLD history.
I believe EVERY negotiation must be seen as a win-win for both teams, or we will find us quickly surrounded by Civs who would rather not deal with us. This can easily taken to the next step of a trade embargo, and then to a military aliance.
Be nice..be friendly..be open and honest. If our tactics are to "fly under the radar" then bullying a civ because we have an advantage, will only work in the short term.
{edit} - But I freely admit, RP got away with it against GoW, because we both now have a common problem. Perhaps the tactics used by RP were well timed and worked out the best for them in that situation. But as a general rule, in this game, I would recommend against "stalling" & "taking an advantage" too far
Last edited by Hot_Enamel on 20-02-2003 at 05:47
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Togas
|
|
California
Jun 2002
time: 21:26
|
|
New Idea, but still on topic.
In Human MP games, we no longer have an AI with a programmed value for each tech. Techs are, therefore, valued by the market.
Tech value increases with the time it takes to research it, scarcity of the tech (demand), necessity of the tech (need it to get X unit, improvement, government, another tech), and so forth. It decreases by lack of the above.
However, most human opponents don't take the time to fully value tech. Some will try to artificially inflate the value, but a quick thinking diplomat can usually talk them down.
A Machiavellian ambassador will convince a neighbor that a tech for tech swap is "fair" because it's one for one, ignoring the fact that the market would likely value the opponent's tech higher. Such an ambassador would only trade a more valuable tech to an opponent after getting his opponent to give him something more to make up for the greater market value.
One tool Arnelos uses in our own private PBEM game is a list from the editor of the values of each tech. I'm going to ask him to make the list available here, as it's a good guideline for spotting when you may be giving away something of greater value for something of lesser value, and it's a good tool to use to justify asking for more from an opponent when negotiating a trade.
(footnote: I only wish he'd started using it in our TEAM game as our deals in the past have been somewhat generous...  )
Feel free to discuss anything tricks you've learned about PTW tech trades and to value deals.
--Togas
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arnelos
|
|
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hot_Enamel
I believe EVERY negotiation must be seen as a win-win for both teams, or we will find us quickly surrounded by Civs who would rather not deal with us. This can easily taken to the next step of a trade embargo, and then to a military aliance.
Be nice..be friendly..be open and honest. If our tactics are to "fly under the radar" then bullying a civ because we have an advantage, will only work in the short term. |
This is something I almost fully agree with. Personally, I generally find that you should always ATTEMPT (reasonably...) to make sure that both sides of an agreement see it as a "win" for them. Making sure the other side sees an agreement as a "win" for them as well as for you is your best way of ensuring they don't screw you over. It's also the best way to avoid needless confrontation that while better deals might help you in the short run, will gain you a potential foe in the long-run and having multiple of those at once can be dangerous.
It might be interesting to note that where there has been friction at all between Togas and I on RP Team policy, this has tended to be where it cropped up 
That said, I fully agree with Togas on the following item: if you have come to the assessment that you have already attempted to be reasonable and the other side has shown itself unwilling to cooperate on that count and you come to assessment that they are a long term "enemy" that already sees you as an enemy, you have absolutely nothing to lose by using strong-arm tactics on them. If you're already convinced that someone is planning your demise ANYWAY, what do you have to gain by playing softball with them?
Playing friendly and pulling your punches is only an advisable thing to do when it will actually result in a meaningful gain (whether short-term or long-term) rather than being a meaningless gesture. Typically, such a gain is tangible in the long-term even if not in the short-term and thus being polite and not using strong-arm tactics is advisable (I agree with H_E on this one ), but in cases where there's nothing to gain by it because nothing you do seems to induce friendlyness in the other side, why then give up the potential advantages of the other option since it's cost has become meaningless?
As I said, however, this is an area where Togas and I sometimes have a slightly different perspective That said, there's definately something to be said for tayloring your strategy to who you are dealing with. The negotiations between Togas and I in one of our internal pbem games are a good example of how I changed my normal negotiating method on a one time basis to taylor it to someone 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arnelos
|
|
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Togas
New Idea, but still on topic.
In Human MP games, we no longer have an AI with a programmed value for each tech. Techs are, therefore, valued by the market.
Tech value increases with the time it takes to research it, scarcity of the tech (demand), necessity of the tech (need it to get X unit, improvement, government, another tech), and so forth. It decreases by lack of the above.
However, most human opponents don't take the time to fully value tech. Some will try to artificially inflate the value, but a quick thinking diplomat can usually talk them down.
A Machiavellian ambassador will convince a neighbor that a tech for tech swap is "fair" because it's one for one, ignoring the fact that the market would likely value the opponent's tech higher. Such an ambassador would only trade a more valuable tech to an opponent after getting his opponent to give him something more to make up for the greater market value.
One tool Arnelos uses in our own private PBEM game is a list from the editor of the values of each tech. I'm going to ask him to make the list available here, as it's a good guideline for spotting when you may be giving away something of greater value for something of lesser value, and it's a good tool to use to justify asking for more from an opponent when negotiating a trade.
(footnote: I only wish he'd started using it in our TEAM game as our deals in the past have been somewhat generous... )
Feel free to discuss anything tricks you've learned about PTW tech trades and to value deals.
--Togas |
Hee hee
Yeah, I made a great deal with one of the players early in the game by using the editor values as the center of my argument.
The way it works is that you take the editor value of each tech and reduce its value depending on the number of people you suspect to have the technology. Since this is an accurate reflection of how long it would take someone to research a given technology (in number of beakers), you can use it as a ballpark (if you mod the figures for # of people already owning the given tech) for determing what is and what is not a "fair" tech trade.
The thing is... in the internal pbem game Togas is talking about, I haven't used it as a means of convincing everyone. Why use the editor values to convince someone to give you a better deal if they're already giving you such a steal that there's no use in letting them know that they're saving you a lot more beaker expense than you're saving them
If a tech because of where it's placed on the tech chart LOOKS more valuable than it really is (and people don't double check themselves or consider the real beaker cost), you can sometimes get away with inflating its value. Mysticism is a GREAT tech for this, as it's cheaper than most other techs at its "level" on the tech chart and you can sometimes get away with trading it for 2 "level 1" techs despite the fact that it's equivalently priced.
For instance, while I used the editor values in that game to convince some players, one of the players has been giving me such awesome deals that I haven't even brought up the editor values because then it would just be plainly visible the difference in beaker costs (though he has other reasons to be softballing deals with me).
For reference, however, here are the editor values for the ancient techs:
Pottery - 2
Ceremonial Burial - 2
Warrior Code - 3
Bronze Working - 3
Wheel - 4
Masonry - 4
Mysticism - 4
Alphabet - 5
Horseback Riding - 5
Iron Working - 6
Philosophy - 6
Writing - 8
Code of Laws - 10
Literacy - 10
Map Making - 12
Polytheism - 12
Currency - 16
Construction - 20
Monarchy - 24
Republic - 28
One of the critical things to remember is that the cost of the technology falls whenever someone new obtains the tech. If you watch the research times of the techs closely by checking them each turn and comparing, you can many times spot when someone knew has obtained a tech and gain clues into what they might research next (though it's sometimes difficult to tell WHO obtained the tech).
Since, unlike with the AI, you can't see just by pulling up the diplomacy screen whether someone has a certain tech, this method of watching the prices can be instrumental to your strategy in the technology trading game.
It ALSO serves the purpose of letting you know to lower the modded price of the tech for when you're presenting a deal for techs you want. Use the fact that multiple civs have a tech and thus it would be painfully easy for you to research it now as a reason why the tech is now of less value and they should trade it to you for another tech that would be of less value if you weren't the only one holding it (aside from the supply/demend consideration, which also works in your favor in these cases).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
I think trading techs by the editor cost is the way to go. One thing to remember and one thing to consider:
Remember: the actual Beaker cost is adjusted by level, so if gold is brought in to even up a deal, it will depend on the difficulty to determine how much. The difference between Bronze Working and The Wheel is 1 "unit" in the editor. On Emperor on a Standard map that equates to about 35-40 Gold/Beakers.
Consider: although a tech does depreciate the more teams discover it, there is something to be said for "lining up" techs deals in advance. Assuming you can trust your trading partner, I would much rather have a Mysticism and Polytheism (say) guaranteed to us instead of waiting until the last possible moment to get the best deal given the market price.
Finally, I think we should diplomatically find a way to trade techs such that we can get out of Despotism as quickly as possible. If a team can do part of the research towards The Republic for us, we'll be ahead of the rest of the world economically. The remaining Ancient-age techs will follow.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BigFurryMonster
|
 |
EMPEROR of Cats
Feb 2002
time: 06:26
|
|
Depending on the amount of neighbours you have, it may not be wise to "line up" tech deals in advance. If circumstances change - someone else discovers a tech, thus making it "cheaper", or you discover another civ who has a better deal, or someone gets a tech from a goodie hut, or (...fill in any other good reason...), the deal might get cancelled, in which case you lose some of your good trade reputation, not to mention your building plans, next tech plan, or (...fill in any other plan...). This happened a couple of times in the PTWDG.
Another thing: be quick in trading. Don't always wait 3 days to put up a poll or something. Otherwise, you might get situations like this:
team 1: We have tech A for tech B.
team 2: Hmmm - a bit cheap. You know what? I'll ask some of my people and get back to you.
(a few days later)
team 2: We agree on the deal!
team 1: Oh - but we already got tech B from the Arabs!
Better is to be able to consult some team members quickly, and then either accept it, or decline. Possibly negotiate even further. This also happened in the recent game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
E_T
|
 |
Orlando, Florida
Mar 2001
time: 00:26
|
|
One other problem with setting up tech deals in advance, is setting them up too far in advance. As in the PtwDG, there was a big misunderstanding as to when we would have a tech ready to trade. One team thought that we were holding out on them, but in truth, we were still atleast week (about 10 turns) away.
One thing that can be a problem, is that people whom are not used to the speed of PBEM games, can forget that Alot of things take time. With having an average time of 1 turn per day, what can be just a couple of turns away, will be later in the week, and something 20 turns away, will almost be a whole month.
These are things that we need to remember, especially when dealing with Diplomacy.
E_T
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-02-2003 08:30
|