Curious for opinions on a diplo situation I was in.
Game was full distribution on a full earth map. (countries). I announced that my county claimed a few territories that are traditionally disputed (in real life) and were currently owned by another player... think Russia claiming Crimea.
I waited a turn and then invaded, and was declared PE as I did not 'declare war'.
Can't really give an opinion without seeing the actual messages.
However, I'll say this:
In any kind of "declaration" diplomacy environment, there are three possible cases.
1. Everyone understands very clearly that you have declared something (in this case, potential war). 2. Everyone understands very clearly that you have not declared something. 3. The situation is ambiguous: maybe you have declared something, and maybe not.
In the first two cases, there is nothing to talk about. It's the third case which becomes our litmus test; the third case tells us what kind of game this really is.
I see two possible modes of play:
In the first mode, things are very strict. There is no room for ambiguity whatsoever. If there is any doubt about what has happened, it will be ruled against you. You must be 100% clear, all the time. If you weren't clear, you're violating the spirit of the game. The burden of proof is on you.
In the second mode, ambiguity is, rather, a useful tool, to be used to your advantage. Here, the cleverest player is the one who is a cunning politician, and who can say the exact same thing to two of his opponents, with each taking it as a promise in their favour. If it turns out they misinterpreted you, that's their loss. Here, the burden is on the recipient.
If I'm playing in a diplomacy game, I'd want to know which of these is the mode of play.
this is why i hate playing diplo games now. if you are going to allow ambiguity why even have a rule about declaring war? and if i host a game and try to strictly enforce the rules to eliminate ambiguity i have too many people disagreeing with me and stupid arguments follow.
a tip to anyone who likes playing diplo games. listen to the host (if they are present) or they may just stop hosting diplos altogether. and if you don't like having stupid arguments then always be clear about your intentions.
wait, what am i saying? most people join diplos to have stupid arguments...
I believe that a rule stating that to declare war you must say "I declare war on...." could be a good idea for the future. There's no question on what they are saying then.
Maybe we could incorporate the "diplomacy" style game into WarLight by enabling settings such as "declare war" button on a player's pop-up profile in the bottom right box? The same might be used to declare allies, and that'd enable the transfer of troops through his land?
Or maybe you should embrace the second mode of play? It's much more like the real world, and potentially much more interesting, than the black-and-white sort of diplomacy that seems to be popular here.
There's much more variety of strategy in that style of game, and you don't need any special settings.
What your opponent is engaged in is called "immature impulsive tactical PE declaration syndrome". We should not discriminate against him, of course (political correctness). Fizzer the Watcher has blessed us with the right to blacklist these types of players.
