The No Diplomacy Concept (re: -ND-'s posts lately)

[DeletedUser]

Hello everybody,

Today, I wish to open a real discussion and begin exchanging ideas. Our topic for today is...

The potential for success with tribes that maintain 0 forms of any diplomacy.

Some will argue that diplomacy is a necessary concept in Tribal Wars

While others see it as something that will inevitably hinder you. In some cases these people even believe overuse of diplomacy is destroying the excitement of Tribal Wars.

In the early stages of the game...

It isn't hard to disagree with the notion that it is not difficult to maintain such a standard early on in the world, especially considering the players/tribes that will later shape the world are still growing and busy clearing out their areas. Therefore, probability has likely presented a lot of luck and you are not bordering them early on. So the no diplomacy slaughter of the mass recruit/noob tribes locally is the best move for just about, if not every, halfway decent tribe that exists on the said world.

Looking back, I have done this myself as the sole Duke of different tribes plenty of times early into a world. No diplomacy whatsoever was always my approach until a formidable opposition approached, in which case I'd enter diplomacy if it wasn't in the interests of my tribe to fight them at the time. There is a lot of merit to both sides, but there are downsides to both as well.

But, tribes like -ND- for example, may find themselves in a bad place if they were to reject the wrong tribe for an NAP. Especially if they had multiple fronts open already at the time...

Imagine if a tribe had two fronts on opposite sides open. A bordering tribe asks for an NAP to allow them to respectfully continue their conflict with peace of mind knowing that front is safe.

​

The tribe that is being ganged says "No, we do not engage in any form of diplomacy with other tribes."



So, the third tribe shrugs and says "Ok, we'll just be over here doing our own thing."

​

Now the third tribe sits back, builds large quantities of noblemen, nukes, and gets their border thoroughly stacked. Then on a fateful day more or less a week later you get a wake up call inbound to your newly opened 3rd war front...
​

Specifically in -ND-'s case, I can imagine every tribe bordering you at the moment has plans to attack you because of how vocal you have been on the world forums about how you will not Ally or NAP anybody whatsoever. Same should be said for any future tribes that so openly declare this.

However, what if the tribe is secret about this being their policy for diplomacy?


i.e. "We won't Ally or NAP anyone. But we won't let anyone know that."

The issue with this, is that unless you keep that a secret from even your members (who may get mad at you for that as well), then it will eventually get out. Players quit and tell others once they don't care anymore things that were once secret. These people they tell sometimes tend to be your competitors, which would be everybody if you have no Allies or NAPs and only bright red and dark red on your map.

It would be easy for a spy in your tribe to force an unnecessary war upon your tribe as well.

A player could be ready to merge into an opposing tribe members account and can attack them massively to initiate a war, then be nobled and instantly be playing against you. Do not say it is impossible, because 98% of tribes in TW have suffered from a lack of loyalty in some way at some point in their lives. Even if it was only one player, one time.

Will -ND- even stand a chance on this world?

-ND- will be facing a war with Pig F. probably before CODEX is fully dealt with, therefore you will be on two fronts extremely early in the game with two tribes larger than you if I am correct. There is a chance some smaller rim tribes may even hit you during this time too.

Dylar I know you will be in here to say you guys can handle it, but instead of rebuttals...

-

Any tribe that goes this route will surely have it rough.

:icon_cool::icon_eek::icon_cool: Have a great day :icon_cool::icon_eek::icon_cool:everybody! :icon_cool::icon_eek::icon_cool:

[SPOIL]I actually like -ND- despite what this may look like lol :icon_wink:[/SPOIL]

 

[DeletedUser]

Update: Apparently -ND- is warring both Pig F. and CODEX after all, and winning. Interested to see what develops of this phenomenon in the Southwest.

 

[DeletedUser]

We are warring and declaring on anyone we wanna fight or if we get even 1 incoming.
We absolutely love the challenge of large massive wars. I love your post. Really nice work and well put together.
I'm just hoping others might see that hugging and backdoor policies are a weaker form of winning.
We in -ND- do not wish to follow that path but rather 1 with the greatest potential for a good challenge nothing less.

You can believe me when I say we won't have diplomacy. Everyone is welcome to try and show that to be false if they please.
We likely will not win this world, we know that, we also know not doing diplomacy at a certain stage will make it very hard for us.
That is kinda the entire point though.

Thanks for the time you put into this!

 

[Deleted User - 4669627]

Update: Apparently -ND- is warring both Pig F. and CODEX after all, and winning.

Side 1:
Tribes: -ND-
Side 2:
Tribes: CODEX


Timeframe: Forever


Total conquers against opposite side:


Side 1: 0
Side 2: 0
Difference: 0

Points value of total conquers against opposite side:


Side 1: 0
Side 2: 0
Difference: 0

:icon_rolleyes:

despite the fact that CODEX is going down in flames

[video=youtube;9QS0q3mGPGg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QS0q3mGPGg[/video]
let me be the first to congratulate dylar on his winning

 

[DeletedUser]

Thank you!

 

[DeletedUser]

The key distinction here is that there is a difference between avoiding diplomacy and warmongering. Right now while ND is growing from the rim their only opposition are the kind of tribes that are allowed to hang around for way to long to protect the flank. Much has been made of the rawr NO Diplomacy approach when in reality it is just a fun simple way to play the game from an aggressive stance instead of a worried stance.

P.S. ND doesn't much worry about the consequences as many of the players have already won a world and others know they won't stick around until the end full time anyways.

 

[DeletedUser]

No diplomacy is a good way to play for people that aren't good at strategy and want to rely purely on their superior tactics or force of will (simply surviving longer than the opponent finds it fun). In the face of an opponent that is equally or better skilled, tribes with no diplomacy will - all other things equal - lose.

I've never seen an approach quite like what I'm experiencing with Random (I haven't been in many premades for longer than early startup). Local players make friendships with people around them and these relationships help us. Some of those players end up merging into Random, and others have influence in their tribe to drive operations forward. We have an attitude that says official diplomacy isn't necessary between tribes - and instead the bulk of what would be diplomacy is the locals making decisions as to how they want to treat tribes around to them.

Of course, there have been some really big plays that have come out of the shadows and surprised me by their suddenness. Tribes that seem to be in a threatening position, like the early AFLAC, or CARROT shortly after... and KOS just recently, 'killed' by diplomacy and/or politics. Watching these kinds of events unfold, and always in Random's favour... and how it seems to be luck? That is strategy. It's knowing the game and the people well enough to know when you can turn things in your favour.

I reiterate: No diplomacy is a good way to play for people that aren't good at strategy.
...
I don't mean to imply that this is the reason that -ND- chooses not to have diplomacy. There are other reasons you won't win this world. The main one is that you don't have the numbers or the influence (a side effect of the no diplomacy policy given that you're not a direct threat to many people). I do wish you well, though; I have some friends in there. They seem to like it.

 

[DeletedUser]

You described exactly what -ND- wants to not do. In the past players from -ND- have done plenty of relationship building and scheming. The point is to go about the game without trying to use others just to see how well a group can do by them selves, without pushing for a gangbang.

You also said that random has been talking to members of tribes around them and garnering influence which kind of invalidates many things said in one of the other threads about the other tribes attacking ODA in that war.

 

[DeletedUser]

You also said that random has been talking to members of tribes around them and garnering influence which kind of invalidates many things said in one of the other threads about the other tribes attacking ODA in that war.

I've actually been out of the main Random chat (earmarked as 'spam') for about a month now, and I was referring to mostly events that I was involved in, and those that happened in my immediate area. So I'm not sure on how everything is organised for the current situation with ODA.

What I've described could bring you to the conclusion that Random is behind everything that's coming up against ODA... and it might be the truth. I don't actually know. It could even be happening through my account and I wouldn't know - I don't even read most of the mails my co-players send

ODA doesn't need to be told that Hungry doesn't like them, so it should have come as no surprise that we co-operate. I don't actually know who else is fighting ODA. Surely they don't give us the credit for bringing all of their enemies against them!

 

[devil667]

Random wouldnt miss the chance of attention wh*ring by declaring their diplomacy publicly. :icon_redface:

 

[DeletedUser]

I've never seen an approach quite like what I'm experiencing with Random (I haven't been in many premades for longer than early startup). Local players make friendships with people around them and these relationships help us. Some of those players end up merging into Random, and others have influence in their tribe to drive operations forward. We have an attitude that says official diplomacy isn't necessary between tribes - and instead the bulk of what would be diplomacy is the locals making decisions as to how they want to treat tribes around to them.

Of course, there have been some really big plays that have come out of the shadows and surprised me by their suddenness. Tribes that seem to be in a threatening position, like the early AFLAC, or CARROT shortly after... and KOS just recently, 'killed' by diplomacy and/or politics. Watching these kinds of events unfold, and always in Random's favour... and how it seems to be luck? That is strategy. It's knowing the game and the people well enough to know when you can turn things in your favour.
.

Doesn't everyone do that every world? thought that was the usual way to play:/

 

[DeletedUser]

I discussed this a while back (post below), in essence though I think a first day tribe from 26 points to victory without any diplomacy can be done and has been something I have wanted to do myself for a while.

[SPOIL]In terms of methods towards victory from a non-personal standpoint, having high diplomacy and selectively warring tribes weaker than yours until your tribe becomes too strong to stop is the optimal way of playing the game. Unfortunately, instead of the game being purely numbers, it contains people. There are three good reasons to hold back on taking diplomacy and none of them are out of principle.

Lets take a situation where you are dealing with two different tribes, one that is allied and another which is not. It may seem a bit strange, but an allied tribe is actually more unpredictable and dangerous than a non-allied, non-friendly tribe. This is because the number of possible outcomes is bigger. Non-friendly tribes are incredibly predictable, they will want to capitalize on any weakness you show. Allied tribes can stay friendly to you or act as a non-friendly tribe would. Add to the fact that most people do not take into account that an ally could backstab into their calculations when deciding what fights to take, this can make having allies extremely dangerous for generally very little benefit asides from border control. Avoiding getting allies/NAPs can actually be beneficial in terms of member alertness.

The second reason is merely a trade off and one can argue either ways for this. A tribe with a lack of diplomacy is weaker than a tribe with diplomacy in the early and early-mid game but is stronger in the mid and mid-late game. To explain this, it is best to start with the weak early game and talk about why it transitions into a strong mid and late game. In the early to early-mid game, you will fight lots of wars, which makes it higher risk than a tribe who uses diplomacy to get through the early game without a problem. This is what I like to think of as the sink or swim time, either you band together and pull through or you fall flat on your face. Contrary to popular belief, I believe the early-mid game is the best time to fight wars. Tribes are weaker and fall apart easier, the influence of a leader is stronger, size matters less due to the inability of most tribes to pull full focus to a fight and it sets up a great foundation for the rest of the game. I also believe that if you lose at this point, your tribe was probably not going to do well in the mid-late game anyways.

Regardless, If you get through this part, you become the strongest tribe with the best potential diplomacy. Because you fought lots of wars, your members are stronger relative to other members, your tribe has a higher reputation and more respect, diplomacy is easier and stronger should you want to take it because you have not had to lie/break agreements like other leaders have. You will know when you have reached this point, because tribes will stop attacking you even though you do not have diplomacy with them. To take a real life example, think of the Cold war between the US and USSR. They refused to attack each other because they believed they could not win if they did. Of course, a more accurate example would probably be North Korea attacking the US but I think you get my point. So you do not need diplomacy, your reputation as a strong tribe that consistently wins wars even against gangbangs enforces it without you even needing to talk to the other leaders. This is forming borders of mutual distrust.

The third reason is the quality of the members and the atmosphere. I already touched on members gaining more experience in more war oriented tribes, but the best players want to join exciting tribes who scrap constantly. Forums and Skype chats are more active during wars, which if you can set as a standard from the start, will make your tribe have a considerably better atmosphere, coordination and participation than a tribe that starts off just growing without any fights. This of course makes stronger mid-late game communication because of a high starting standard.

Overall, I have always thought a no-diplomacy earlygame transitioning into a more standard low diplomacy mid-late game is one of the best ways to play the game, perhaps even as strong as a average diplomacy earlygame transitioning into a low diplomacy mid-late game. What most top tribes do is they have quite a balanced game throughout, but there is a way to play the world by sacrificing strength early in exchange for power in the mid-late game. There is also a way to play that is very early-game oriented, but it is not very popular even though highly successful in certain circumstances.[/SPOIL]

 

[DeletedUser]

@Nemesis.

Things that look well on paper may not do well in the real world. Example: Governments in RL. Then again, I'm quite intruiged by this concept. Do you know if anyone is attempting this in w73?

 

[DeletedUser]

@Nemesis.

Things that look well on paper may not do well in the real world. Example: Governments in RL. Then again, I'm quite intruiged by this concept. Do you know if anyone is attempting this in w73?

I have actually tried it to some extent and found it to be quite successful. That is only personal experience though.

 

[DeletedUser]

Technically, enemies are diplomacy.

wutnow?

 

[DeletedUser]

@Nemesis.

Things that look well on paper may not do well in the real world. Example: Governments in RL. Then again, I'm quite intruiged by this concept. Do you know if anyone is attempting this in w73?

Isn't this exactly what ND is trying to do?

 

[DeletedUser]

Good PnP. makes a refreshing change from the normal hair-splitting and spelling police stuff posted on the externals

 

[DeletedUser]

Good PnP. makes a refreshing change from the normal hair-splitting and spelling police stuff posted on the externals

It's "hairsplitting".

[SPOIL]

Noun

1.

hairsplitting - making too fine distinctions of little importance; "they didn't take his hairsplitting seriously"word-splitting differentiation, distinction - a discrimination between things as different and distinct; "it is necessary to make a distinction between love and infatuation"

[/SPOIL]

You know I had to do this, right?

 

[DeletedUser]

I'll pitch it up, you knock it out of the park :icon_razz: