The Third Languish Sunday EU3 MP Game Thread

[Tamas]

The problem is that I suspect that is actually the "smart" way to play. Kind of a prisoners dilemna sort of thing.

Probably yes.

What I propose -because I think none of us are jerks to purposedly go all hail mary with countries when a rule as this is in effect- is that we agree to let people change countries if their starting one got pwndered too much. So as to remove the block of "not want to destroy the game for him". Like when in the first game every AI country in Europe tried to gangrape me, Kleves of England did not join in on the fun, which was certainly very nice of him, and he made a side profit on helping me, but still the sensible thing as England would had been to decide that huge war by stabbing the dagger deep into France's back so as the whole country gets partitioned.

[Habbaku]

I don't think we ever had a rule against people changing countries.  Kleves did it, after all.

[Solmyr]

Castile wishes to formally announce that it has no plans to annex Portugal proper as long as there is no aggression against us from that direction.

[Habbaku]

Castile wishes to formally announce that it has no plans to annex Portugal proper as long as there is no aggression against us from that direction.

Translation : Castile will wait for Portugal to ally with Aragon before going to war with the latter so as to jack territory from the former.

[DGuller]

The problem is that I suspect that is actually the "smart" way to play. Kind of a prisoners dilemna sort of thing.

I'm thinking the same thing.  I feel like there is more than one stable equillibrium when it comes to situations like this.  One possible equillibrium is that everyone is realpolitiking, and occasionally backstabbing.  Another possible equillibrium is that everyone is being a gentleman and a true friend. 

In both of those cases, being the only one out of step with majority would be a bad thing.  In the first case, you'll be betrayed when you don't expect it.  In the second case, you'll be an outcast.

What may be tipping EU MP games into a friendly equillibrium is the fact that we'll play with each other again in the future.  If you screw your friend and completely annex him, that reputation will not just haunt you in that same game.  People will remember in "parallel universes" as well, the next time you play.

[Solmyr]

What may be tipping EU MP games into a friendly equillibrium is the fact that we'll play with each other again in the future.  If you screw your friend and completely annex him, that reputation will not just haunt you in that same game.  People will remember in "parallel universes" as well, the next time you play.

This is a mentality people just have to get away from. You couldn't have Renaissance politics if everyone held grudges for hundreds of years.

[Alcibiades]

Well the problem with that is some players play the same way every time, so you can expect what they are doing has hidden meanings if they did it in past games.  Which is likely the case.

[Solmyr]

Well the problem with that is some players play the same way every time, so you can expect what they are doing has hidden meanings if they did it in past games.  Which is likely the case.

That's their problem. Obviously if you are totally sure someone will betray you then you can take steps to counter it. Personally, I tend to play very differently depending on my country.

[DGuller]

This is a mentality people just have to get away from. You couldn't have Renaissance politics if everyone held grudges for hundreds of years.

It's not about grudges, it's about rational expectations.  Reputation has real value.  If two potential rivals ally, and they both have impeccable record of keeping their word, then they can both avoid costly contingency plans for cases when the alliance turns into a sudden sneak attack.  If you don't have a good reputation, then you can't reap as many benefits from a strategic alliance.

[katmai]

Fear not Habbu, I won't be selling colonies to anyone(though you didn't complain when the buyer was you) as tamas and I will be busy bitchslapping badboy Brandenburg.

[Habbaku]

Fear not Habbu, I won't be selling colonies to anyone(though you didn't complain when the buyer was you)

  That was a perfectly legitimate strategic decision on your part, though I think you made an error in not just selling me all of Portugal as well.  Ah, well, we can't all be Napoleon.

[katmai]

So sorry for the kleves moment here bit what start year are we going with?

I need to try and take a look at game and figure out who to ally and see if I really have to be sbr's bitch.

[sbr]

So sorry for the kleves moment here bit what start year are we going with?

I need to try and take a look at game and figure out who to ally and see if I really have to be sbr's bitch.

1453 scenario.

[katmai]

Okay what I thought, but started having doubts as I know folks thought 1492 Austria starts with too big an advantage.

[Solmyr]

It's not about grudges, it's about rational expectations.  Reputation has real value.  If two potential rivals ally, and they both have impeccable record of keeping their word, then they can both avoid costly contingency plans for cases when the alliance turns into a sudden sneak attack.  If you don't have a good reputation, then you can't reap as many benefits from a strategic alliance.

I wasn't talking about reputation, though, but rather grudge-holding. If someone backstabs you once in one game, it doesn't mean you must hate them forever after through every subsequent game, or that you cannot ally with them later if it benefits you. Obviously, if someone betrays people constantly for little reason, that's different, but I don't think there's anyone like that here.