Diplomatic Curtacy

amirashah

Guest
I am on here to talk about how alliances deal with diplomacy. Most alliances I have talked to have been receptive to conversations about the direction of their alliance, growth patterns and so forth, but recently due to some rapid growth and aggressive conquering I have come into contact with an alliance that feels it is best to ignore messages or not respond to them until they have a problem with you and then send a long winded accusatory (often unreasonable) message back. I find this sort of diplomacy to be very displeasing. This "diplomacy" encourages a negative response and puts me on edge when deal with this alliance as I can assume that they are planning something against me and don't want something to slip.

M question to the Gythium community is how do you handle diplomacy? do you try to be punctual with responses? How would you like to be treated when in talks with an alliance? Do you like a diplomat who is willing to have a bit of a back and forth conversation or a diplomat that ignores your messages to them (or doesn't respond) then sends you an essay when they have a problem? If you found out your diplomat handled himself this way would you keep him as your diplomat?

(the questions are hypothetical to all players who don't lead alliances)
 

Paul S.

Guest
I aim to please. Diplomacy determines the fate of an alliance. Then stregnth. I will speak in the manner I'm spoken to. I do look through ALL possibilities, and address them all. I also, make my intentions clear (or my team's), and I'm realistic about what I talk about. I don't name call, degrade or otherwise talk trash unless my "trash talk" is able to be backed up with proof. I do nothing without proof.

If one of my guys attacks someone that isn't an enemy and I get a Pm. I respond "I'll speak to my guy, but I'd like to see a report". No report I call Bs. I get a report/proof, I apologize, and have my player do the same and re-discuss with my team that 'x' alliance/player(s) are not to be touched.

And as I said, I've yet to be able to start a war :(
 

Cather

Guest
If one of my guys attacks someone that isn't an enemy and I get a Pm. I respond "I'll speak to my guy, but I'd like to see a report". No report I call Bs. I get a report/proof, I apologize, and have my player do the same and re-discuss with my team that 'x' alliance/player(s) are not to be touched.

And as I said, I've yet to be able to start a war :(
In the meantime wouldn't your guy confirm that an attack took place if you really spoke to him/her? You can get the report from them unless they said they didn't then you can inform the other side that more proof is needed to show whether the BS was coming from the the other diplomat or your player.

Just my 2 cents :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

kylehob

Strategos
In the meantime wouldn't your guy confirm that an attack took place if you really spoke to him/her? You can get the report from them unless they said they didn't then you can inform the other side that more proof is needed to show whether the BS was coming from the the other diplomat or your player.

Just my 2 cents :)
well would ya look who joined the external forums :p
 

amirashah

Guest
well cather, I don't like to bother my members about pointless stuff, if I am messaging a member of my alliance it is going to be about taking a city, organizing defense/ops, making sure they don't make a mistake, seeing what I can do to help them out, or even to congratulate them on a job well done if they did a great job. If the other alliance can't produce a report to show me my guy did something wrong I don't think it is worth it to even talk to him about it, being positive is key, if you are always jumping all over your members about stupid things, they don't like their alliance, are less active and you do worse. Maybe even side with your member if he made a small mistake, diplomacy is good, but your members are much more important.
 

Paul S.

Guest
@Cather: Good point. However, the reason I do this, is to ensure my teammates don't lie. Although I've set that standard that we are not to lie to anyone in or out of our team, I still need to address that possibility. A report form the "Victim" would tell me who really is not telling the truth. I still do PM my guys if a response isn't given within an hour of the claim though.

As a leader, I always check myself before I wreck myself (and my team).

Btw, you guys are coming out of nowhere fast. Chill out! lol We just want the little northeast corner of O36. You and CN can fight out the rest haha. :p

@ Cather: Wow, sorry about the O36 part. I thought you were someone else from THC! haha my bad.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser9276

Guest
Diplomacy what is that? The longer I played grepo the less and less I wanted to use diplomacy. I have always allowed my alliance to attack who they pleased when they pleased. It has worked out well for me in the past, many times the big mighty alliances have plenty of holes of their own and aren't as scary as initially thought. So my opinion on the matter is give me a diplomat who tells the other alliances to go to the underworld :)
 

Paul S.

Guest
Lol I like it. BUT, (and I love you bend) if that's worked out for you where's your crown? :p
 

amirashah

Guest
heehee Ben, sometimes it works, other times it doesn't. If an alliance doesn't want a war with me they should at least respond to my messages thisisgrepolis
 

Paul S.

Guest
^ I second that.

OR,

At least try to make sure they don't do anything else to cause one.
 

DeletedUser9276

Guest
Paul I have a crown on the en servers :). Crown doesn't really mean anything though, I know some really bad players with a crown, give me a player who has been a top 30 or 40 fighter over a player with a crown any day of the week. WW is a horrible endgame and inno finally recognized it.
 

amirashah

Guest
Crowns are nothing, only one of 10 the best players I have ever fought with or against had a crown. The 4 best didn't. I would take many, many players that don't have crowns over players that do. that is just the nature of the beast.
 
Diplomacy for me is iffy as it varies from world to world and changes with the years. As Amir and I know, diplomacy was much more of a priority in 2010- early 2012. It wasn't uncommon to have a big need to strong to medium rate alliances. This was because it took a lot more time to reach conquest (2 weeks per 2 speed worlds), meaning that leaders had a lot more time to lead and train their players. You can make any committed player a relatively good player in two weeks time. This created a lot of threats around the ocean. The worlds were also significantly larger with slower release rates. This means that instead of a 40k 2 speed server. We had 60k+ players in a server early on. That is a lot of need for diplomacy as you were only a week or two from going from top dog to disbanded. Now a days you need one or maybe two allies and you can rule easily. Anymore and you stunt your growth. Any less and you get a mass op on you and get owned.

That being said, I've always noticed that some things haven't changed in how diplomacy is done. World standing and reputation goes a long way. If you're in the top 12 and strong in your region, then someone will always be asking you to be their ally. Same goes on if you're a well known leader, people will often ask if you want to team up with them. This also can work in the reverse effect. One thing I've noticed has never changed from when I started leading, is that someone will always be trying to swindle you. It doesn't matter what server you go on, where you land, etc. Someone will always be out there trying to throw you under the bus. I have also noticed that diplomacy is a one way street for some people.

I typically do my diplomacy the right way, the exception being that if I find out that you're trying to throw me under the bus, I will return the favor and play the same game until the time is right. But if people who just don't make the cut message me regarding diplomacy, I most likely will go back to farming. I don't want to insult anyone and I certainly don't want to miss out on a possible timed attack. :(
 

DeletedUser9276

Guest
Hey smilo, you still playing mate? No diplomacy is the best way to go if you have the roster to do it. On the US servers it is much more viable than the en servers. Only alliance I have seen able to truely pull off no diplomacy and succeed was PB on corinth. They were an incredibly stacked roster though on a server with a very high alliance cap.
 

amirashah

Guest
The game has changed a lot like Dan said, money is much more of a bonus now. In many of the old EN worlds (EN1-20) you had to make pacts and play the diplomacy game to get anywhere. as you said PB pulled it off as did PV, outside of that I can not think of an alliance that had done it before then. Even the most legendary old EN alliances had at least one solid pact. It could be done in a less competitive US world but if I where to do it I would assemble a team of top EN players to do so.

I feel that diplomacy should be a two way street and for the most part you should as transparent as possible. Sometimes it is okay to say "we are declaring war to have fun." That is how the game used to be played at least :p
 
Hey smilo, you still playing mate? No diplomacy is the best way to go if you have the roster to do it. On the US servers it is much more viable than the en servers. Only alliance I have seen able to truely pull off no diplomacy and succeed was PB on corinth. They were an incredibly stacked roster though on a server with a very high alliance cap.
I have been playing, but I took a few weeks off due to rugby, work, and preparing to transfer. I got accepted to Michigan State. :)

Nysa seems messy and I want to slow down my play rate, so i'll probably enter the next US server that's 2+. I'd be inclined to possibly throw together another dream team for the US this time if it wasn't that my time to play is short (3-4 months). :( Might still see what some people are doing though if the world is nice.

Diplomacy still has its fine points and advantages. My biggest reason for avoiding it is that I call people out when something isn't right. A lot of people expect to have the benefits of the pact and give none of the blood to deserve it. Its also the reason why I don't NAP. I mean, NAPs are like sparing an enemy leader in hopes that they make a good academy for you. You just end up having to fight them anyways.
 

Paul S.

Guest
I only do NAPs in rare occasions. And when I do, I make the intention of it clear: It ends one of 3 ways: War, Merge, Pact. I don't do NAPs forever. War, because you're a butt and you violate terms (*Cough SA*). Merge, because you're dying and by merge I mean I'll accept those who really want to win. Pact, because you've proven yourselves to be good, and well trusted.
 
I truly never trust NAPs. I barely trust pacts. in four years, I can count on two hands the amount of trust worthy and reliable ally alliances I have had in Grepo. Seems like there's a lot of back stabbing, especially when the crown is involved.
 

northman81

Guest
Diplomacy, a subject... my hypothesis:

1. I speak softly to those who do the same with me. these ppl are my friends and teammates, until they prove otherwise
2. I carry a BIG STICK
3. I speak LOUDLY to those who annoy me (to those who have annoyed me, I think you know who you are)
4. If you continue to tick me off, then I beat you with my BIG STICK constantly and forever, to the best of my abilities
5. When people really try their damndest to annoy me further, then...
5a. I make them look stupid
5b. I make them feel bad about themselves for looking stupid
5c. I set silly rabbit snares and bear traps to farm them for free BP (ty, to all who have given me these free BP, you are too kind)
5d. I terrify you all day and all night constantly and forever, to the best of my abilities, just for laughs
5e. When I've had my fun, I will get around to rimming the offending parties. This, I do at my leisure, and at whatever time suits me
5f. If the offending parties get rimmed by someone else first, and I am still really very annoyed at said offending parties, I find you IRL, and I sue you into oblivion with my team of lawyers (yes I have a team of lawyers, and they smoke more cigs than I do)
5g. If suing for 10,000x your NW does not please me, I make silly viral videos, and smear you publicly, to make you hate yourself and your life. I do this, just for laughs viz a viz 5d, underlying concept, and etc.
6. this is a secret. You cannot find out these tactics from me, period, until you have annoyed me further than the highest level of annoying me listed in the above terms. You will, however, have to try very hard to annoy me this much, as, believe it or not, I am actually quite a sweetheart IRL <3 that is, until you annoy me. Refer to #3.


This is just a conjecture, on the subject of "Diplomacy" in the game known as "Grepolis." This conjecture is built upon the concept underlying my current personal practices on the subject of "Diplomacy." Said concept and the implementation thereof are based on my own personal agreements I have made with myself. Since, in my mind, which agreements I get to make with myself are my business and mine alone, I will not easily be compelled by any outside party to break said agreements made with myself, viz a viz my views regarding my GoD given right to make said agreements with myself.

I will, however, always discuss matters such as this openly and rationally with any parties who have not annoyed me.

Also, one quick question... what is "Curtacy?" I am confused by this word... Is this what rich little girls learn to do in bourgeois school? E.g. little Sable is studying "Curtacy" this semester, she will soon be meeting Her Majesty the Queen Mum of England, etc, etc, and must first master the art of "Curtacy."


northman

valhalla! to all, for death, and glory
 
Last edited by a moderator: