Believablity of a MAD doctrine?

Use this forum to discuss Diplomacy strategy.
Forum rules
This forum is limited to topics relating to the game Diplomacy only. Other posts or topics will be relocated to the correct forum category or deleted. Please be respectful and follow our normal site rules at http://www.webdiplomacy.net/rules.php.
Post Reply
Message
Author
osric_athanasius
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2018 12:13 am
Karma: 5
Contact:

Believablity of a MAD doctrine?

#1 Post by osric_athanasius » Tue Jan 29, 2019 11:15 am

Greetings,

I am curious as to a general opinions about if you would believe someone stating that they had a MAD doctrine on betrayal?

I define a MAD doctrine to one that:
1) Is publicly stated before alliances.
2) Is one that should the Player A be betrayed in an alliance that Player A would then attempt to destroy the other player without regard for the victory conditions of the game.

In essence, you cross me then we both die.
The public statement is what converts this to a diplomatic strategy based on threat compared to just revenge.

If you saw a statement like this, would you believe the player making it will follow through on it?

Senlac
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:23 pm
Karma: 166
Contact:

Re: Believablity of a MAD doctrine?

#2 Post by Senlac » Tue Jan 29, 2019 11:29 am

Believe it? Yes.
Exploit it? Definitely.
1

Octavious
Posts: 3845
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Karma: 2605
Contact:

Re: Believablity of a MAD doctrine?

#3 Post by Octavious » Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:28 pm

osric_athanasius wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 11:15 am
Greetings,

I am curious as to a general opinions about if you would believe someone stating that they had a MAD doctrine on betrayal?

I define a MAD doctrine to one that:
1) Is publicly stated before alliances.
2) Is one that should the Player A be betrayed in an alliance that Player A would then attempt to destroy the other player without regard for the victory conditions of the game.

In essence, you cross me then we both die.
The public statement is what converts this to a diplomatic strategy based on threat compared to just revenge.

If you saw a statement like this, would you believe the player making it will follow through on it?
Why does a public declaration prior to an alliance change anything?

Treat all allies as potential MAD players. As you get to know them evaluate how likely you imagine this response to be. A public declaration will be part of the evidence in your evaluation, but on its own I wouldn't give it much weight. Much like some painful insects have black and yellow stripes to advertise their sting, and other harmless insects have the same stripes to pretend they have a sting.

Of course whether the insect has a sting or not is irrelevant if you hit it hard enough.
3

Claesar
Posts: 1965
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:34 am
Karma: 1490
Contact:

Re: Believablity of a MAD doctrine?

#4 Post by Claesar » Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:25 pm

If two players would declare this, I'd email the mods [email protected] to investigate whether they're metagaming.
2

Puddle
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:18 pm
Karma: 27
Contact:

Re: Believablity of a MAD doctrine?

#5 Post by Puddle » Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:43 pm

I'm more inclined to Octavious' response than yours Claesar. Why would this be meta-gaming and not just normal diplomacy behavior/communication?
2

Senlac
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:23 pm
Karma: 166
Contact:

Re: Believablity of a MAD doctrine?

#6 Post by Senlac » Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:00 pm

I’d be more inclined to suspect multiaccounting, than metagaming. After all what are the odds of two players in one game having identical clumsy diplomatic approaches? :-D
2

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests