So I understand the idea behind this concept,

and I'd be inclined to follow it if I could trust others to do likewise...

but since competitive games don't work that way...

Especially since Private Messages can be banned ingame,
but WarLight Mail messages can not be banned.

How do other people handle such "No Diplomacy Allowed" requests if they are intent on joining
the game?

I'm not suggesting that I would tag-team a player in a "No Diplo" game,
because I don't think that I would.

Although in a normal FFA or 3+ teams-based game I would consider it if
it were necessary to prevent my immediate annihilation...

but even in a "No Diplo" game, isn't the short-term goal basically:

1) to avoid a debilitating war earlier than necessary.
2) to avoid getting tag-teamed... either intentionally by people less honest than I am,
or unintentionally, by having different opponents bordering me.

with the additional longer-term goals of:

3) learning all you can about your opponents' playing styles, risk of getting booted,
plans for conquest, other opponents on the board, confidence in their plans and skills, etc.
4) winning...
5) ...

I understand that if everyone is honest enough to reject forbidden forms of diplomacy and to call someone out if necessary, that this is easy enough...

But it's really not that hard to sniff out whether or not your opponents truly expect one to be that honest without breaking any rules...

but even if my opponents were that ethical, could I reasonably trust ALL of them not to collude with each other?

Is it just a common prisoners' dilemma scenario... where all I need to do is cooperate in order to achieve the best outcome?

And what exactly does "No Diplo Allowed" mean to different people?

I know what you mean. I joined this 30 player FFA, and I joined a non agression pact with another player, and the host freaked out, saying this wasn't a diplomacy game, and that we were ruining it. I don't understand how having peace with someone for the first 10-20 turns is bad. It helps one of us win, and makes sure we make it past the early rounds.

the problema is that there is a huge amount of players in warlight who expect others to play entirely based on short term goals, as if there were no longe-term goals, and when you dont do it they claim you are not playing ffa as you should.

If you have 5 borders and you fight all you lose the game, thats clearl as heel. when they claim that you dont fight some of the weakest to create some opposition against the strongest si wrong, they just dont know how to play ffa and you should ignore them

I don't take FFAs seriously as strategic games as it's near impossible to guarantee an even start. That said, I honor No Diplo requests because those games were specifically made with the intent of creating a brutal "state of nature"-type environment. I find it strategically entertaining to prioritize my armies as I fight multiple players instead of just having to worry about one, and would appreciate it if all players in a "No Diplo" FFA either played by that stated rule or just didn't join to begin with.

Doesn't "no diplo" mean that PMs are disabled ?

Obviously, going outside of the game to communicate with an opponent is cheating in such regard,
but that's pretty much it.

Occasionally the host's intent is that all diplo goes through public chat,
but i think it's hard to understand for players that "diplo is allowed but only public."

Really? When I do a No Diplo, it's just straight-up no diplo. It's what I enjoy about the game- the need to worry about *all* my borders.

I was more referring to the no PMs allowed-option.

truly it wouldn't matter if there was no pm, I have a friend that plays war light with me all the time, and I know of at least 2 other people who play who play war light that I talk to on a regular basis, and not to be mean but if we saw a rise in "no diplo "games we would be laughing our heads off as we destroyed every one on that map before we turned against each other, I know we would not b the only ones doing this.

Sounds like an unenforceable concept to me. There is no way for a host to guarantee that the rules are followed except to only invite players that they know to be completely honest in all facets of life... in other words, it's impossible.

when i said what i said above i ment that i dont make diplomacy, but i dotn fight everyone the same way

This style of play is, quite clearly, not enforceable. (Particularly since we have "Player Mail" in Warlight. Without it - perhaps with anonymous play? - it would be more realistic to enforce this kind of game, although people could still collude *outside* of the game.)

However, if you can play with people you trust, it's a lot of fun, and makes for very interesting games. I've seen two variations:

1. No diplomatic overtures at all. You play the moves on the board, and that's it.

It's possible to "signal" your peaceful to a neighbour by a) not making attacks against them, and b) not deploying too much on their borders.

(This works sometimes; but, obviously, isn't a "safe" strategy. You're trading off risk - exposing yourself to invasion - for a competitive advantage in another fight.)

2. Diplomacy is fine, but it all has to be in the public chat. (In Diplomacy games, this is referred to as "Public Press Only".) So everyone can see what everyone is writing. What you write in the chat is more like propaganda than strict deal-making. This can be a lot of fun, too!

Of course, I can see some people taking the attitude that, hey, I'm going to join that game, ally with my friend, and crush everyone!

That seems rather unsportsmanlike to me. You really can't accept the possibility of a game where each player voluntarily agrees to a handicap in order to make the game more interesting?

If someone hosts a game, with the condition that anyone joining agrees to play by the rules, and you join with the express intent of betraying that agreement... you're just being an asshole. Just don't play that game.

It's not any different than joining a group of people who say, "Hey, we love to play tag with blindfolds on. Want to play?" And you agree to play, then take off your blindfold, and win the game.

Congratulations. What have you proven? Nothing. Anyone could have done the same; it's not exactly a great achievement to win a game by going against the agreed-upon rules.

Now, what are the advantages of such a game?

* Your strategic play is tested much more than your diplomatic skills. It is a more "fair" measure of your actual strategic Warlight skills. If you're looking for more of a challenge to your skills, this is a good playstyle for you.

* You don't have to spend time and/or stress about the whole diplomacy angle: messages, arguments, betrayals, and so on. Some people want to avoid that drama, or they find it too time-consuming. If that's how you feel, it's a very valid approach to playing a FFA game.

Edited 8/12/2015 19:27:14