Communicating with your enemy

[TheChosen1]

Communicating with your enemy can be very good, if your smart and your a good diplomat, you can convince him that your gonna stop attacking him and start working with him in the next turn, or just get some details from him, and you can even find out that the war with him is a mistake and make peace.
But I am having one problem with that, and that is the first message, how can I start a conversation with someone I just attacked? How can I make sure he'll answer me back?

[Luke T]

This is the perfect time to use rich language to create a combination between an apology and a plan. If you combine those two elements, it will usually "subconsciously" convince your enemy to listen to you because he remembers you apoligizing, just not how or where in the message. If you are the one to first send a message of peace, be careful if he only replies after a few turns, because it means he's halfhearted. If he contacted you, then its either a trap or a depserate plea.

[fishmo]

I largely agree with Luke -- starting with something like "Wow! After examining the board and seeing what others did, I now see I committed a huge mistake. I'd like to find a way to cooperate for our mutual survival. Are you open to that?" But I agree, if s/he doesn't answer promptly, it's a set up. It might be anyway.

I've only played a few games and I'm finding even with rather long diplomacy periods (days), some people will only respond sometimes, and even then with very brief ... sometimes cryptic ... notes. I'm starting to understand where the "no communication" variants came from. I may someday also try the shoutbox only communication game. Right now, I just want to try classic with all countries. But what I'm getting at is: terse commo from a recently stabbed guy doesn't (in my experience) mean he's setting you up necessarily.

[Andrew D]

But I agree, if s/he doesn't answer promptly, it's a set up.

I agree with everything others have said really apart from the bit above. IMO if I wanted to set someone up, I would reply immediately. This is because it is unlikely I would tell my allies that much for obvious reasons, and even then even less likely I would be asking their permission, so there is no one to communicate with. Likewise there are no real decisions to have to make since it is doing nothing, so it is very easy to just reply with what they want to hear...

On the other hand a real commitment means manoeuvring allies against each other, perhaps getting multiple agreements in place, and so takes time. Obviously you would be discussing with the proposer simultaneously, and would want to discuss a reasonable amount before making such a commitment, but I would have thought that agreeing too quickly is more likely to be a set-up. My question would be: you are taking a big risk very easily, why?

Having said this as you noted at the end a reasonable number of people barely respond and thus in these situations what I have said is a bit irrelevant. I suppose what I am getting at is a long delay < an instant response < a short delay, where only the last one is likely to be a reliable long-term alliance due to inactivity/no intention of following through on the first and no intention of following through for the second.

Andrew

[Caladin]

I frequently make up broken alliances; for example, in one game that I was playing as Russia I invaded Germany, capturing a large number of territory's.

The next turn my Turkish ally stabbed me, so I retreated from Germany, returning both Munich and Berlin, as well as a few other territory's, and sent everything against the Turks.

We are now working moderately successfully together.

If the other player is at all sensible, and you honestly want peace, it can be relatively simple to do, depending on the board.

[rick.leeds]

I'm constantly telling myself I should be communicating more. Sometimes it is the effort of wondering what to say that stops me. When you've just stabbed someone, taken (hopefully) a couple of SCs, or at least an SC when he's committed his forces away from your's, and you picture him opening the game to see the adjudication for the first time and seeing the betrayal... Well, it is only a game, but when I am the one in that position I know how frustrated I feel that he would be SO STUPID as to do that NOW!!! So I know what Chosen means:

But I am having one problem with that, and that is the first message, how can I start a conversation with someone I just attacked? How can I make sure he'll answer me back?

That first post-betrayal message is tough to put together. And if the player doesn't respond, then trying to encourage a response by messaging again, after another turn when you have had to press on with the attack (after all, you expected some come back from him), is even more difficult.

But one key is to have decent communication from the start. Not just the strategic stuff, but other things, too. Finding something in common, throwing out the odd question that isn't related to the game, having a bit of a chat... in other words, trying to build some kind of relationship that isn't only based upon the game, establishing a likeable personality. if that is what you've managed to do, then continuing with some form of communication then is easier.

[sock]

I'm often astounded by the lack of patience I see in these games, and the tendency of some players to stab you without any long range game plan.

Message for younger players...some of us old coots don't just roll into a fetal position and die when attacked. We bide our time...reach out to other players...try to hold on until the winds change...and then sometimes re-establish relationships with former enemies, because it is in the best interest of all parties. To me, that's where the fun lies in the game....managing the ebb and flow...

It's a long game...which is why it is foolish to stop talking to people...just realize that sometimes you really need to have a little distance before you reach out to someone you may have stabbed. Don't try to justify your action. Let your own game plan evolve, and if things don't work out as you wanted, get back in touch with a current enemy, if you can show how it will be in both parties' interests that working together makes sense.

[MasterZone]

Funny story, so once I sent my ally an in-game message, and it was an arguement of some sort.

My Internet speed was very slow, so I accidently clicked the send key, maybe twenty to thirty times or so, and my ally became an instant enemy, since he found his inbox flooded.

Seriously, I never knew I would be sending it so many times, I thought that if I continued to press "SEND", it would work like the REFRESH thing...

Communications led to my ally to become an enemy, never the opposite.

[Caladin]

I frequently send the wrong message; I am planning to stab an ally, and I send the entire conversation with my confirmation to them...

That calls for emergency fire control.

[Pokerface]

But one key is to have decent communication from the start. Not just the strategic stuff, but other things, too. Finding something in common, throwing out the odd question that isn't related to the game, having a bit of a chat... in other words, trying to build some kind of relationship that isn't only based upon the game, establishing a likeable personality. if that is what you've managed to do, then continuing with some form of communication then is easier.

I did that in a game. It felt soooo awful. We started talking and he was a really nice person and we got a long great. Then I had the chance to stab him but I must have switched my orders like 10 times and in the end I couldn't bring myself to stab him. We ended having a 2 way draw I believe.

Basically what everyone else has but also I find what helps get a reply if you put

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts or Looking forward to hearing from you or something along those lines.