Mutually Beneficial Destruction

[Ace Rimmer]

Some players, like Ace, will ALWAYS turn on you when you are their ally. Therefore, I'm forced to hit him early and often, or not ally at all.

Actually, it's only been the last week or so that I have indulged in backstabbing. 99% of the time, I do not engage in this. I have to get a little practice in this valid and encouraged tactic before the tournament.

Just ask Feud, or (eu)KudrigY, (recent games) or anyone else that's played more than a couple of games with/against me. I've said many, many, many times... Unless I explicitly state there will be no backstabbing on my part, you can't rule it out. You can rest assured that if I make a pledge of not backstabbing I will stick to it 100%.

[Feud]

Just ask Feud, or (eu)KudrigY, (recent games) or anyone else that's played more than a couple of games with/against me. I've said many, many, many times... Unless I explicitly state there will be no backstabbing on my part, you can't rule it out. You can rest assured that if I make a pledge of not backstabbing I will stick to it 100%.

It's true. I've probably had about 15-20 alliances with Ace, and hes never backstabed me. I"ve had some games where I had untouched cities with 20 miilion people in them sitting undefended right next to Ace, and he didn't touch them (even though he would have won if he had).

I, like Ace, won't backstab if I say that I won't. Otherwise...

[KingAl]

I, like Ace, won't backstab if I say that I won't. Otherwise...

An easy enough claim to make if you never say you won't

[Feud]

I, like Ace, won't backstab if I say that I won't. Otherwise...

An easy enough claim to make if you never say you won't

Making such a claim if I never say I won't would be just as dishonest as saying that I won't backstab and then backstabing anyway. I make the claim from time to time, and when I do I won't backstab. If I don't, I still probably won't, but the option is on the table.

[Benno]

Not what I meant. If I have no chance of winning - even if backstabbing my ally - I most certainly won't. However, when you have someone who has a shot at winning but doesn't take it, its basically like giving someone a free missile shield or an additional 100 nukes, completely distorting the game and making it little to no fun to play. For me the kick in Defcon comes from the fact that you have to always cover all your bases, think of all eventualities and interact with the other players at the same time; and with quasi-teams thats all irrelevant.

I agree with you completely in theory, but in practice, not as much.

Some players, like Ace, will ALWAYS turn on you when you are their ally. Therefore, I'm forced to hit him early and often, or not ally at all.

My point is you can't be predictable when backstabbing. Sometimes you have to wait for the right GAME to do it.

Having said this, if Moscow and Leningrad haven't been hit, and our "alliance" isn't winning, I'm nuking those two, no matter what.

Ah, but this is the true beauty of DEFCON. You're playing against human beings, and you can never be totally sure what the other players are up to. Some of them are trustworthy, some are predictable, some are neither, few are both, and most will occasionally have a little crack at any of the above just to see what happens. Sometimes there is more going on behind the scenes than people realise, and this is what makes for the most fun. I actually haven't played for a while, and while nothing beats a pefectly executed backstab, some of my most satisfying victories (and losses too for that matter) have been when I relied on well placed trust. Sometimes judging someone's character correctly or porudly sticking to the alliance is more satisfying than an actual victory. By the same token, some of the most regrettable "screaming profanities while I bang my head against the wall" defeats have been when that trust wasn't so well placed, or when I failed to undermine someone else's alliance despite offering the most convincing reasons I could possibly come up with. And ah, how sweet the revenge when your former ally's backstab goes horribly wrong. It's all good.

I remember a very satisfying game involving a certain player that proved to be a particularly annoying individual. Calling everyone a noob, boasting about his own expertise, telling everyone to speed up, a constant barrage of stupid insults, you get the picture. Wish I could remember his name...

Anyhow, picture the grins on everyone's faces as the private messages went around:

"What ever else happens, he comes last, agreed?"

"Fantastic. Can I be the first to ally with him, please let me be the first!"

"As long as I get to be the last. "

[Tylerthedruid]

The whole 'alliance-win' as opposed to team win mentality can get annoying. It is the same in Risk. Some people actualyl would get mad at me for betraying them in that game :/.

I think this could be resolved in the losing players had the words "YOU LOSE" cross their screen at the end of the game - which concretes the fact that only one team can win (not necessarily player, but team).

[Denocide]

The strategy explained in the original post is actually a version of the Prisoners' Dilemma. It's interesting because the "rational" decision, the one with the highest net gain of points, is the one where both players comply, but it's doubtful it will be the usual decision. Here's why:

Code: Select all

               P2 Obeys | P2 Betrays
P1 Obeys  | +100 / +100 | -100 / +200
P2 Betrays| +200 / -100 |    0 / 0


(P1's outcome on left, P2's on right)

Obeying is defined as launching all missiles at the other player's cities, while Betraying is defined as turning off cease fire. Assume 100% casualty rate or perfect defenses.

Each player can increase his own points by making a move other than complying. Of course, once each player betrays, their defenses will shoot down each others missiles, and no one scores any points. The "rational" decision of both obeying is unstable, and you'd have to have a pretty cold-hearted "ally" to convince him to sacrifice his population so you both have a maximum net gain. Some might agree to the decision, thinking, "It'd be so easy to simply not turn on cease-fire, he wouldn't notice until it was too late!" Or maybe, "He's trying to trick me, I better not let my guard down." Either way, any sane/reasonably paranoid player wouldn't obey, so the tactic wouldn't work.

[KingAl]

However, as Defcon is real-time rather than turn-based, one player can easily turn off ceasefire - and thus 'betray' - when they see the other has. Perhaps the greater betrayal would be to target their silos.

[Denocide]

However, as Defcon is real-time rather than turn-based, one player can easily turn off ceasefire - and thus 'betray' - when they see the other has. Perhaps the greater betrayal would be to target their silos.

Very true, however, the information that the other has betrayed may not be immediately noticeable, though I agree that a better betrayal would target the silos. The scenario I put forth made a bunch of assumptions and idealizations anyway, but I still think it's relevant.

[Grim_Reaper]

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Denocide for getting this thread back on topic, and God, for the fact that it doesn't seem like any of the pairs of [expletive deleted] that sometimes work together in Defcon have happened upon this strategy. I just wouldn't be able to live with myself.

In my original post I too made a assumptions and idealizations that would make this strategy impractical. If it were to employed in reality, a few nukes to the others largest city, delivered by bombers that have been made to get close to their target without firing, would probably the best method.

Also, I must confess that I've gone and completely pilfered that matrix Denocide used in his first post to make a similar remark in another thread, namely "Self Nuking?".



- War does not determine who is right, it determines who is left.

[<Demosthenes>]

Mutually assured destruction works great, so long as you have someone you know and can trust. By the numbers, if both individuals nuke each other completely, they may have used a few nukes (tho none to AA), but now both have 100 score and no pop for other adversaries to grab. As a result, these two individuals are free to nuke everyone else, do not have to worry about each other, and can now compete to get the higher score. This does not require a "follower" willing to take the fall, and these two individuals can typically end in first and second place.

[shinygerbil]

Mutually assured destruction works great, so long as you have someone you know and can trust. By the numbers, if both individuals nuke each other completely, they may have used a few nukes (tho none to AA), but now both have 100 score and no pop for other adversaries to grab. As a result, these two individuals are free to nuke everyone else, do not have to worry about each other, and can now compete to get the higher score. This does not require a "follower" willing to take the fall, and these two individuals can typically end in first and second place.

*huge cough*

Did you somehow miss this?

[<Demosthenes>]

my bad, guess I did... Thats a long ass thread tho man...

[shinygerbil]

Well, here's the gist:


Erasmus J Homeowner: I saw some play that was perfectly legal but very unsporting, so I'm dropping out of the tournament. I don't want to be a part of that.

Weps: GRRRRRR

Everyone else: OMG CHEATERS!!!! THIS IS REALLY BAD AND DEFINITELY CHEATING!!!! DIE!!!!

A few others, such as xander, RedDwarf and bert: It's evil, but not cheating. Naughty naughty. Now let's discuss tactics...

Me and Bonsai: Actually is was f**king risky, and it's not cheating. Imagine what could happen if one of us decided to backstab. Also, aren't some people being a bit harsh?

Everyone else: K you're right I guess.

A few others, such as xander, RedDwarf and bert: Yup, told you. Anyway, you can have your revenge in the next round.

Erasmus J Homeowner: I overreacted a little, but my point stands. I didn't expect everyone to roast shiny and Bonsai so much.

Me and Bonsai: No worries, you were right to bring it up. 'Tis cool.

Erasmus J Homeowner: lol

Me and Bonsai: lol

A few others, such as xander, RedDwarf and bert: lol

Everyone else: lol

Weps: *silence*

[Ace Rimmer]

Well, here's the gist:


Erasmus J Homeowner: I saw some play that was perfectly legal but very unsporting, so I'm dropping out of the tournament. I don't want to be a part of that.

Weps: GRRRRRR and I shall heretofore not play Defcon, at least as Weps any further. I shall also abstain from posting on the forums.


Everyone else: OMG CHEATERS!!!! THIS IS REALLY BAD AND DEFINITELY CHEATING!!!! DIE!!!!

A few others, such as xander, RedDwarf and bert: It's evil, but not cheating. Naughty naughty. Now let's discuss tactics...

Me and Bonsai: Actually is was f**king risky, and it's not cheating. Imagine what could happen if one of us decided to backstab. Also, aren't some people being a bit harsh?

Everyone else: K you're right I guess.

A few others, such as xander, RedDwarf and bert: Yup, told you. Anyway, you can have your revenge in the next round.

Erasmus J Homeowner: I overreacted a little, but my point stands. I didn't expect everyone to roast shiny and Bonsai so much.

Me and Bonsai: No worries, you were right to bring it up. 'Tis cool.

Erasmus J Homeowner: lol

Me and Bonsai: lol

A few others, such as xander, RedDwarf and bert: lol

Everyone else: lol

Weps: *silence*

Fix'd