Questionable ethics in FFA

I'm kind of torn in regards to this ethical question.
For example, in Risk (the boardgame) I find making temporary truces and generally using fiendish mind games is in the spirit of the game. However, this kind of thing doesn't totally sit right with me in PA.
Firstly, in Risk you can always see all of the board, so the skill lies in manipulating your opponents DESPITE them knowing the state of the war.
I've already voiced my opinion on people being able to ruin other players' plans from the grave (FYI I don't agree with it) but giving away intel during the game, I'm undecided.
I think, to avoid any sour feelings, it would be best to come to a gentleman(or woman)'s agreement in the game lobby whether people are allowed to divulge intel on opponents (whether truthful or not, which in itself, is half the fun), or even come to temporary truces. While I certainly condone the latter (fragile alliances make for some exciting and tense gameplay), I think the former is an acquired taste.
Anyway TL;DR give people the choice to give away intel.

choose your way but letting others decide for you is what's making them angry, if you're categorical about your choices no one will be a dic k.

also lying is well appreciated amongst strategists. If attention span is part of strategy then so is conversation and manipulation, the last two are the 90% of what make phantomX and Murder Party mods fun. Game modes that will likely be comming to PA in vanilla.

yeppers. information (and dis-information) is what war and strategy is all about! it belongs in a game as much as any unit or other strategy/tactic does.

As long as you're not a spectator (or eliminated) it's totally fair (even smart). Both true info and false info. Telling everyone about a common threat is good for all (except the threat) and that threat will come to you 1st if you are the 1 bringing attention to it. So it is wise to reveal if the threat is already very eminent, but not so much if you are able to avoid it.

Lying is also a great tool. Saying a massive army from blue player is headed towards purple (even though it isn't) might get purple to preemptively attack blue. Who's purple going to believe? The potential attacker saying "No I'm not!" or the third party "trying to give you a heads up"? Maybe let it slip that "red has x planet on lock down" even though you just arrived there and found no 1, it might make the rest of the players avoid the place so they don't "waste their time"

It's wisest to eliminate the biggest threats 1st, and other players are just another tool in your arsonal to do so (and easily expendable once they've outlived their usefulness). Don't take it from me though listen to Sun Tzu:

"Ultimate excellence lies not in winning every battle,
but in defeating the enemy without ever fighting.
The highest form of warfare is to attack strategy itself;
the next, to attack alliances;
the next to attack armies;
the lowest form of war is to attack cities.
Siege warfare is a last resort."

I feel like a lot of people reading the thread are misinterpreting my reasoning.

I find strategies that rely on misinformation to be so fragile as to never rely on them. Same with alliances. Neither are reliable enough to be used.

The biggest unknown in a game is generally what your opponent knows. I eliminate that unknown by having everybody know everything. It is far easier to predict what an opponent will do when you know what they know. And this way, I always do.

I am not trying to direct my opponent. I am forcing them to direct themselves with the same information I have.

That's only true if you have all your eggs in 1 basket. It's like saying "Bombers are not reliable enough to be used" without giving them a fighter escort. All of your tactics need to work in tandem for your strategy to succeed. Misinformation is but 1 tool in your toolbox, but it needs to be complemented with an actual force to take advantage of the opportunities it affords you to realize the fruits of that labour. Never give up an advantage (like a misinformed enemy) without a fight.

"The way of war is a way of deception.
When able, feign inability;
When deploying troops, appear not to be.
When near, appear far;
When far, appear near.
Lure with bait; strike with chaos.
If the enemy is full, be prepared.
If strong, avoid him.
If he is angry, disconcert him.
If he is weak, stir him to pride.
If he is relaxed, harry him;
If his men are harmonious,
split them.
Attack where he is unprepared;
appear where you are unexpected.
This is victory in warfare;
It cannot be divulged in advance" -Sun Tzu

Did you just quote Sun Tzu's "The Art of War"?

Anyway, I don't see how this can be prevented outside arbitrary rules. A pregame option to turn chat in general on/off? If chat is on and a solo player uses a ping then it is seen by all players (because why else would he ping if nobody can see it)?

If it were me, I'd attack the enemy from a side where there is another enemy building close to him, so when he retaliates flee to the nearby enemy and attack him and cause their forces to clash. That takes care of 2 of your enemies, while you simply take care of your own agenda.

Misinformation is an advantage you are unable to know if you have.
I know I have 20 tanks.
I know I have arty at X position.
I cannot know if they don't know I have those. I can only know that they do.

Relying on something that I do not know is unreliable, because there is a good chance it doesn't exist.

Everybody should use all their tools within strategy. With exceptions.

"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near."
-Sun Tzu, The Art of War

"If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected."
-Sun Tzu,The Art of War

I recommend that people wouldn't take a look at the art of war and on war also OODA loop.

@thetrophysystem
Yes he just did. First time paraphrase and second time quoted.

Problem?

Building defense is unreliable too, since you never know if you are actually going to use it. Doesn't mean it's not worth building.

Well FFA does stand for. Free Fuchs All.

But it is everyone against everyone. The enemy of my enemy is my friend as it were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuchs

I don't get it....

I know exactly what the defenses will effect. By having defenses up, I have a more secure grasp over the area they cover, regardless of whether or not the enemy comes that way.

If the enemy knows they are there, they might very well avoid them in order to make them less efficient. In that case, my defenses have served their purpose of protecting their area as well as the unit is able. They don't need to shoot in order to do that.

Defenses are a known increase to firepower in a localized area. Units are a known increase in firepower with their given maneuverability. Walls are a known increase in health. Misinformation is unknowable.

I can rely on things I know to work the way they work. Things I don't know I cannot rely on.

It's why people scout in the first place, so that they can reliably make decisions on what to do next. Sure, you can build a massive land army. Without knowing the types of defenses they have you can't rely on it to perform as expected though. Once you have scouted you can rely on it to work within the bounds of your scouting. Or not work, if you've already made the wrong decision.

It's 'fair', so long as:
- Your intel is limited by what you're able to scout. No free intel from being a spectator.
- Exposing your knowledge carries the risk of retaliation or a lost advantage. You can't 'play' if you can't lose.
- You're not cooperating with a friend you can trust not to turn on you too early. This has no business being in a FFA to begin with.
- Everyone can see what you're saying, so that all parties, including the intended victim, can act on that information as readily as anyone else.
- You're lying. It's the fools' fault for believing you.

Arseface if you refuse to utilize any advantage you cannot absolutely rely on you are missing opportunities your opponents are not. I've said all I can on the subject, but I can't make you a better strategist if you don't want to improve. Read the Art of War, its the most influential strategy guide for over 2,500 years for a reason.

If any of you played Phantom X mod for SC:FA you know how awesome lying in game is, making the game seriously fun. For me, FFA is similar to this since you can set up people to attack other players who you can argue are the biggest threat.

It's kind of nonsensical when you think about it.
I mean really, think about it; 3 armies are fighting each other, army1 gains intel on army2. then announces it to army3, giving army3 an advantage.

Yes it's an advantage against army2, but it also makes it so army3 doesn't need to focus much on scouting army2, since they already have a good idea on what army2 has, and as such can focus more on scouting army1, you.

Not only this, but since army2 now knows that army3 AND you know, it now gives army2 incentive to invest metal and time on fortifying their nuke launcher or whatever, giving army2 an advantage.

What do you gain from this? Practically nothing, you know army2 has a nuke launcher, but so does everyone else.
Giving the enemy any sort of advantage is an incredibly bad move, it only serves to level out intel and strengthen the enemies more than anything.

TL;DR: NEVER GIVE THE ENEMY AN ADVANTAGE.

Can you really trust that intel? You can't because it could be a diversion.

The problem is that there is no way of doing this "stealthily" in-game.

Take RoN - you can quite happily have a civilization you influence to declare war on another, while you're friendly to the other Civ. The two Civs don't know you're talking to the other if you're covert about what you're doing.

IT's basically Game of Thrones stuff.

As for lying/betrayal - if the relationship is no longer beneficial, I don't see an issue.

There is an incident that occurred in Europe now known as the Diplomatic Revolution. Britain and Austria vs France and Prussia became France and Austria vs Britain and Prussia, due to the changing interests of the nations involved. I really see no problem with lying and betrayal. It happens. If you think your northern borders are secure because your ally protects them, and your ally is not your ally, I'm sorry but that's the Game of Thrones.

Look at France's failure during WW2 - failing to realise that Belgium didn't have the military to keep Germany from invading them.

Its not about giving them a fee pass from scouting, its about influencing them to fight for you, and to their own demise.

If they go and attack army2, you attack army3 while he is busy.

Killing 2 birds with one stone.