I would totally get in on the next game, assuming there's room. Being able to have my own plans from the beginning would be a nice change from taking over someone else's.
I would submit that the gameplay mechanic is lying to people, and conquering Europe is the win condition.
I would actually say that lying is to be avoided as much as possible in Diplomacy, not for any moral reasons but because people get to know you're a lying weasel and they no longer trust you. Diplomacy is the gameplay mechanic. That's what MrMister is saying here:
If the whole point of the game were lying and betraying trust then there would be no point in actual diplomacy. You might as well play gunboat (where the players aren't allowed to communicate) since it's not like it matters what anyone says anyway.
One part of the strategy of the game is being able to peg people as lying weasels and goodie-two-shoes, and being able to tell when someone is giving you their word for real real and when someone is just trying to smooth your feathers before planting the knife in your back.
I think you misunderstand him. He's not saying that having the possibility of betrayal ruins any kind of good diplomatic relationship, as you suggest; he's saying that it is necessary that there is at least some element of truth in diplomacy between players, as if everything is false then there is no point in listening to any of it.
I would submit that the gameplay mechanic is lying to people, and conquering Europe is the win condition.
I would actually say that lying is to be avoided as much as possible in Diplomacy, not for any moral reasons but because people get to know you're a lying weasel and they no longer trust you. Diplomacy is the gameplay mechanic. That's what MrMister is saying here:
If the whole point of the game were lying and betraying trust then there would be no point in actual diplomacy. You might as well play gunboat (where the players aren't allowed to communicate) since it's not like it matters what anyone says anyway.
One part of the strategy of the game is being able to peg people as lying weasels and goodie-two-shoes, and being able to tell when someone is giving you their word for real real and when someone is just trying to smooth your feathers before planting the knife in your back.
I think you misunderstand him. He's not saying that having the possibility of betrayal ruins any kind of good diplomatic relationship, as you suggest; he's saying that it is necessary that there is at least some element of truth in diplomacy between players, as if everything is false then there is no point in listening to any of it.
Of course an element of trust is necessary. As I said, multiple times, the game is based around earning people's trust, and betraying it. You have to make alliances to win, but you also have to break them. It's completely possible to make an effective alliance even though you know that every player is looking out for their own interests.
However, and this is what people seem to keep missing:
The problem is ABSOLUTE TRUST. If you have an ally, and both of you are willing to settle for a draw, then your chances of betrayal just shot to about 0. It's an alliance without risk.
The most interesting mechanic of this game to me is having to judge between possible allies, and gauging how much I trust them versus how much I don't. But I have to make that decision. In an alliance win, you don't.
However, and this is what people seem to keep missing:
The problem is ABSOLUTE TRUST. If you have an ally, and both of you are willing to settle for a draw, then your chances of betrayal just shot to about 0. It's an alliance without risk.
The most interesting mechanic of this game to me is having to judge between possible allies, and gauging how much I trust them versus how much I don't. But I have to make that decision. In an alliance win, you don't.
There is a meta-game concept here that you are missing. "Diplomacy" isn't just meant for one session. Some of your arguments seem to assume that as soon as a game is completed everyone forgets whats happened and everyone starts with a blank slate when the next game starts. That is, you assume there is no value to referring to your past actions in previous games. That doesn't happen, players remember what you did the last time you played, and especially in a game like this thats played out in public.
Both players left in the last game had to weigh the value of a possible "win" with the value of their perceived fairness and honesty in the next game they play. This was stated several times as the primary purpose for at least one side for officially agreeing to the draw (as opposed to just telling the other player they would).
Accepting the draw is a VERY persuasive meta-game move that will defiantly play heavily in the next Diplomacy game.
I think a large problem here is that you are imposing what you consider a "win" on everyone else, and cannot understand why they don't want to "win." I am frequently called on to take over for abandoned players in play-by-email games, my "win" condition in most of these games is to still have units on the board when the game is over. Someone else's "win" condition might be to see how many people they can dupe into allying with them and then stabbing them in the back. Lets be honest here, if everyone was only playing for 18 centers we would never be able to finish a game. As soon as someone got into a position that they could not get 18 centers, they would just quit, and no one would come in to replace them.
I feel an occasional intentional draw is necessary in order to give players something to play towards aside from gaining 18 centers, which isn't always possible anyway.
There is a meta-game concept here that you are missing. "Diplomacy" isn't just meant for one session. Some of your arguments seem to assume that as soon as a game is completed everyone forgets whats happened and everyone starts with a blank slate when the next game starts. That is, you assume there is no value to referring to your past actions in previous games. That doesn't happen, players remember what you did the last time you played, and especially in a game like this thats played out in public.
That's very interesting, except for the complete opposite happened here. The two players didn't betray each other, and immediately looked bad to everyone else. I think that this kind of ending just shows what a weak player you are.
Both players left in the last game had to weigh the value of a possible "win" with the value of their perceived fairness and honesty in the next game they play. This was stated several times as the primary purpose for at least one side for officially agreeing to the draw (as opposed to just telling the other player they would).
If you can't separate a person's actions from game to game, and look on each one as a new entity, then YOU are a bad player.
I mean, are you seriously telling me you're going to begrudge a player for trying to win? That just because someone won the game by playing it correctly, that you think there's something wrong there?
I think a large problem here is that you are imposing what you consider a "win" on everyone else, and cannot understand why they don't want to "win." I am frequently called on to take over for abandoned players in play-by-email games, my "win" condition in most of these games is to still have units on the board when the game is over. Someone else's "win" condition might be to see how many people they can dupe into allying with them and then stabbing them in the back. Lets be honest here, if everyone was only playing for 18 centers we would never be able to finish a game. As soon as someone got into a position that they could not get 18 centers, they would just quit, and no one would come in to replace them.
I can't even begin to fathom your logic. Why did you start playing the game of chess if your definition of victory is not losing your bishops? I can't believe that wanting to play to the victory condition determined by the game rules is the wrong thing to do here. Did I somehow log onto the special olympics message board where everyone is a winner?
I feel an occasional intentional draw is necessary in order to give players something to play towards aside from gaining 18 centers, which isn't always possible anyway.
There is a meta-game concept here that you are missing. "Diplomacy" isn't just meant for one session. Some of your arguments seem to assume that as soon as a game is completed everyone forgets whats happened and everyone starts with a blank slate when the next game starts. That is, you assume there is no value to referring to your past actions in previous games. That doesn't happen, players remember what you did the last time you played, and especially in a game like this thats played out in public.
That's very interesting, except for the complete opposite happened here. The two players didn't betray each other, and immediately looked bad to everyone else. I think that this kind of ending just shows what a weak player you are.
Right, thus illustrating my point that there is value in the previous game. You can now use this information to your advantage, by attempting to enter into this kind of alliance with this person, all you have to do is convince them that you will likewise agree to a draw, and then simply not do it. They can use this to their advantage to convince another player to enter into an alliance with them citing the evidence that they honored their agreement last game.
Both players left in the last game had to weigh the value of a possible "win" with the value of their perceived fairness and honesty in the next game they play. This was stated several times as the primary purpose for at least one side for officially agreeing to the draw (as opposed to just telling the other player they would).
If you can't separate a person's actions from game to game, and look on each one as a new entity, then YOU are a bad player.
I mean, are you seriously telling me you're going to begrudge a player for trying to win? That just because someone won the game by playing it correctly, that you think there's something wrong there?
Honestly in a game like diplomacy, treating each game as a separate entity is foolhardy. Its just throwing away previous data on how trustworthy a person is, that can help you decide on how to deal with them.
I am not going to begrudge a player who tries to win, but rather am going to notate how he did so. If a player routinely breaks all promises, than I am simply not going to align with him in future games. If a player never lies to me, I will trust him to not lie in future games. This is not at odds with winning, it depends on the terms of the alliance. "I will not attack you until 1905" is a promise that is easy to keep, but does not preclude me from winning.
I think a large problem here is that you are imposing what you consider a "win" on everyone else, and cannot understand why they don't want to "win." I am frequently called on to take over for abandoned players in play-by-email games, my "win" condition in most of these games is to still have units on the board when the game is over. Someone else's "win" condition might be to see how many people they can dupe into allying with them and then stabbing them in the back. Lets be honest here, if everyone was only playing for 18 centers we would never be able to finish a game. As soon as someone got into a position that they could not get 18 centers, they would just quit, and no one would come in to replace them.
I can't even begin to fathom your logic. Why did you start playing the game of chess if your definition of victory is not losing your bishops? I can't believe that wanting to play to the victory condition determined by the game rules is the wrong thing to do here. Did I somehow log onto the special olympics message board where everyone is a winner?
I feel an occasional intentional draw is necessary in order to give players something to play towards aside from gaining 18 centers, which isn't always possible anyway.
Why is failure something to strive for?
Winning is not always possible. Once again, this game is set up in such a way that some times there is nothing you can do to achieve 18 centers. It is simply not possible. That is why the rules allow for a draw. As already noted there are many many scenarios where draws will net you some points, which is better than no points. Realizing that you cannot Win and fighting for the Draw is sometimes preferable to continuing to fight for the win, knowing it is doomed to failure, or just quitting. If there is no chance of a draw, there is no reason to keep playing.
In my experience a solo win is very very rare. I always strive for a solo win, but I recognize that most games it simply isn't possible. Let me reword my stance like this:
Strive for a solo win, but barring that Strive for the Draw.
ElderCat on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
The problem is ABSOLUTE TRUST. If you have an ally, and both of you are willing to settle for a draw, then your chances of betrayal just shot to about 0. It's an alliance without risk.
The risk is that they're lying to you, and that their real plan is to knife you at the last second and steal the win. I've already pointed out that Than and I were sweating bullets up until the very end of the game--there was plenty of risk.
You've already conceded that there's nothing overpowered about two-player draws. So, why not just not participate them? Why should it bother you when other players team up Fo Lyfe if it's not an unfair advantage against the more weasily players?
Finally,
If you can't separate a person's actions from game to game, and look on each one as a new entity, then YOU are a bad player.
As someone who has played Diplomacy with the same group of people over a span of many years, allow me to point out that this is totally full of shit.
One of my friends loved to stabbity stab stab whenever he could get a couple builds out of it. Another of my friends would stand by you through thick and thin if you were his first ally. They reliably played in the same ways, because that's how they liked to play. If I were to ignore that, then I would be the bad player.
Assuming you're playing against perfectly rational actors and that game occurs in vacuum is a terrible strategy. Your opponents are people, and barring ridiculous levels of professionalism that's how they'll act.
I'm curious as to where you got the idea that having to go for a solo win is playing the game "correctly," SIAR?
Note that I have had no experience with the game other than reading the rules. The rules stated that in the case of a draw, all the drawing players are considered winners. Not losers, not "tie-ers," winners. From that, I determined that one way to win was to find an ally, and be willing to settle for a tie. I did, and I was. I must've missed the part of the rules where it mentions "everyone must strive to be the sole winner!"
Really, there was nothing at all in this thread that gave me that impression. Was there something I missed? Did RBB say somewhere "you're not a real winner if you tie?"
Well, ideally people wouldn't be so easily pigeonholed. It'd be like playing poker with everyone knowing what your tells are. You're not going to win like that.
You can't be relied upon if you're unpredictable (and you will get taken out if people think you're crazy), but at the same time, if you're predictable, people are just going to take advantage of you. Whenever I play the game, I do keep in mind the personalities I'm playing with, mostly so I have a handle on how to talk to them and how to persuade them to my side, but I know that personally my intentions on backstabbing somebody versus staying in a longterm alliance with them is almost entirely based on the board. If I know I can trust someone, but they're in a shitty position, I'm not going far with them because they can't help me in that game. If I'm near somebody who's burned me in the past but I know he's my only shot at getting to the end, I'm going to be working my ass off to work with him, all the while keeping an eye on our borders.
I have friends I've played this game with where all they used to do is lie, and after the first few games they never had a chance until they proved they learned their lesson. But the same thing happened with the people who always wanted to have a permanent alliance with people, especially since they would leave themselves open because they grew to trust their partner more and more.
EDIT: Another thing to keep in mind SiaR: one of the best ways to get people to stop kicking the crap out of you is to point out to them the giant two person alliance building up behind them to come screw everyone over. If you see two people who you think are just going to sweep over the board, you have to do everything in your power to get the rest of the board to turn against them, and you have to do your best to turn them against each other. It's tough, especially when the two are real life friends and especially if they're new to the game, but throw around enough paranoia and point out their weak spots to them and they might start eyeing each other up instead of you.
EDIT: Another thing to keep in mind SiaR: one of the best ways to get people to stop kicking the crap out of you is to point out to them the giant two person alliance building up behind them to come screw everyone over. If you see two people who you think are just going to sweep over the board, you have to do everything in your power to get the rest of the board to turn against them, and you have to do your best to turn them against each other. It's tough, especially when the two are real life friends and especially if they're new to the game, but throw around enough paranoia and point out their weak spots to them and they might start eyeing each other up instead of you.
I'd like to point out that while Kusu and I know each other over the internet, the sole interaction MrMister and I had had up until we played this game was me calling his chosen pursuit "totally useless," and mocking it, and not in a fun kind of way, in a "you're useless and so is your major" kind of way.
It's not like there was a lot of subtlety behind our strategy; I got big really fast, took out England with France. I was, by a significant margin, the biggest country in the game until near the end. It's not like you couldn't see it coming, or something. I left no defenses on the French side of my border. Honestly, I considered getting so big that early in the game something of a tactical blunder, since I expected everyone to gang up on me. It didn't happen, but that doesn't mean we were somehow "totally unbeatable." Far from it.
Honestly, I fully expected to be betrayed; I figured MrMister was just biding his time, planning to get back at me for all the mean things I'd said about/to him. I know I probably would have. The fact that it didn't work out that way just validates our strategy.
Seriously, you and Russia could have done the same thing. Or, hell, even you, Austria, and Italy. The problem is that no one trusted you at all, whereas I had one good ally, which is all I needed. So, apparently the "make offers to everyone to screw everyone else" strategy isn't so good, whereas the "make a couple of offers, screw a couple of people" strategy is.
You've already conceded that there's nothing overpowered about two-player draws. So, why not just not participate them? Why should it bother you when other players team up Fo Lyfe if it's not an unfair advantage against the more weasily players?
1) I did no such thing.
2) Because I like to play games to win, not to not-lose.
3) The whole purpose of this argument is that I think the rules of the game should promote number 2, above.
One of my friends loved to stabbity stab stab whenever he could get a couple builds out of it. Another of my friends would stand by you through thick and thin if you were his first ally. They reliably played in the same ways, because that's how they liked to play. If I were to ignore that, then I would be the bad player.
Assuming you're playing against perfectly rational actors and that game occurs in vacuum is a terrible strategy. Your opponents are people, and barring ridiculous levels of professionalism that's how they'll act.
All right, I take back what I said, it was not correct. However, I would like to change it to: If you can't separate a person's actions from game to game, then THEY are a bad player. I have also played with these types of people, who do the same damn thing every game, use the same fucking strategies. Wouldn't it be nice to have the game not promote that?
I'm curious as to where you got the idea that having to go for a solo win is playing the game "correctly," SIAR?
Note that I have had no experience with the game other than reading the rules. The rules stated that in the case of a draw, all the drawing players are considered winners. Not losers, not "tie-ers," winners. From that, I determined that one way to win was to find an ally, and be willing to settle for a tie. I did, and I was. I must've missed the part of the rules where it mentions "everyone must strive to be the sole winner!"
Really, there was nothing at all in this thread that gave me that impression. Was there something I missed? Did RBB say somewhere "you're not a real winner if you tie?"
I don't know what SIAR is, if you're referencing something I don't get it.
I understand completely that the rules completely support what happened, thanks for not reading my posts. I never said that they did. What I AM arguing, is that the rules SHOULD. My point is that only allowing single victory better enhances the gameplay, and promotes the core game mechanic, and is also more interesting.
Another thing to keep in mind SiaR: one of the best ways to get people to stop kicking the crap out of you is to point out to them the giant two person alliance building up behind them to come screw everyone over. If you see two people who you think are just going to sweep over the board, you have to do everything in your power to get the rest of the board to turn against them, and you have to do your best to turn them against each other. It's tough, especially when the two are real life friends and especially if they're new to the game, but throw around enough paranoia and point out their weak spots to them and they might start eyeing each other up instead of you.
This is a pretty brilliant action. I say that because it's exactly what I did in the game that just occurred. Every other player on the board tried their damndest to get France and Germany to turn on each other, but they never did, never even made any moves towards any territory at all. As far as I know, they never even allied with anyone else. But it didn't work. Why should it? They had no possible reason to turn on each other. And that's exactly what I'm arguing should change. Thanks for supporting my position so nicely.
EDIT: Another thing to keep in mind SiaR: one of the best ways to get people to stop kicking the crap out of you is to point out to them the giant two person alliance building up behind them to come screw everyone over. If you see two people who you think are just going to sweep over the board, you have to do everything in your power to get the rest of the board to turn against them, and you have to do your best to turn them against each other. It's tough, especially when the two are real life friends and especially if they're new to the game, but throw around enough paranoia and point out their weak spots to them and they might start eyeing each other up instead of you.
I'd like to point out that while Kusu and I know each other over the internet, the sole interaction MrMister and I had had up until we played this game was me calling his chosen pursuit "totally useless," and mocking it, and not in a fun kind of way, in a "you're useless and so is your major" kind of way.
I was just speaking in general; I wasn't insinuating anything about you guys specifically. I noticed this game was going on only near the end of it, so I'm basically late to the party and haven't been following the thing from the beginning.
This is a pretty brilliant action. I say that because it's exactly what I did in the game that just occurred. Every other player on the board tried their damndest to get France and Germany to turn on each other, but they never did, never even made any moves towards any territory at all. As far as I know, they never even allied with anyone else. But it didn't work. Why should it? They had no possible reason to turn on each other. And that's exactly what I'm arguing should change. Thanks for supporting my position so nicely.
Well, like I said, I came late to the whole thing so I don't know how much effort was being put in to split them up. Basically if the alliance isn't spotted fast, and by fast I mean within the first year or two, it's hard to stop.
If you guys couldn't stop slapping each other around long enough to work together against the threat that FG posed, then it's really your own fault. Did England try to get Russia to fight against Germany in the North? Or try to persuade Italy to grab some of France's stars? These are honest questions since I can't see earlier boards and I don't think I can decipher it from the comments in the thread.
Well, like I said, I came late to the whole thing so I don't know how much effort was being put in to split them up. Basically if the alliance isn't spotted fast, and by fast I mean within the first year or two, it's hard to stop.
If you guys couldn't stop slapping each other around long enough to work together against the threat that FG posed, then it's really your own fault. Did England try to get Russia to fight against Germany in the North? Or try to persuade Italy to grab some of France's stars? These are honest questions since I can't see earlier boards and I don't think I can decipher it from the comments in the thread.
*edited for stupid mistakes* ><
It was kind of a weird situation because of all the drops. England dropped after a bad start, France switched hands, as well as Austria, about halfway through. I'm not gonna say I played my best, because I obviously didn't. However, by the end of the game, pretty much every other country was allied against Germany-France, and couldn't stop them. Well, until Austria switched, and then sided with them.
Austria turned on you and he isn't part of the draw? Ouch.
Austria was getting his ass beat by Turkey. If it weren't for me, he wouldn't have been in the game nearly as long as he was. The reason Turkey couldn't get anyone to ally with him is because he sent, from what I can tell, a message to just about everyone in the game, offering to ally up against just about everyone else. I then told Austria and Russia what Turkey sent to me.
We took out England early because I agreed to help them to go after France, then allied with France to crush them. England and Russia did try to go after me on my northern border, however, in the meantime, England lost his home, and I managed to predict their moves a couple of times pretty well, which resulted in them taking some pretty big hits. I established a non-aggression pact with Austria pretty much first thing, because Italy, Russia, and Turkey were all gunning for them, and I knew he'd accept it, because he didn't want to have to worry about me, too. I allied with France so I'd have a border I wouldn't have to worry about, and I started going after Russia, because he didn't want to agree to let me have Denmark in exchange for me letting him have Sweden. Turkey, after seeing Russia was going down, decided to take advantage of that, and attack him, and failed to back up Italy against France very effectively. With Turkey's help, Austria could have had a good shot at stopping us, but Turkey went after him pretty much first thing, after offering him an alliance, even, so it's understandable that he wouldn't trust Turkey. So, basically, the reason Turkey couldn't get an alliance up to stop us is that no one would trust him, i.e. he didn't do very well at diplomacy. Gee, imagine.
And seriously, if you didn't think the rules should read like that, you should have said so at the beginning of the game. When you say that we're not playing the game "correctly," it seeems to me that you are saying we didn't win, or that we cheated or manipulated the rules in some underhanded fashion. The rules were there for everyone to read, and it's not our fault that you read way more into them than there was there.
And seriously, if you didn't think the rules should read like that, you should have said so at the beginning of the game. When you say that we're not playing the game "correctly," it seeems to me that you are saying we didn't win, or that we cheated or manipulated the rules in some underhanded fashion. The rules were there for everyone to read, and it's not our fault that you read way more into them than there was there.
Will you seriously please go read my fucking posts? I admit that I didn't know that rule existed at the beginning of the game, but I'm not questioning whether it's an actual rule, or whether you actually won. What I'm saying, is that I think the game would be better, in terms of the quality of the gameplay, and the cohesiveness of the experience, if that rule was removed.
I think I'll just let it go after this. People keep misunderstanding what I'm trying to do. Maybe I should just make a separate 'game design' thread.
Yeah, sounds like it was complete chaos in the East while you guys cleaned up in the West. Nothing wrong with taking advantage of that.
As an objective observer, I can say that it was pretty much that. After the fall of England, I was expecting a unification of some of the Eastern Powers at any moment to take down France and Germany, who were obviously quite a big threat, but they couldn't sort out their differences in time to make any kind of alliance against the West until it was too late. It wasn't any one person's fault, of course, it was just the way things happened.
Aroused Bull on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited November 2006
As a side note, I was also kept from betraying Germany during the early game, when I had just assumed the mantle of france, by the Italian fleet in Gulf of Lyon and army in Piedmonte. Which I had asked him to move, but he refused to.
They didn't really give me much choice about war with Italy.
Austria turned on you and he isn't part of the draw? Ouch.
Austria was getting his ass beat by Turkey. If it weren't for me, he wouldn't have been in the game nearly as long as he was. The reason Turkey couldn't get anyone to ally with him is because he sent, from what I can tell, a message to just about everyone in the game, offering to ally up against just about everyone else. I then told Austria and Russia what Turkey sent to me.
We took out England early because I agreed to help them to go after France, then allied with France to crush them. England and Russia did try to go after me on my northern border, however, in the meantime, England lost his home, and I managed to predict their moves a couple of times pretty well, which resulted in them taking some pretty big hits. I established a non-aggression pact with Austria pretty much first thing, because Italy, Russia, and Turkey were all gunning for them, and I knew he'd accept it, because he didn't want to have to worry about me, too. I allied with France so I'd have a border I wouldn't have to worry about, and I started going after Russia, because he didn't want to agree to let me have Denmark in exchange for me letting him have Sweden. Turkey, after seeing Russia was going down, decided to take advantage of that, and attack him, and failed to back up Italy against France very effectively. With Turkey's help, Austria could have had a good shot at stopping us, but Turkey went after him pretty much first thing, after offering him an alliance, even, so it's understandable that he wouldn't trust Turkey. So, basically, the reason Turkey couldn't get an alliance up to stop us is that no one would trust him, i.e. he didn't do very well at diplomacy. Gee, imagine.
Well, to shed some light on all of that, I did extend an offer to you at the beginning, which was a bad move as I've learned. After I got an extremely lukewarm response, I had to actually consider allying with one of the two, so I picked Russia. Other than the initial offer to you which I quickly abandoned, I had no intention of betraying Russia, nor did I really offer alliance to anyone at all. My supposed offer to everyone in the game was just some friendly initial correspondance to feel out the match. With Austria, I never made any agreement on an alliance, only a vague agreement about what provinces to split up in the Balkans.. yes, I was being a bit deceptive, but I was also avoiding outright lying. Apparently, when you told Russia what I said, they turned on me and I had to fight my ass off to stay in the game. At that point, I was able to secure an alliance with Italy to take Austria's pressure off of me and get Russia back on my side. From there on, I had to take Austria out, otherwise where was I going to go? I couldn't move anywhere else. Italy, Russia and myself then had an alliance to stop the two of you, but by that time you had grown far too large for us to really coordinate any opposition without Austria as well, who sure as hell wasn't going to help (and no wonder!). Our only option really was to force a stalemate line, but we needed Austria's provinces included to do it. As for taking advantage of Russia, yup, I stabbed when the getting was good. He was about to get wiped anyway, so I figured why let Germany get even bigger - Neaden understood. Ultimately, I was too aggressive with my communication early on, being my first game, and I let my eagerness for grand strategy kick my own butt, especially given Turkey's beginning position and very slow ability to develop. But in the end, I like to think I actually did do pretty well at diplomacy, otherwise I wouldn't have been in it for as long as I was - I would've been done by like the third or fourth turn otherwise.
As a side note, I was also kept from betraying Germany during the early game, when I had just assumed the mantle of france, by the Italian fleet in Gulf of Lyon and army in Piedmonte. Which I had asked him to move, but he refused to.
They didn't really give me much choice about war with Italy.
Heh, it was more of:
Well, we're in a truce now, so OBVIOUSLY you're going to move your troops away from my border, while I keep mine there.
SageinaRage on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Well, we're in a truce now, so OBVIOUSLY you're going to move your troops away from my border, while I keep mine there.
You had two units on Marseille, and the possibility of a snipe at Spain. How was I supposed to be able to do anything other than deal with you? Even just manuevering around potential aggressive orders cost me moves that made an attack on Germany increasingly implausible.
Furthermore, all the while he was making good-faith concessions to me (like London), and generally keeping me informed and being a good ally. All in all it made my choices pretty simple.
Well, we're in a truce now, so OBVIOUSLY you're going to move your troops away from my border, while I keep mine there.
You had two units on Marseille, and the possibility of a snipe at Spain. How was I supposed to be able to do anything other than deal with you? Even just manuevering around potential aggressive orders cost me moves that made an attack on Germany increasingly implausible.
Furthermore, all the while he was making good-faith concessions to me (like London), and generally keeping me informed and being a good ally. All in all it made my choices pretty simple.
Hey, I'm not saying it wasn't the right move for you, or anything. I'm just saying it wasn't exactly a question.
Posts
And the possibility of betrayal was there right up until I accepted the tie. It just wasn't guaranteed betrayal, which is what you're angling for.
I think we're basically at agree to disagree time here, however much I hate the phrase.
I would actually say that lying is to be avoided as much as possible in Diplomacy, not for any moral reasons but because people get to know you're a lying weasel and they no longer trust you. Diplomacy is the gameplay mechanic. That's what MrMister is saying here:
I think you misunderstand him. He's not saying that having the possibility of betrayal ruins any kind of good diplomatic relationship, as you suggest; he's saying that it is necessary that there is at least some element of truth in diplomacy between players, as if everything is false then there is no point in listening to any of it.
Or
We should settle this all on a game of FLUXX.
Of course an element of trust is necessary. As I said, multiple times, the game is based around earning people's trust, and betraying it. You have to make alliances to win, but you also have to break them. It's completely possible to make an effective alliance even though you know that every player is looking out for their own interests.
However, and this is what people seem to keep missing:
The problem is ABSOLUTE TRUST. If you have an ally, and both of you are willing to settle for a draw, then your chances of betrayal just shot to about 0. It's an alliance without risk.
The most interesting mechanic of this game to me is having to judge between possible allies, and gauging how much I trust them versus how much I don't. But I have to make that decision. In an alliance win, you don't.
There is a meta-game concept here that you are missing. "Diplomacy" isn't just meant for one session. Some of your arguments seem to assume that as soon as a game is completed everyone forgets whats happened and everyone starts with a blank slate when the next game starts. That is, you assume there is no value to referring to your past actions in previous games. That doesn't happen, players remember what you did the last time you played, and especially in a game like this thats played out in public.
Both players left in the last game had to weigh the value of a possible "win" with the value of their perceived fairness and honesty in the next game they play. This was stated several times as the primary purpose for at least one side for officially agreeing to the draw (as opposed to just telling the other player they would).
Accepting the draw is a VERY persuasive meta-game move that will defiantly play heavily in the next Diplomacy game.
I think a large problem here is that you are imposing what you consider a "win" on everyone else, and cannot understand why they don't want to "win." I am frequently called on to take over for abandoned players in play-by-email games, my "win" condition in most of these games is to still have units on the board when the game is over. Someone else's "win" condition might be to see how many people they can dupe into allying with them and then stabbing them in the back. Lets be honest here, if everyone was only playing for 18 centers we would never be able to finish a game. As soon as someone got into a position that they could not get 18 centers, they would just quit, and no one would come in to replace them.
I feel an occasional intentional draw is necessary in order to give players something to play towards aside from gaining 18 centers, which isn't always possible anyway.
That's very interesting, except for the complete opposite happened here. The two players didn't betray each other, and immediately looked bad to everyone else. I think that this kind of ending just shows what a weak player you are.
If you can't separate a person's actions from game to game, and look on each one as a new entity, then YOU are a bad player.
I mean, are you seriously telling me you're going to begrudge a player for trying to win? That just because someone won the game by playing it correctly, that you think there's something wrong there?
I can't even begin to fathom your logic. Why did you start playing the game of chess if your definition of victory is not losing your bishops? I can't believe that wanting to play to the victory condition determined by the game rules is the wrong thing to do here. Did I somehow log onto the special olympics message board where everyone is a winner?
Why is failure something to strive for?
Right, thus illustrating my point that there is value in the previous game. You can now use this information to your advantage, by attempting to enter into this kind of alliance with this person, all you have to do is convince them that you will likewise agree to a draw, and then simply not do it. They can use this to their advantage to convince another player to enter into an alliance with them citing the evidence that they honored their agreement last game.
Honestly in a game like diplomacy, treating each game as a separate entity is foolhardy. Its just throwing away previous data on how trustworthy a person is, that can help you decide on how to deal with them.
I am not going to begrudge a player who tries to win, but rather am going to notate how he did so. If a player routinely breaks all promises, than I am simply not going to align with him in future games. If a player never lies to me, I will trust him to not lie in future games. This is not at odds with winning, it depends on the terms of the alliance. "I will not attack you until 1905" is a promise that is easy to keep, but does not preclude me from winning.
Some people play games to have fun.
Winning is not always possible. Once again, this game is set up in such a way that some times there is nothing you can do to achieve 18 centers. It is simply not possible. That is why the rules allow for a draw. As already noted there are many many scenarios where draws will net you some points, which is better than no points. Realizing that you cannot Win and fighting for the Draw is sometimes preferable to continuing to fight for the win, knowing it is doomed to failure, or just quitting. If there is no chance of a draw, there is no reason to keep playing.
In my experience a solo win is very very rare. I always strive for a solo win, but I recognize that most games it simply isn't possible. Let me reword my stance like this:
Strive for a solo win, but barring that Strive for the Draw.
The risk is that they're lying to you, and that their real plan is to knife you at the last second and steal the win. I've already pointed out that Than and I were sweating bullets up until the very end of the game--there was plenty of risk.
You've already conceded that there's nothing overpowered about two-player draws. So, why not just not participate them? Why should it bother you when other players team up Fo Lyfe if it's not an unfair advantage against the more weasily players?
Finally,
As someone who has played Diplomacy with the same group of people over a span of many years, allow me to point out that this is totally full of shit.
One of my friends loved to stabbity stab stab whenever he could get a couple builds out of it. Another of my friends would stand by you through thick and thin if you were his first ally. They reliably played in the same ways, because that's how they liked to play. If I were to ignore that, then I would be the bad player.
Assuming you're playing against perfectly rational actors and that game occurs in vacuum is a terrible strategy. Your opponents are people, and barring ridiculous levels of professionalism that's how they'll act.
Note that I have had no experience with the game other than reading the rules. The rules stated that in the case of a draw, all the drawing players are considered winners. Not losers, not "tie-ers," winners. From that, I determined that one way to win was to find an ally, and be willing to settle for a tie. I did, and I was. I must've missed the part of the rules where it mentions "everyone must strive to be the sole winner!"
Really, there was nothing at all in this thread that gave me that impression. Was there something I missed? Did RBB say somewhere "you're not a real winner if you tie?"
You can't be relied upon if you're unpredictable (and you will get taken out if people think you're crazy), but at the same time, if you're predictable, people are just going to take advantage of you. Whenever I play the game, I do keep in mind the personalities I'm playing with, mostly so I have a handle on how to talk to them and how to persuade them to my side, but I know that personally my intentions on backstabbing somebody versus staying in a longterm alliance with them is almost entirely based on the board. If I know I can trust someone, but they're in a shitty position, I'm not going far with them because they can't help me in that game. If I'm near somebody who's burned me in the past but I know he's my only shot at getting to the end, I'm going to be working my ass off to work with him, all the while keeping an eye on our borders.
I have friends I've played this game with where all they used to do is lie, and after the first few games they never had a chance until they proved they learned their lesson. But the same thing happened with the people who always wanted to have a permanent alliance with people, especially since they would leave themselves open because they grew to trust their partner more and more.
EDIT: Another thing to keep in mind SiaR: one of the best ways to get people to stop kicking the crap out of you is to point out to them the giant two person alliance building up behind them to come screw everyone over. If you see two people who you think are just going to sweep over the board, you have to do everything in your power to get the rest of the board to turn against them, and you have to do your best to turn them against each other. It's tough, especially when the two are real life friends and especially if they're new to the game, but throw around enough paranoia and point out their weak spots to them and they might start eyeing each other up instead of you.
It's not like there was a lot of subtlety behind our strategy; I got big really fast, took out England with France. I was, by a significant margin, the biggest country in the game until near the end. It's not like you couldn't see it coming, or something. I left no defenses on the French side of my border. Honestly, I considered getting so big that early in the game something of a tactical blunder, since I expected everyone to gang up on me. It didn't happen, but that doesn't mean we were somehow "totally unbeatable." Far from it.
Honestly, I fully expected to be betrayed; I figured MrMister was just biding his time, planning to get back at me for all the mean things I'd said about/to him. I know I probably would have. The fact that it didn't work out that way just validates our strategy.
Seriously, you and Russia could have done the same thing. Or, hell, even you, Austria, and Italy. The problem is that no one trusted you at all, whereas I had one good ally, which is all I needed. So, apparently the "make offers to everyone to screw everyone else" strategy isn't so good, whereas the "make a couple of offers, screw a couple of people" strategy is.
That's great, but I'm debating about whether a certain rule best suits this game and its style of play, which includes winning.
1) I did no such thing.
2) Because I like to play games to win, not to not-lose.
3) The whole purpose of this argument is that I think the rules of the game should promote number 2, above.
All right, I take back what I said, it was not correct. However, I would like to change it to: If you can't separate a person's actions from game to game, then THEY are a bad player. I have also played with these types of people, who do the same damn thing every game, use the same fucking strategies. Wouldn't it be nice to have the game not promote that?
I don't know what SIAR is, if you're referencing something I don't get it.
I understand completely that the rules completely support what happened, thanks for not reading my posts. I never said that they did. What I AM arguing, is that the rules SHOULD. My point is that only allowing single victory better enhances the gameplay, and promotes the core game mechanic, and is also more interesting.
This is a pretty brilliant action. I say that because it's exactly what I did in the game that just occurred. Every other player on the board tried their damndest to get France and Germany to turn on each other, but they never did, never even made any moves towards any territory at all. As far as I know, they never even allied with anyone else. But it didn't work. Why should it? They had no possible reason to turn on each other. And that's exactly what I'm arguing should change. Thanks for supporting my position so nicely.
I was just speaking in general; I wasn't insinuating anything about you guys specifically. I noticed this game was going on only near the end of it, so I'm basically late to the party and haven't been following the thing from the beginning.
Well, like I said, I came late to the whole thing so I don't know how much effort was being put in to split them up. Basically if the alliance isn't spotted fast, and by fast I mean within the first year or two, it's hard to stop.
If you guys couldn't stop slapping each other around long enough to work together against the threat that FG posed, then it's really your own fault. Did England try to get Russia to fight against Germany in the North? Or try to persuade Italy to grab some of France's stars? These are honest questions since I can't see earlier boards and I don't think I can decipher it from the comments in the thread.
*edited for stupid mistakes* ><
It was kind of a weird situation because of all the drops. England dropped after a bad start, France switched hands, as well as Austria, about halfway through. I'm not gonna say I played my best, because I obviously didn't. However, by the end of the game, pretty much every other country was allied against Germany-France, and couldn't stop them. Well, until Austria switched, and then sided with them.
We took out England early because I agreed to help them to go after France, then allied with France to crush them. England and Russia did try to go after me on my northern border, however, in the meantime, England lost his home, and I managed to predict their moves a couple of times pretty well, which resulted in them taking some pretty big hits. I established a non-aggression pact with Austria pretty much first thing, because Italy, Russia, and Turkey were all gunning for them, and I knew he'd accept it, because he didn't want to have to worry about me, too. I allied with France so I'd have a border I wouldn't have to worry about, and I started going after Russia, because he didn't want to agree to let me have Denmark in exchange for me letting him have Sweden. Turkey, after seeing Russia was going down, decided to take advantage of that, and attack him, and failed to back up Italy against France very effectively. With Turkey's help, Austria could have had a good shot at stopping us, but Turkey went after him pretty much first thing, after offering him an alliance, even, so it's understandable that he wouldn't trust Turkey. So, basically, the reason Turkey couldn't get an alliance up to stop us is that no one would trust him, i.e. he didn't do very well at diplomacy. Gee, imagine.
And seriously, if you didn't think the rules should read like that, you should have said so at the beginning of the game. When you say that we're not playing the game "correctly," it seeems to me that you are saying we didn't win, or that we cheated or manipulated the rules in some underhanded fashion. The rules were there for everyone to read, and it's not our fault that you read way more into them than there was there.
Will you seriously please go read my fucking posts? I admit that I didn't know that rule existed at the beginning of the game, but I'm not questioning whether it's an actual rule, or whether you actually won. What I'm saying, is that I think the game would be better, in terms of the quality of the gameplay, and the cohesiveness of the experience, if that rule was removed.
I think I'll just let it go after this. People keep misunderstanding what I'm trying to do. Maybe I should just make a separate 'game design' thread.
They didn't really give me much choice about war with Italy.
Well, to shed some light on all of that, I did extend an offer to you at the beginning, which was a bad move as I've learned. After I got an extremely lukewarm response, I had to actually consider allying with one of the two, so I picked Russia. Other than the initial offer to you which I quickly abandoned, I had no intention of betraying Russia, nor did I really offer alliance to anyone at all. My supposed offer to everyone in the game was just some friendly initial correspondance to feel out the match. With Austria, I never made any agreement on an alliance, only a vague agreement about what provinces to split up in the Balkans.. yes, I was being a bit deceptive, but I was also avoiding outright lying. Apparently, when you told Russia what I said, they turned on me and I had to fight my ass off to stay in the game. At that point, I was able to secure an alliance with Italy to take Austria's pressure off of me and get Russia back on my side. From there on, I had to take Austria out, otherwise where was I going to go? I couldn't move anywhere else. Italy, Russia and myself then had an alliance to stop the two of you, but by that time you had grown far too large for us to really coordinate any opposition without Austria as well, who sure as hell wasn't going to help (and no wonder!). Our only option really was to force a stalemate line, but we needed Austria's provinces included to do it. As for taking advantage of Russia, yup, I stabbed when the getting was good. He was about to get wiped anyway, so I figured why let Germany get even bigger - Neaden understood. Ultimately, I was too aggressive with my communication early on, being my first game, and I let my eagerness for grand strategy kick my own butt, especially given Turkey's beginning position and very slow ability to develop. But in the end, I like to think I actually did do pretty well at diplomacy, otherwise I wouldn't have been in it for as long as I was - I would've been done by like the third or fourth turn otherwise.
Heh, it was more of:
Well, we're in a truce now, so OBVIOUSLY you're going to move your troops away from my border, while I keep mine there.
You had two units on Marseille, and the possibility of a snipe at Spain. How was I supposed to be able to do anything other than deal with you? Even just manuevering around potential aggressive orders cost me moves that made an attack on Germany increasingly implausible.
Furthermore, all the while he was making good-faith concessions to me (like London), and generally keeping me informed and being a good ally. All in all it made my choices pretty simple.
Hey, I'm not saying it wasn't the right move for you, or anything. I'm just saying it wasn't exactly a question.