Already on, but I just wanted to boost the topic.

Come, battle me if you're man enough!

I haven't played in a while, but why not?

Excellent. Do keep us posted on your progress!

Well then welcome Daumantas! There's a bunch of links to strategy articles in the other thread, I recommend checking those out.

Also, should you need help during the game itself, here's my rule of thumb: I will not lie to you about how the rules work; anything else is fair game. Also, I am sometimes wrong.

Posted By: MarhaultAlso, I am sometimes wrong.

Does that explain your bizarre attempt to move from the north coast of St. Petersburg to the south coast with your fleet? I've been wondering about that...

Gentlemen. The game is afoot.

* BWA - TURKEY
* Marhault - RUSSIA
* Potemkin - ENGLAND
* bill_white - FRANCE
* C_Edwards - ITALY
* WillowX - GERMANY
* DWeird - AUSTRIA

Whisper me.

...and the playdiplomacy server is down again.

Leaping lizards, that's annoying.

But I think we should stick to the tacit rule that we play the game there and analyze it here.

Well, more of a guideline really.

And the server does seem to have recently developed some sort of hiccup; the regulars on the playdip forum are beside themselves with frustration. But it usually comes up within a day or two.

Yeah, I prefer to keep "in game" messages on the game, and "metagame" discussion here. Keeps me clear-headed.

That said, if the server is down (which blows), feel free to whisper me here.

Speaking of which, the server does go down from time to time, and the "move clock" doesn't stop. So once the game gets going, be sure to submit your orders immediately, and then change them as your diplomacy changes. Better to submit slightly off orders than none at all.

Greetings to everyone!

I understand that Eero issued a call of machismo and masculine strength to guide the contestants in the last game. I hope to bring a feminine grace and wit to this manly sport.

Should the participants prefer to continue to display their manliness, the best way would be to murder each other for my attentions, then shower me with gifts (their supply centers). I think this would be the best possible expression of how big of a man you are.

Also, I'm not sure if Ralph is still following this thread since it became more about specific games and less about Diplomacy in general, but we're about to some data to suit his earlier contention that Diplomacy only reveals its true potential over multiple games with the same participants, since four of the players in this game were in the last one.

Posted By: Eero TuovinenMy understanding of the experience levels of the players indicates that France might be a strong contender this time around, considering its inherent strength, player and neighbours

Geez! Talk about a Judas kiss! Eero, let me formally and publicly apologize for being rude to you in my Diplomacy communiques: I'm very sorry. Now will you take this "KICK ME" sign off my back?

Man, everything was going great until I realized other people could be lying.

Posted By: DWeirdMan, everything was going great until I realized other people could belying.

Aaaaaaaaaaaahahhahahhahahahaha!

Sorry. Damn, that was funny.

Yeah, don't take anything anybody else says at face value.

Posted By: David Artman
Best of all worlds would be a server/system that supported some kind of "Allow Really Done" toggle, along with orders that can be changed. So I could make prelims, then do some diplomacy and make changes, but when I'm definitely just plain done, I click the "Really Done This Time" button. Once all players click that button, the server would advance the turn, EVEN IF it hasn't been the full week. That would not only allow for sedate play; it would also allow for a flurry of play, when folks are able to communicate and finalize plans faster than the usual pace, for whatever reason (e.g. everyone's online at the same time, killing time at work!).

That's be awful if it were all-but-one. You could all be online but one absentee keeps things at the snail's pace.

David, perhaps an oldschool by-post game would suit you?

Posted By: PotemkinYou could all be online but one absentee keeps things at the snail's pace.

... limited, of course, by the order-a-week base or fundamental deadline. The idea is to use this button *in addition* to an order deadline, not in place of it (which is basically what turn-heavy RPG PbP goes like, unless you are willing to skip folks who take too long to reply on their turns). No, I wouldn't try to play it with seven folks and ALL must click "done" to proceed.

I could handle play-by-email/post... but that's just another medium, not a mechanism for short-cutting turn deadlines with a "Really Done" option. But let's not get TOO tangential to the thread's purpose of trash talking, blatant lies, and gloating.

Right, I'm just saying that in practice it doesn't expedite things very much. I doubt I'll miss it at all, actually.

Nope; that's right; the first diplomacy phase is twice as long as a normal one.

There's actually an option, when setting up games, to have moves go through automatically as soon as all the orders are in.

Once you get used to the 24 hour phase (and once the first round is over), it goes pretty quick.

Yeah, the truth is often the more dangerous alternative in this game. Not nearly so easy to ignore.

Nonsense. Silence is an out and out refusal of whatever you offered and a clear (if tacit) unwillingness to cooperate. What's unnerving about knowing your enemy?

Posted By: MarhaultWhat's unnerving about knowing your enemy?

Assuming you know your enemy.

I cannot think of one strategist who was not brought low by poor estimation at some stage.

Posted By: Eero TuovinenThe opposition just wants me to think that they're disinterested and/or lazy.

Precisely.

The Black Sea bounce? The result of mutual lies. Always heart-warming.

Oh, Austria is playing a bad defence, I see. Nobody told him that the trick to playing the poor Austria is to defend aggressively, as he doesn't have the luxury of just sitting in place. Russia holds all the cards in their relationship now; in fact, should Italy join in, inspired by Austrian passivity, Austria might even lose a home SC right off.

Then again, Italy is messing up admirably, too. Now A Rom is officially useless for the first year, unable to convoy or operate in the north. Clearly there is a surfeit of suspicion floating around in the mid-to-eastern Europe - how can our heroes survive this situation, with experienced players running both Turkey and Russia?

Par-Bur in France warms my black little heart - perhaps it was inspired by what happened in the last game? Not the ideal move tactically for France when Germany didn't try for Burgundy after all. Now France has to play a guessing game for Brest with England, and England has the luxury of choosing between Norway and Belgium for his first build.

Budapest was supposed to go to Serbia.

Durr.

"Ruhr SUPPORT Burgundy to Belgium -> Supported order does not correspond"

"Burgundy MOVE Picardy -> resolved"

Excuse me while I gloat. Some twisted loyalty test, Bill? Or is there no trust in this new alliance?

Posted By: Bill_WhiteHey Mike --
What are you doing that here for?
-- Bill

Good-humoured smacktalk combined with clarifying German/French relations for any spectators.

This has been expected.

Now all I can do is make life hard for someone else!

Eeny, meeny, miny, moe...

Being perceived as dangerous and capable of doing less than efficient moves that hurt my opponent more than they help me gives me leverage.

I'm planning on using that to further my goals. Or going down in a blaze of glory! Only time will tell.

Now, assuming I survive long enough to have something to protect, I will be back to my reasonable self.

'till then, though... Anything goes!

Bill, since I see you have a forum account, would you mind mentioning in the server thread that it dropped my build order as well? I don't know if that's at all related to the other issues, but it might be worth the admins knowing about.

(Yes, I did turn in an order and yes, I did double check it.)

I just whiffed my build order completely.

In my defense, last night was my company holiday party, and I am as hungover this morning as I have been in three years. Urgh.

PS - I love "A BRIEF SCENE IN THE GERMAN TRENCHES"

Apparently this is the fourth outage like this in the last month? Not good for a site based around deadline oriented play.

Posted By: Bill_White

It will be interesting to debrief about this game later. The anxiety and trepidation, the uncertainty, fear, and hostility: it's a little exhilarating, but a little unpleasant, too. I personally find it hard to take. I am taking note of the mechanisms I use to accommodate the experience; I think they may stand me in good stead if I ever go to Guantanamo.

Within certain bounds that stuff doesn't bother me. I mean, I see it as all being within the game space. It's not personal and the only thing at stake is success or failure in the game. If direct personal insults were made or mention of my mother and goat fucking, well, that would be personal and totally out of bounds from my expectations of game play.

Diplomacy definitely has a space for psychological warfare and manipulating that space without stepping into the personal is probably a useful skill to cultivate. The problem probably being that the players it would be most effective on are also the ones most likely to take it personally.

Eero, you've got a kajillion more times Diplomacy experience than I do and I'd like to hear what you have to say about that aspect of Diplomacy if you care to expound.

-Chris

S-s-s-social contract!

I wrote a long treatise about your question, Chris, based on the last thread. Ultimately, though, my answer can be phrased in a simpler and shorter way:

If I were asked to play Chess in a foul-mouthed sailor bar on the waterfront, a place where I'm prone to get spat upon and cursed at for doing well in the game - I would not say that the players in that place are playing wrong, I'd just say that it's a play environment in which I don't want to play. Similarly in Diplomacy, in which many play environments have developed towards accepting anything and everything in the negotiations as part of the psych game - they are not playing wrong, I don't think, but they are playing in an uncourteous manner, which I do not need to condone. I want a certain level of decorum from my personal play environment and co-players, even if I do not claim that others are playing wrong by being much more lively about slandering their opposition.

This is partially an issue of play quality, although not at its core: I might say that it's a more high-level play if I can get you to attack Brest by cleverly framing a convincing strategic argument for it than if I screamed threats at you with spit flying on your order sheet. After all, in the first case I'm displaying superior understanding of the game while misleading you courteously, while in the latter case I'm just browbeating you by acting in ways you might not expect and be prepared for, psychologically. So in that sense we might say that courteous play is more in the spirit of the exercise. However, we might also argue that it's up to the opponent to withstand lively rhetorics, and if it's the local style, then you're expected to make your best play no matter how provocative the other guy gets about your parentage. As long as your communication is within local mainstream you're not getting any advantage or disadvantage from the rhetorical part of your argument anyway, as your target can discount those bits and focus only on the substance of your message. (All of this assumes that the players are not actually breaking the ritual space, mind; if the other guy threatens to slander you in public if you don't do what he says or something like that, then it's obvious wrong and against the spirit of the game.)

Based on the above, I might say that I myself won't rely on completely insubstantial psychological warfare in Diplomacy. If I want to threaten another player into desisting from a war he's about to open, say, then the core of my argument will concern how his actions throw the victory to somebody else or how they'll doom his own play. I won't try to dissuade the player with meta-game arguments like calling him a monkey and threatening to devote the rest of my game to his destruction out of spite. Facts only, facts backed by the victory and loss conditions of the game, and the presumed common value base that the players share in trying to achieve the victory while avoiding the loss. Any rhetoric aside from that is not stylish to my mind, even if it is rules-legal.

I find my inability to judge the strategic interests of any one nation, and thus possible alliances they could be forming a pretty big hurdle in trying to talk someone into something and properly judging their intentions.

Could anyone give me a low-down of what each country is/should be generally trying to accomplish in a game?

Sure thing, Daumantas, although this is a deep topic. This is a generic overview at the beginning of the game:

First, the goal of the game: your goal in Diplomacy is not to score as many SCs as possible. It is, in order:

• Prevent anybody else from gaining a solo victory. Any of the lesser goals hinge on this one, so you never should make actions that go against this primary goal. You'll lose the game if this happens.


• Survive on the board until the end of the game. If you don't, you've lost the game. If you do, you've won the game, and it's just a matter of how well you won.


• Gain a solo victory by taking half of the board yourself. This is the big victory, but it's about as common as winning in poker with a royal flush. Don't try to force it unless you know that you can get it.


• Gain a draw by getting everybody else still in the game to agree to it. You should only try for this when all other outcomes are worse; continuing the game is actually better than accepting a draw as long as you still have a real chance to take a solo or narrow the draw: a draw with less players is better than a draw with more, just like a solo victory is better than any draw.


• Gain diplomatic or tactical position. Diplomatic position means having a better working relationship with the other Powers. Tactical position means having better means of projecting force against others; this latter part usually involves gaining and holding SCs, which is also necessary for a solo victory and for avoiding getting eliminated. This is a strictly utilitarian goal, though, in that both diplomatic and tactical position only have meaning in relation to the above set of win and loss conditions.

Now, individual Powers and their early-game concerns follow. I'm going to be a bit frivolous here, as this is a major topic - essays have been written and could be of each Power separately. In short:

England should encourage other Powers on the Atlantic (defined in Calhamer map strategy as everything this side of Gibraltar, Baltic included) to under-invest in fleets so she can keep her dominating hold and impeccable defensive position. Only Norway is considered a default English SC, for the rest she needs to fight. A mid-term goal is to dominate the Nordic sphere; StP, Swe, Nwy and Den form a natural perimeter area that can be easily held once entirely conquered. Another mid-term goal is to occupy MAO and use the superior position against France at will. Short-term goals involve precision strikes on continental SCs in the Netherlands, preferably with diplomatic goals relating to Germany and France. Only rarely does England go into the end-game by occupying the Netherlands entire with armies and continuing from there to a continental strategy; much more common is for her to dominate the Nordic sphere, break the French hold on MAO and then breach a way into the Mediterranean.

France has no superior offensive options, but she has two default SCs in the Iberian peninsula and an equal option on Belgium, which gives her a very good depth of defense and material right from the start. Usual early game goals involve jockeying for position with Germany in the Bur-Ruh area with the Netherlands as stakes, and jockeying with England on the Atlantic with Bre-Eng-MAO as the stakes. An assault on England is possible, but it doesn't get any easier as the game wears on; an assault on Germany is more feasible, but it has to be managed with care so England does not get to benefit too much. An assault in Italy is not a good option, but sometimes it's mandated by the other choices being even worse. Strategically France has no obvious sphere of interest aside from the free-for-all Netherlands; she can even abandon that for the right price. France makes her own way, all told.

Germany has a position in the middle of the board, so her mid-term goal is to ensure that she doesn't get caught in a two-front war. This is done by making sure the Tsar keeps his sanity (attacking Germany is stupid, but sometimes Russia is in desperate straits or not thinking straight) and by being decisive in any confrontation in the west. Germany has a stake in the Nordic area, but only rarely manages to dominate it the way England can. In the early game Germany fights for the Netherlands (with perhaps a slightly better position for it than the other two western Powers) and can try out an assault on France, although the latter rarely is very rewarding. Attacking England is an under-appreciated option that can be rewarding in cooperation with Russia. Attacking Austria is usually a stupid move until either France or England has been taken. Hol and Den are considered default German SCs, making her another Power with two nigh-guaranteed early builds.

Russia has a priority in making sure she dominates one of her two theaters of war at all times; being forced on the defensive in both at the same time usually proves fatal. In the north the early Russian priority is to occupy Sweden (not entirely guaranteed, as we saw) and discourage an English attack on StP, with unit commitment if necessary. Most Russian players choose to be passive in the north aside from these concerns, but it is possible to build another fleet and claim Norway, especially with German support. After that the next natural move is to try to usurp the English position on the Atlantic, which is a mid-game concern. In the south the Russian play is much more complex: Rumania is usually considered a Russian SC in the early game, but the forces in Balkan are vicious and lots can happen. Galicia is a key defensive position for both Russia and Austria, the Power occupying it will usually have the initiative against the other. The Black Sea is crucial to a Turkish attack on Russia or a Russian attack on Turkey, so it has to be dealt with in some manner as well. The ideal Russian play in the area usually involves claiming the northern half of the Balkans (Vie, Bud, Rum at least) while Turkey claims the southern half; alternatively in an attack on Turkey Russia claims the whole of Turkey while Austria might take the Balkans in whole. In the former case Russia continues to Germany and combines her two theaters into an Europe-wide offensive, in the latter case she'll build fleets and essentially usurp the Turkish role in resisting Italy - unless she chooses to stab Austria, of course, trying to engulf the whole eastern triangle on her own.

Austria is more vulnerable tactically than any other Power due to her supremely open position. This also means that she has the best offensive capabilities when she has the initiative. Playing Austria is very much a diplomatic issue, as the "best" moves for her leave her completely open against at least one neighbour; therefore the choice of who to trust is imperative, as is getting at least one ally to try that trust thing on in the first place. Italy, Turkey and Russia are the candidates, the rest of the board does not matter in the immediate opening. Serbia is considered an Austrian SC at the start, but she can feasibly go for Rumania or Greece as well, and usually should - be aggressive, take risks and work on your diplomacy; you'll either die fast or expand quickly. The first stable Austrian position occurs at six SCs when she controls Serbia, Greece and either Rum or Bul; at that point she is likely involved in either mopping up Turkey or allying with a desperate 3-SC Turkey against an overbearing Russia. In the mid-game Austria can also go for Italy, although that is only possible if she has not left fleet development on the wayside.

Italy is not as vulnerable as Austria, but she also doesn't have such offensive opportunities. As the saying goes, Italy both wins and loses less than Austria. Tunis is the only SC that is considered indisputably Italian, and an amateur Italy often finds great difficulty in gaining a toe-hold anywhere else. I myself prefer to take Greece with Italy right from the start, and Trieste is also a possibility as we're seeing in this game; however, Italy should know that usually she'll be on the losing side of any splitting of Austria where Russia and Turkey are also involved. After Austria is dead Turkey and Russia will find a new foe in Italy, after all. Thus my dictum: the Italian priority should be to keep both the western and eastern triangles in balance with nobody dying off while Italy herself grows in power. To achieve this Italy can make precision strikes on Marseilles, Munchen Trieste and the Turkish coast; often Italy can't keep hold of these SCs in a feasible configuration, but attacking the right targets can cause force diversions that allow Italy the time she needs to conquer SCs she can hold, such as Tri-Vie-Bud, Gre, Smy-Con or Mar-Spa.

Finally, Turkey usually consider Bulgaria a given at the start and has to fight for the rest. Her position is very similar to England in being defensively superior but limited in offensive capability; the trick to playing this sort of position is to leverage the safe defense by taking on an ally and trusting in her a bit, which risk'll allow Turkey to progress. The easiest SCs to take in this manner are Greece and Rumania; it is typical that after taking either Turkey will either turn against Russia to bid for Sevastopol, or build fleets and try to surprise Italy. Turkey is, however, usually the lesser force on the Med, and thus has to focus on defence against the Italian, who often has nothing better to do than fight for her life against Turkey. Therefore the well-played Turkey seeks the opportunity to betray Austria to gain Serbia (and become a continental power to a degree) or Russia to gain Rumania and Sevastopol.

That is pretty interesting, I've noticed the same thing. I guess it's because the game was much, much more popular during the '70s than it is now. There are still new sources as well, but they're not perhaps so easily accessible - the Diplomacy World magazine for instance is a pdf instead of an easily-accessible html article collection, which limits its readership only to the most motivated. Heck, I don't read it myself for some reason.

Thanks for those breakdowns, Eero.

I think the newest article I've come across was originally written in the early 80's. I don't remember what the original dates are on the articles I came across on the Wizards of the Coast site.

Thanks, that's exactly what I needed - the strategy guides I find online and read, while useful, get bogged down into very specific, detailed what-ifs quickly, and what I needed more was a broad overarching view of things that helped me understand what the other powers generally want without relying on what they tell me. Because, obviously, they've a vested interest in not telling me the truth about that (unless they're a western power, which isn't as useful to me at this point, heh).

For those players who have more games under their belts than I do, this stuff is probably common knowledge - having actually played the country in question, you know what their needs are from experience, and can judge their players better when they come to you with offers. For me, though, that's close to impossible - while I see the map and I see what happens, the layer with the important bits, how alliances build, change, and break, is invisible to me.

Though I think I'm learning fast! I find that when you're as weak as Austria is now, people are generally more open about their plans to you, even if only to gloat.

And thus Austria falls after a brief and uneventful struggle. I was expecting the German to screw me the way he did, but I assumed that if he's planning to move on me, I'm dead anyway, so decided to try to break out of this circle somewhat and go for Galicia while asking the German to go for Tyrolia. Might have gone for Trieste instead, but that would have only delayed the inevitable and locked me in from all sides with no breathing room at all.

I now kind of feel that Austria's fate was sealed right after that initial goof. Now, another player might have still made it work - but I was not only new to the game, I also had the reputation of being new to the game, and as such, was probably seen as either a drain on resources as an ally or easy pickings as a target. (One of) My own mistake(s) here was that I shut out the turk nearly immediatelly, pushing him into a strong partnership with the russian from square one. Stupid, stupid, stupid, what can I say?

Things I learned:
It pays to display that you're irked at any perceived injustice instead of writing it off immediatelly. That way, you can sometimes get other players to try to appease you if they need you for a move.
"Trust" is bullshit and entirely secondary to good strategic options (basically... a capacity of making mistakes and still surviving, which I lost very early on). However, this will not stop people from talking about trust due to the reason above.
Most games =/= the game I'm playing in. Generalized knowledge of what usually happens doesn't help much in the specific jam one can find himself in.

Anyway, I had fun!
And now that I'm out of the game... I'd appreciate it if those who had to deal with me told me their impressions (if it's something that would compromise your current plans, then make it private, 'course) regarding my negotiation attempts or my choices of moves. There's always room for improvement, but in my case, it's warehouses of it, I'm sure!