Heroscapers - Diplomacy

Heroscapers (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/index.php)

- Other Games (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=19)

- - Diplomacy (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=53767)

I guess I took a really long time to write that post. Ninja'd twice, and it looks like I lifted the line about Ranior's desire to be justified at not being pleased from the Turkey perspective. But that was independently assessed.

And just for clarity, I by and large agree with Ranior here that Kinseth negotiates advantages into planned and suggested moves with his allies. Of course, as also mentioned, that is kind of the point of the game so I am certainly not saying there is anything wrong with it, in fact I'm jealous he does it so well. I have numerous instances of it from the previous 2 games detailed in the censored Part 2 of my Game 2 EGS ;) But I reacted differently to it in this game than in the previous ones and I don't regret that strategy either even if it had the same result. Kinseth earned the victory here as he did in the previous game. I do think this one was incredibly impressive, more so than the previous solo.

Too diplomatic? Fine

If I had been Turkey, I would have been very angry at Austria's move. It reminded me of a play Italy (wriggz) made against Austria (me) last game with a last minute message about a move (PIE-VEN). Although this bounce wasn't on the same scale as that move.

The message tone in a vacuum would probably have turned me off to future workings. BUT, I am of the same perception of the move as Ranior, so therefore I think the response tone is justified. So If I did the move and got that response, I wouldn't have taken it out of the ordinary.

However if I thought the bounce was reasonable and then got Ranior's response, it would have been problematic long term.

How did I get sucked into reading this? I dunno. But I am dying for @Kinseth to answer @Ranior 's question, which I interpret as being:

If the positions had been reversed, with Kinseth in Turkey and an unknown in Austria, given the communication that led up to the move, would he have been okay with the move made by Austria?

~Aldin, on pins and needles

Of all the surprising things I've seen in this thread, this is the surprisingest. :)

I like that I learned 'freaking' is Kinseth's trigger word. Will be useful moving forward in life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aldin (Post 2196834)

That's a very fair interpretation/restatement of my question, yes.

@Aldin - Sorry to leave you hanging like that!

As Turkey, I'd look at that request for a bounce and probably get something out of it. I might feel that getting Rum already was enough out of the deal, I'd probably push for having Bul safe in a way that I didn't need a unit there to defend it also.

I usually am on for diplomacy leading up to the deadline, I believe that most of the players know this also from the game, other than when the adjudications happened after midnight eastern.

The problem is this, I don't know what Turkey's true intentions where for going to Bul, and he didn't openly say why he was going there. Important detail to his "Ally", one would think right? It was one of those things that "Dawned" on me, like what is he doing with Con? One can say that "Being in my own territory is fine, it is mine." That is great and all, but this is diplomacy and moves happen for a reason, not because I am out for a Sunday stroll and I hear Bulgaria is delightful this time of year. If he was feeling like we were 100% super buddy-buddy allies at this point, would going to Bul be such a big deal? Would the bounce even be that big of a deal?

I've played diplomacy for over 15 years, and a move to a space that borders two of your neighbors supply centers is something worth bringing up.

For me, as Turkey, I'd want to be there to work with Italy over Greece. Otherwise the bounce would be fine by me(With some sort of agreement setup to go along with it.)

I appreciate the answer, @Kinseth . So if I correctly understand you, you don't believe you could have wound up in the exact same position. Not the "yes" or"no" I was hoping for, but fair enough.

~Aldin, spectatoritively

I think a key disconnect between the answer and the spirit of the question is that Turkey is approaching it like he never received a request to bounce (because it was so close to the deadline)

Kinseth answered it as if he received a request for a bounce and how he would respond to that.

Perhaps a more satisfying answer would be how Kinseth would react if he never received a request to bounce and Austria simply did the move. Like it or not, there is a difference between the two player's perception of whether a communication was sent that could reasonably be reacted to.

Indeed that is a key difference we're still having. Kinseth apparently expects players to be on for last minute diplomacy. I do not--as I say I have real things going on in life such that this game isn't dictating when I'll be online to post press. To me that's rather the entire point of having several days between ever phase--so that players can fit in a few messages per day here and there around whatever their schedules might be. I can't remember the exact timing of when F1902 got adjudicated, but if it is a Tuesday evening I'm playing games with my gaming group. Friday nights I'm often doing something. Occasionally on other weeknights I have a game group for Pandemic Legacy. I think it's absolutely unreasonable to expect players to be on for last minute diplomacy. You might want it, and you might get fortunate that the player is available, but I think it's much to far to essentially find it a requirement or even expected behavior.

While Kinseth's edit suggests that he think failing to reply could be a ploy, to be honest in this game I find the late message to be a ploy. From my perspective such a late message may well just be a ploy to make it seem like you're open to discussion on the matter but are really expecting not to be able to have the conversation until after it's already done. (The classic ask for forgiveness rather than permission). I see the situation far closer to that.

I think it's particularly so because Kinseth's arguments continue to stray into hypocrisy for me. He still hasn't disputed that he apparently thinks Italy should have viewed the S1902 move as an attack on Turkey. Indeed in the absence of a message it sure seems that way. You'd think you'd absolutely want to tell an ally about that move. Yet Kinseth also seems to be suggesting the onus is on Turkey to let Austria know he's moving into a territory he currently controls...whereas I'd argue it's obviously more important to notify an ally you may be moving on one of their supply centers!

Ultimately I suppose we both needed to discuss more fully all of our moves that season. At the same time I'm often hesitant during early seasons to lay out exactly all of my moves--as I believe any seasoned Diplomacy player is. Giving the other players your exact moves is always a bit risky since it gives them full knowledge of how to precisely gut you if they want. (Fair or not, this is how I got wrecked in G1 of our three games thus far. I gave Kinseth my full moves and he gutted me as he knew exactly how to strike and respond). The early part of the game involves slowly building trust with your allies. My EGS lay it out, but I was still feeling out Austria at this point given that they were claiming they couldn't handle a deadline in F1901 and had failed to give me support he had promised. Fully trusting him in S1902 with all my moves isn't usually how I'd play the situation and indeed I didn't. Although the move to BUL was rather obvious for me anyhow so I'm not sure what level I really needed to state it. I had built A SMY which clearly signaled to Austria/Italy I wasn't after them, and that leaves a pretty obvious option for A BUL....did I really need to outright state the obvious?

Ultimately it sounds like we just see this in different ways. Even after hearing your explanations it just doesn't matter much to me--I still see it as a last second message from Austria essentially telling me "I'm moving into your supply center knowing that slows you down and puts you in a worse position, I hope we can still be friends". That's not how I feel allies work. I agree had I got the message much earlier in the diplomacy phase such that we had reasonable time to discuss it....well then reasonable discussions could occur over it. But if Austria's springing it last minute on me....it reads and plays out quite a bit differently. (Again particularly so from a player who claimed he couldn't handle deadlines just the season prior but now is completely comfortable with them and expecting diplomacy to be able to occur around them)

@kevindola
Many thanks. I'm not going to be interested in a second game for while, but it was a good experience to have once.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aldin (Post 2196930)

Diplomacy isn't a black & white game. I don't know what Ranior was thinking when he made the move. He said it feels obvious to him that he should be able to move units through his own territories at will. I don't think that Italy would be happy if I shifted a unit to Trieste, eventhough it is mine and borders one of his supply centers, let alone two!

You just cannot get a black & white answer on this one, sorry.