Diplomacy

[Kinseth]

Originally Posted by kevindola

I would be happy to play again. I would prefer a site that allows nations to surrender to a contingent of countries rather than forcing them to play it out to the bitter end, but I understand too why that might be desirable as it ratchets up the tension with the remaining players allegedly striving for a draw.

I am also curious to the general nature of a competitive Dip player's mindset. Is going in with the goal of a draw considered distasteful? What about bypassing a certain solo to honor an agreed upon draw? Things I was pondering on, especially as Turkey/Kinseth was repeatedly telling me in the past he plays for the draw and has a documented history of doing so (in order to get me to trust him more)

I dislike the forced nature of making everyone play till the bitter end. I think it artificially induces Solos. Also players who are on 1-3 units with no hope of winning, simply want the game to end. They are now forced to keep playing.

Each player has his own mindset, there is no "one" way to play diplomacy. I find playing for 2 way draws to be very rewarding and successful. It works for me.

I don't think Austria staying in Galicia was "That" big of a deal, I think that Austria woulda have gone against Russia/Italy as soon as he felt he could, regardless of the situation.

I still need to finish my EGS, but it won't be till sometime next week.

[Dad_Scaper]

I could have accommodated your request. There are dials I can turn that would have made it possible.

I did not, however, want to permit it. Going for a 2WD is a tremendous risk and a tremendous opportunity for both players. It's also an opportunity for one of the small powers, maybe even with one sad army or one lonely fleet, to play kingmaker and get revenge on some bitter foe.

So that was more me than it was the judge. If you guys want a 2WD, you can have it. But if I took out the dangerous and exciting part of getting there, it wouldn't be as impressive a feat.

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by kevindola

I am also curious to the general nature of a competitive Dip player's mindset. Is going in with the goal of a draw considered distasteful? What about bypassing a certain solo to honor an agreed upon draw? Things I was pondering on, especially as Turkey/Kinseth was repeatedly telling me in the past he plays for the draw and has a documented history of doing so (in order to get me to trust him more)

This was a significant debate in the old days of the so-called "Ken Lowe" judges.

The rules do not provide for "team" wins. A participant in a draw is not, by definition, a winner. And yet some players are, as we used to call them, "carebears," who will not stab allies under any circumstances and are not really playing for the solo.

My own personal style was to prefer longer-term alliances. I always had the stab available as an option, and I expect that my allies always did as well, but it was often the better long-term strategy to stay the course.

To my mind, a player who is not *playing to win* is taking something away from the experience of the game. If such a player becomes, for instance, competitive as England, and I am Turkey and I am trying to work with England to stop a runaway Germany threatening to dominate the game, then there is literally nothing I can say at that point to steer England toward attacking his German ally. So the game is more-or-less doomed at that point, because England has foreclosed diplomacy, which is, after all, the name of the game.

In a face-to-face game, I once had such a carebear ally. I knew that I could safely stab England and run away with the solo, because my Russian ally would never, ever take my home centers and stop me, even though he could, because he was a carebear. Obviously, that's not the way Kinseth was playing. If Italy was threatening the solo, Kinseth would have stepped in to prevent it.

Diplomacy is a funny game, in that different people play it differently. Here's one of the canonic articles about play styles; some of you may find it interesting:
http://www.diplomatic-pouch.org/Zine...sor/point.html

The interesting thing about this game, as I wrote earlier, is that the number of new players made it more unsettled. Some of you guys are not in any of these categories, really, because you're still finding your own voices as players. It was very interesting & entertaining to watch.

[Kinseth]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

I could have accommodated your request. There are dials I can turn that would have made it possible.

I did not, however, want to permit it. Going for a 2WD is a tremendous risk and a tremendous opportunity for both players. It's also an opportunity for one of the small powers, maybe even with one sad army or one lonely fleet, to play kingmaker and get revenge on some bitter foe.

So that was more me than it was the judge. If you guys want a 2WD, you can have it. But if I took out the dangerous and exciting part of getting there, it wouldn't be as impressive a feat.

That same small sad army player, can still decide not to vote for the draw. It actually adds more to the game, as now both players who are in the 2 way alliance, start to mistrust one another as the draw is not voted on by all players. They start thinking "Is the other player voting against it because he is stringing me along and waiting for his opportunity for a solo."

I still stand by the stance, forcing a 17/17 way draw is artificially going to create more solos, or create more 3 way draws...

Anyways, it's my opinion, doesn't mean I am right, just how I feel about it.

[Dad_Scaper]

Oh, a unanimous anonymous vote? I don't like it but if that's what the players want, that's ok with me.

[Kinseth]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

Oh, a unanimous anonymous vote? I don't like it but if that's what the players want, that's ok with me.

Yeah, as long as it is anonymous.

[Dad_Scaper]

I can accommodate that on the Judge platform.

[quozl]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

To my mind, a player who is not *playing to win* is taking something away from the experience of the game.

I agree, with Diplomacy or any game.

[Ranior]

Originally Posted by quozl

I agree, with Diplomacy or any game.

Strongly agreed as well, although with Diplomacy it is a particular problem as DS explained well. I too really don't like the "carebear" type of player who essentially shuts themselves off of Diplomacy given that is the point of the game. I played a lot of face to face Diplomacy back in the day with a group of high school friends and there was one such player who so rarely would stab anyone. His excuse was that no one would trust him again, and I will admit that face to face games do have a bit of an issue in terms of the fact that building up a reputation is useful. But in general this carebear would very often survive to one of the final 2/3 players and then wind up losing every single time. He almost never was left in a draw or anything because he would never ever strike first. It was quite annoying and took away a lot of the fun. We fortunately eventually realized this and had to suck it up and stop inviting him.

Anyhow the good news was this game was played quite well on that front--alliances were made but were willing to be broken. I'm still a little surprised Turkey didn't just go for the solo as I thought it may be there, but I also get his reasons for not doing so. I also get DS's argument for why it is important to actually play the thing out as finishing things up at 17-17 draw really does add a lot more tension than just agreeing to a draw when you're at like 13-12 or something. On the other hand, I personally don't really care if people do just want to draw.

As to some of kevindola's questions I don't consider a draw distasteful, but I do view that as your opening goal to be a bit sad. You should go in trying for the solo win and hoping and working to have everything fall your way. As most games develop you'll like not fall into such a dream scenario and have to decide if a solo is at all possible or if you really are more likely to need a draw. I personally am quite happy with either although a solo win feels the best in my opinion. I personally probably would have been likely to stab Italy if I was in Turkey's position in the late game as I thought I had a good solo chance. Then again, Turkey apparently had made many promises at that point, and so I perhaps would have held on to them--I really don't like to lie or renege on promises in Diplomacy. I really prefer to just not promise things and omit stuff if at all possible.

Basically my general gameplay is to try to find an early ally and work with them for most of the game. If I see an opportunity for a solo that I feel is pretty likely. I'll stab and go for it. Else I'm happy to draw if I don't see a good path to the solo. This round I just wasn't able to set up and hold on to an ally to make things work, but alas. I still think there was some hope in there of working with Italy or Turkey if I had just played a bit better. Ultimately if I had to have switched to working with Germany, France, or England in the midgame I also had set up those options early in the game and would have been happy to do that as well.

Overall though I was certainly reminded this round of how much I do enjoy this game. I hope we'll see another one soon. Sounds like most of us are in again?

(Looks like we'll need to replace Germany though as I haven't seen them post any end of game thoughts yet and I know they were slow to act towards the end so I suspect they'll not want to join again).

[wriggz]

having never played but followed this thread I'm disappointed I missed out. if you run another game I'd love to have the chance to play.

[Dad_Scaper]

You'd be great, Wriggz. I'm so pleased you're interested!

Just post below if you want to play. I think each of these guys said he was interested in another round; if not, just say so. @Zetsubo and @All Your Pie , either of you guys want to play again? I'm leaving someone out but I don't remember whom.

1. Kinseth
2. Quozl
3. Ranior
4. Kevindola

[wriggz]

go ahead and add my name.