Diplomacy

[Dad_Scaper]

I'll send you an email telling you.

[Kinseth]

Knives out!

[kevindola]

@Dad_Scaper

What's the status this game for communication between nations during retreat and build phases?

[Dad_Scaper]

My reading of game settings is that press during the "minor" phases is permitted. I won't swear to it, but that's what it looks like to me.

[Dad_Scaper]

Unfortunately, we've had a player drop out.

Could I interest anyone not currently playing in joining us as a four-dot Germany? The map is here.

Please no commentary. Just shoot me a message if you want to join. It would be for the best if you did not post here.

I'm sure all the players would appreciate it. As I think you'll see, Germany is not one of the big powers, but it is not what we used to call "mercy" positions, either.

Thanks for looking!

[Dad_Scaper]

And we're set!

Thank you, our most excellent volunteer.

[kevindola]

Finally back up for some post game discussion if any additional is needed. I'm not sure who the Germanys were, but I think we were looking at

England @Dragon Ruler
France @Kinseth
Italy @All Your Pie
Russia kevindola
Turkey @Ranior
Austria @mcorriga
Germany 1.0 ???
Germany 2.0 ??? (edit: quozl)

[quozl]

I was Germany 2.0 and I hope I livened up the game a bit with my entry.

[Ranior]

Nice game all, even if it was kind of boring.

I wasn't thrilled to grab Turkey here, as I find it the least interesting spot to play. I at least had some nice early breaks, but the game was so weird with the rapid death of Austria and Germany. Everyone gained some centers, and then at that point we already were at this weird point where England/France and Russia/Turkey/Italy both felt they more or less had to hold their side of the stalemate line or lose.

I think a lot of alternative ideas were explored, but it was just so tough to take the leap. Anyone that decided to turn on their allies risked watching their side of the map fall apart and all lose, unless they could convince the other side to move too. Nobody decided to take the plunge and try to kick things off.

I likely had the "best" spot to do it when Russia and Italy totally trusted me not to stab them, but my opinion is I still likely would have lost had I gone for it. I could make some big short term gains, but in my opinion their only rational response to such betrayal is to turn on me and make sure I lose....so suddenly sure I jump to 11ish centers, but then Italy and Russia use their remaining time to ensure I get nothing else while England/France get offered all the centers, and then I just die too.

I couldn't ever see a good reason for it not to be that way, so I continued working with them. We tried to pry and see if there was any way to get across the line, but despite France/England trying their best to make claims about how they were ready to fight each other, they also never actually let themselves risk losing control of holding the line.

Eventually then, I think we all came to accept we were in this weird and annoying deadlock, and the lame five way draw was the end.

A bit of a whimper of a game with a lack of excitement, but oh well. Not sure a lot else could be done given the rapid falling of Germany and Austria.

I do appreciate quozl stepping in though, and it was fun having them around for awhile, it did inject some life in the game for a bit.

[Dad_Scaper]

Interesting.

Here is what would have happened if someone had made a move during that stage:

The board would have been destabilized.

A player can destabilize the board without planning on racing straight to a solo. It's pretty rare that that happens.

You can do it, though, and continue the "diplomacy" part of Diplomacy, when the other players push back against you. For instance, E stabs F, and grabs a couple of dots. Then what? It's not game over for anybody, except perhaps for a minor power like G, who is caught up between two great powers in motion.

So the game is unstable for a few seasons. But let's say that R moves against E during that time, while T is busy with I trying to shore up the southern border F. Isn't there now an opportunity, and even an incentive, for T to move against R?

It's been a few games now, and it seems to me that our little Dip subculture here is one that features a lot of timid game play, and rock-solid alliances. Which I don't think is unusual, but it can sometimes be - as Ranior says here - boring.

I don't mean to sound critical. I'm just describing this pattern that I've seen.

[kevindola]

I can't seem to access the diplomacy site any longer, so I'll have to go by memory on certain things.

I usually stay pretty open about things. England @Dragon Ruler was definitely pretty amiable in the beginning, and I was straining in discussions to see if we could make an England-Russia alliance work.

He held to his agreement to keep an army off Scandinvia and things felt like they had a chance, but then I asked him to committ to an anti-French stance and I repeatedly asked him to keep a new fleet out of NWG. (1902 spring I think). He ignored the request though, and I don't mean he did it anyway, he ignored the question or comment in return press whenever I brought it up as a critical point.

So that movement in 1902S and his communication led me to touch base with Germany 1.0 and France who had been asking me to be more England aggressive for most of the game. We had a plan in place and that really would have dealt a pretty significant blow to England, but France thought the threat of Russia (and Turkey) was a greater threat then the gains England would have given so he revealed the movement plans to England who countered them perfectly.

After that I was in survival mode. England and France will have to speak up, but after that the perception of the remaining nations was that E/F had been in it from the beginning and would not break alliance. (England said something alluding to that in that E/F seem like a natural very strong alliance)

I know Germany 2.0 and I attempted to bargain with England where I would not challenge to reclaim St. Pete's in exchange for England putting a fleet on that territory instead of an army...... Germany would ally with England against France and I would send my units south to bolster my border with Turkey and Italian held Austria......but England was fairly quiet on things and put an army there squashing that.

Other then that I didn't see many options for me. I did make some plans with Italy to attack Turkey if England and France turned on each other, but the biggest reason we didn't (from my side) was that England, by reports, was not contacting ANYONE about an alliance even though he was moving to attack France. That made the impression it was just a charade which was proven to be the case.

I think Turkey was also pretty confident that E/F were not going to break up which is why he slowly acquiesced to giving territories back and losing position. Italy and I did have some preliminary contingencies set up, but it was dependent on a true breakup of E/F.

[Ranior]

Yeah, my feeling from very early in the game was that England and France were basically allied and weren't going to break up, and it kept more or less looking to be true on the board....

But it does somewhat beg the question how much I made that happen by my own play, forcing their hand in continuing to stay and look like allies as they didn't really get better options. Although they certainly seemed to have some other options, and the reports I was getting from Russia and Italy weren't really painting a picture that England/France were going to break up (although Italy and Russia had good reason to sell me a story that we had to stay allied to fight France and England)

I explored some other options throughout the game in taking out Russia or Italy, and maybe could/should have....but it always felt like the gain just wasn't worth it to me. Maybe I get down to a 4 way draw if I'm lucky, but I felt a lot of the time I hand England/France winning chances while I doom all of Italy/Russia/myself. I get Dad Scapers argument that a destabilized board potentially allows for things to happen and you can't know for sure what's going to go on....but given my view was that England/France were pretty stuck together and I didn't get serious vibes they'd break apart....was hard to want to do anything.

Kind of do regret not though, since a 5 way draw is rather boring, and I at least could have made the game more interesting and seen what would happen.

I'm curious from others though how much of my perception was reality:
--If I attack Russia or Italy, do Russia/Italy throw themselves against me and hand centers to France/England (this is what I would do in their shoes, feel the threat of that is the only thing that keeps them alive, so they have to be willing to follow through)
--If I attack Russia or Italy, do England and France switch to fighting each other, or do you both tend to just stay allied and push through the eastern powers that are in turmoil and vulnerable? (This is how I would have played their positions, in particular at several early points if Russia/Turkey just try to push through Italy and beyond I feel England/France cannot afford to fight among themselves as they'll just die to the juggernaut)