Want to improve your own play, or take a player under your wing and help them improve theirs? Try the new webDiplomacy Mentorship program, found here.

Finished: 11 Oct 17 UTC
Back to the Basics-7
1 days, 12 hours /phase (slow)
Pot: 420 D - Autumn, 1913, Finished
No in-game messaging, Anonymous players, Draw-Size Scoring
Game won by palesman (468 D)
11 Oct 17 UTC I was frustrated by how the game went and saw France and Germany as my enemies. Turkey did me no wrong so I decided to minion for them. I also didn't consider it likely that I would have been allowed to survive to the end.

I know it's petty but it is a realistic concern in diplomacy which if people don't consider they risk the consequences.
11 Oct 17 UTC How were you not going to survive? Neither France nor Germany had any units to use against you without giving the game to Turkey. It was a textbook stalemate. You could have taken Liverpool if you wanted, but you had to move Nwg-NAO to replace Eng support for MAO. Nwg-Nwy was inexcusable.
12 Oct 17 UTC I wasn't looking for an excuse for attacking Germany. I was mad about the way I was attacked and so was lashing out. I wanted Germany and France to loose. I did it on purpose.

That is one of the things you need to factor for in Diplomacy (especially in gun boat when you can't communicate).
12 Oct 17 UTC True, you have to factor in that you may be playing with emotional people who don't understand the objective of the game.
13 Oct 17 UTC Certainly there are some people who believe that the words on the box define the true meaning of the universe and blindly allow other people to define their reality. I can imagine that it would be difficult for those without independent thought to understand why a person would think for themselves.

And in gunboat it is less of a factor but in a standard game a big part of the game is through diplomacy to discover the motivation of players and then accommodate in order to advance your own motivations.
13 Oct 17 UTC People that don't play to win (or draw when the win is not possible) may have a lot of fun setting their own private goals and easily achieving them, but they ruin the game for those that do try to win or at least draw. Not much one can do about it other than avoid playing with them, but that's hard in anonymous games. If you think throwing the game to another player instead of drawing makes you an independent thinker... not really.
13 Oct 17 UTC I think England does have a point. Emotion does indeed play a role in diplomacy ( both the game and in the real world). And there is no rule prohibiting one country, upset about the course of events in a given game, has to agree to a draw. You don't make the rules France!
14 Oct 17 UTC Of course he's free to throw a tantrum and throw the game. That doesn't mean that it's not bad play.on his part. What rule do you think I'm making? He didn't brake any rules, even his CD was not against the rules. Do you really think that throwing the game was a good move on his part, or are you defending him just because you benefited from it?
14 Oct 17 UTC If nothing else you are taking this game (and perhaps yourself?) far too seriously.
14 Oct 17 UTC I definitely take the game seriously. You didn't answer my question though. Was Nwg-Nwy a good move, in your opinion? Is it something you would do?
14 Oct 17 UTC I thought it was an absolutely brilliant move. Truly! It was one of the all time great moves in the history of this noble game!
14 Oct 17 UTC ;)
14 Oct 17 UTC I think we know what Turkey's bias is...

I think both England and France have a point.

England, because humans are not always rational, and you have to deal with that in Diplomacy.

Xorxes, on the other hand is right to be frustrated. Even if people often react emotionally, they generally don't do it such a blatantly suicidal manner. Few people will throw a game even when guaranteed a place in the stalemated draw.
14 Oct 17 UTC Thank you PF. I was doubly frustrated this game. First by Germany, for not eliminating England when the 3wd was so easy, and then by England, for hanging himself after Germany let him off the hook.
14 Oct 17 UTC Point well taken PF.
16 Oct 17 UTC I agree with France's position of taking the game seriously. I also take the game seriously (though I admit that getting into a gunboat game was an accident). However the problem with France's analysis is that they are projecting their values on other players.

My move NWG to Nor was a good move because it served my purpose. I decided it was preferable to punish France and Germany for their aggression against me rather than to win the nominal points gained in a draw. Especially since lacking a means to communicate I had no way to know if I could guarantee my place in the draw. In a communicating game I doubt it would have gone that way since the relationship with the players would have been based on more than past moves.

Though I also agree that Germany was wrong to not finish me off. If anything I think that might be the main take away, like Machiavelli wrote you can either fully embrace friendship with a free state or completely destroy it, any middle ground is self destructive (paraphrase).
16 Oct 17 UTC You are wrong that you could not guarantee your place in the draw. 12 out of the 13 French and German units were tied up in the stalemate line and unusable against you.
16 Oct 17 UTC I confess to not doing deep analysis on the possibility of surviving the game but even if I had I would be depending on both France and Germany being able to see the same thing and also believing I could do the same.

Now since I don't play gunboat (this game was an accident) maybe this sort of thing is very common: people quickly and dependably recognize when the draw is necessary... but in games where people can talk I still see them refusing to trust the other survivors.

I certainly would have preferred to have gotten points but my experience had led me to regard Germany and France only as hostile.
17 Oct 17 UTC You wouldn't be depending on us, because if either of us went after you, Turkey wins, which is the same result you got by suiciding. So attacking Norway was irrational, which is explained by you not reading the board. That's what frustrated me. I understand throws when you really are under threat of elimination, but this was not the case here.
17 Oct 17 UTC I can accept the criticism of not reading the board carefully (guilty) but that is different from irrational. Not much comfort to you but I had a rational: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYPsoxpt0BU

Start Backward Open large map Forward End

Turkey
palesman (468 D)
Won. Bet: 60 D, won: 420 D
18 supply-centers, 17 units
France
xorxes (12487 D)
Survived. Bet: 60 D
7 supply-centers, 8 units
Germany
KY2014 (1620 D)
Survived. Bet: 60 D
5 supply-centers, 6 units
England
ezk3626 (158 D)
Survived. Bet: 60 D
4 supply-centers, 3 units
Italy
Claesar (84 D Mod)
Defeated. Bet: 60 D
Austria
Defeated. Bet: 60 D
Russia
Defeated. Bet: 60 D
Archive: Orders - Maps - Messages