Thinking strategically about the players around me

Forum rules
This forum is limited to topics relating to the game Diplomacy only. Other posts or topics will be relocated to the correct forum category or deleted. Please be respectful and follow our normal site rules at http://www.webdiplomacy.net/rules.php.

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.
Smilies
:points: :-D :eyeroll: :neutral: :nmr: :razz: :raging: :-) ;) :( :sick: :o :? 8-) :x :shock: :lol: :cry: :evil: :?: :smirk: :!:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is OFF
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

If you wish to attach one or more files enter the details below.

Expand view Topic review: Thinking strategically about the players around me

Re: Thinking strategically about the players around me

by jay65536 » Sat May 16, 2020 1:49 am

To add to some of the responses already here--in my experience, it is not just about timing, but *time*.

If you are committing your forces to an attack, you need that attack to succeed in order to do well. But that's not good enough--you also want to win your battle before any other fighting across the board is resolved. If you don't, then you may have a new front before you're ready!

Take your example #1. I think one important factor here that would determine whether I invite Italian help with France is how quickly and decisively I could take France out without that help. If Italian help is necessary for a quick win, then that's what has to happen. I don't want to get bogged down in a long war in the West while (for example) Turkey is taken apart by an I/A/R, or Austria gets knocked out quickly by R/T.

Each situation will be different, but this is definitely part of the "it depends".

Re: Thinking strategically about the players around me

by gimix » Fri May 15, 2020 6:44 pm

I think the centre count is not that important (until it does not reach 18 of course). Or at least is not as important as the *quality* of the centres you get, and of the ones you allow someone else to take. And having too many centres in mid game may even be dangerous, because someone will surely start to say you're going to solo and try to turn everybody against you.

Is your faithful ally ending in a cul-de-sac, where their only option to grow will be stabbing you because they cannot possibly attack anybody else? Or are you the one who's ending that way?
Or, say you're getting St Pete: ok, but will you be able to defend it? Are you defending it from North or from South?
Can you take (and keep...) a centre or two on the other side of a stalemate line?
Which centres will have to be yours in the end if you are to sum up 18? Or if you just want to be reasonably sure you can prevent someone to solo?

I'm not such a good player, so i often forget to ask myself all the thousand questions there are; but i presume good players don't forget :cry:

Re: Thinking strategically about the players around me

by basvanopheusden » Fri May 15, 2020 3:26 am

These things will come down to tactics and timing. If you're attacking France, yes, you want Italy to distract him in the south, for example with an army in Piedmont. But you also want to make sure Italy has issues on the Eastern Front, so he might not be able to devote all his forces to grabbing French centers, and holding them afterwards.

Similarly, if you're France attacking England, yes, you would like for Russia to start moving on Germany at some point, but not too soon, since then you'll be fighting England 1-on-1.

It's all very complicated

Re: Thinking strategically about the players around me

by Chaqa » Thu May 14, 2020 8:19 pm

For France - do ANYTHING really, except don't invade Italy until at least one of E/G is dead) or else it usually goes poorly.

Re: Thinking strategically about the players around me

by Claesar » Thu May 14, 2020 7:51 pm

I think as France you actively want Russia to join in an attack on England, while as Germany you might not be as keen.

It mostly depends though, as you said. Also on the other players, and your goals.

Re: Thinking strategically about the players around me

by JeffRosenberg » Thu May 14, 2020 7:23 pm

Thanks for the response! Thinking more generally, do you think it usually makes more sense to join forces with multiple powers to bring down another, sacrificing some of your potential gains for more momentum? Or to try to limit the number of powers involved, seeking to maximize your own gains?

Or more likely, as in so many things, the answer is "it depends" :smirk:

Re: Thinking strategically about the players around me

by foodcoats » Thu May 14, 2020 4:30 pm

Welcome to the great game, Jeff!

I think that in general, yes, you do want to "to minimize the gains of the powers around [you], even those [you're] allied with." But it's all very context-dependent. I think you need to think about how your actions will affect your short-terms goals and allow you to lead from the early- and into the mid- (and finally late-) game.

In example 1, an E/G/I is very powerful, helping you break down France quickly and gain a lot of momentum. As Germany, the involvement of Italy is incredibly valuable to you, because Germany is (generally speaking) at greater risk of being stabbed by England in an Anglo-German alliance, and Italy is a "natural" ally with little overlap in desired centres. Italy gives you a hedge against that English stab. But, if you invite Italy into the fray, a smart England may perceive this as you working against their position from the outset - and may double-deal you with Russia, just as you double-deal with Italy.

Conversely, in your second example, inviting someone to attack your ally is probably all-around bad. If you pull it off, those two powers will at some point realize the situation you've engineered against them, and very possibly ally to take you out. Smart players could perceive you as a "puppet master" who can't be trusted as a partner and will seek to destroy you. But, as France in an F/G, you definitely want to be developing strong friendship with Russia that will allow you to eventually turn on Germany and "squeeze" them with the help of the big purple bear.

The thing that's so amazing about the classic Diplomacy map is how beautifully and consistently balanced and interwoven it is. Your goal, if you want to win, is to stymie everyone else (your friends included) while you grow big and powerful, but you have to be very careful, convincing, and diplomatic to achieve that without angering your allies.

Thinking strategically about the players around me

by JeffRosenberg » Thu May 14, 2020 4:04 pm

I'm a relatively new Diplomacy player, and I've been trying to grapple with how to think about the players in my "sphere" who I'm not planning to attack in the short term -- my allies and those I'm neutral towards. Does it make sense to try to minimize the gains of the powers around me, even those I'm allied with? Or should I be focused more on completing concrete objectives, such as eliminating whatever power I'm attacking, and not worrying so much about the gains other powers make in cooperating with me?

Let me give a couple of examples to try to illustrate what I'm thinking about:

1. I'm Germany and I've agreed to ally with England against France. Do I encourage Italy to move west against France, which will make it much easier for our attacks to succeed? Or do I encourage Italy to move east and stay out of our way, because I don't want Italy taking a share of the gains?

2. I'm France and I've agreed to ally with Germany against England. Is there value to encouraging Russia to move against Germany at the same time, thus trying to keep Germany from getting as strong as me? Or is that more likely to result in England slipping free as Germany divides their attention?

I know it's not that simple -- in a seven-player game, I'm not the only one with goals and agency. But for the sake of this exercise, let's take it as given that I can convince other players to do what I want through diplomacy.

Top