Weak Press

by **Carl Tuckerson** » Sun Apr 28, 2019 7:11 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Sun Apr 28, 2019 6:26 pm
We are very different players, I think . A good thing, as the game would be painfully dull if we were all the same.

To give you a nice illustration, in a two day phase game (which is my preference these days with annoyances like work rudely taking up my time) I make a point of never having a strategy until the second day. Sure, every nation has its sets of possible options, but I won't make any serious attempt to choose one of those options as my preferred way forward until I've had the chance to speak to everyone. What do I want Russia to do? Get 18 centres. How do I go about doing that? It depends totally on the personalities surrounding me.

There are some tactics that are universal. There are others that can only work when applied to certain personalities. There are some players who will see you leaving an open border as a sign of weakness, others who will see it as a gesture of trust. Some who are far more willing to take chances than others. Some can be relied upon to act in their self interests at all times, others are more easily swayed by emotion. Until you know your enemy you will not know what tactics can work, will not know what strategies are viable.

This still doesn't seem to me to be exclusive of swordsman's angle. I'm sure there's a world where you're England and your French neighbor really truly honestly will be your best friend for the whole game if you let him into English Channel on the first turn and that he holds no ill affectations toward you. If you manage to get that read in the first turn, then sure, let him in, adjust your expectations in light of the knowledge that you have secured a strong game-long ally.
But you certainly would start with the presumption that he has to prove to you that he is that player, and not just another cheeky Frenchman with a lot of chutzpah and an eye for a convoy to Britain in A01. The tactical and strategic realities of the board make that outcome far more likely than the one where he really is going to be your friend. That doesn't mean you categorically write off the offer but that the presumption against the offer is higher than one in which France seeks to DMZ English Channel and support you to Belgium in A01.
To reject that is in essence to reject the idea that tactics and strategy can ever inform how you begin a game. I think that clearly goes too far.

by **Matticus13** » Sun Apr 28, 2019 7:02 pm

chluke wrote: ↑
Sun Apr 28, 2019 6:21 pm

Do you send "dumb" global press if the audience is right for it?

^ My favorite type of press

This thread is turning out to be better than I had hoped it could be!

I will say that I tend to start matches in the Swordsman school of thought, with a plan of action laid out in my mind and look to court the necessary Powers accordingly. I often drift towards the Octavious method by the time S01 is in the books. Outside the box is my wheelhouse. So, if you come to me with an exciting strategy that I haven't seen used many times, I'm probably hooked. Even if the idea has zip in common with my original game plan. Especially if I get to convoy an army hundreds of miles...

by **Octavious** » Sun Apr 28, 2019 6:26 pm

We are very different players, I think

. A good thing, as the game would be painfully dull if we were all the same.

To give you a nice illustration, in a two day phase game (which is my preference these days with annoyances like work rudely taking up my time) I make a point of never having a strategy until the second day. Sure, every nation has its sets of possible options, but I won't make any serious attempt to choose one of those options as my preferred way forward until I've had the chance to speak to everyone. What do I want Russia to do? Get 18 centres. How do I go about doing that? It depends totally on the personalities surrounding me.

There are some tactics that are universal. There are others that can only work when applied to certain personalities. There are some players who will see you leaving an open border as a sign of weakness, others who will see it as a gesture of trust. Some who are far more willing to take chances than others. Some can be relied upon to act in their self interests at all times, others are more easily swayed by emotion. Until you know your enemy you will not know what tactics can work, will not know what strategies are viable.

by **chluke** » Sun Apr 28, 2019 6:21 pm

David E. Cohen wrote: ↑
Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:21 pm
Let me qualify a little. Tactics are easy for me. With sufficient study and practice they should be easy for most people. Strategy likewise. As with other games, tactical and even strategic proficiency in Diplomacy can become almost automatic; the mental equivalent of muscle memory. The area of Dip that has infinite nuance and variety, and therefore presents an unmatched challenge, is the mind of the adversary.

I heartily agree with David that solving the puzzle that is the mind of your adversaries is they key! However, I think that building strategies around that deciphered understanding is rarely mastered as well. (How do you plan out your short and long term press strategy with each player? How do you plan to set up various powers to conflict with one another? How far do you want let that various conflict escalate? Where do you build your positional strengths and where do you allow your weaknesses? How do you build up and break down your psychological manipulations? Do you send "dumb" global press if the audience is right for it? When and who should you stab? And much more...)

For that reason, I personally subscribe to Octavious' completely flexible strategic thinking over Swordsman's somewhat predetermined lines of thinking.

To be clear, I think Swordsman is a brilliant tactician and strategist. I also think everyone will improve through study of the tactical and strategic concepts that Swordsman lays out and teaches. I though, as I imagine Octavious would do, will completely throw out any of those preconceived concerns or strategies depending on the the allies and adversaries in the game.

by **swordsman3003** » Sun Apr 28, 2019 5:49 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:32 pm

swordsman3003 wrote: ↑
Sun Apr 28, 2019 3:23 pm
You should understand what you want to accomplish strategically and tactically each turn before sending out and responding to messages. If you don’t have any idea of what is in your interest, if you don’t have clear goals, you will be manipulated by the other players. Your mastery of strategy and tactics won’t help you if you treat those as secondary.
I couldn't disagree more. How on earth do you go about forming a workable strategy before you have built an understanding of who your opponents are? In gunboats you have no choice but to build your strategy on a foundation of assumptions. In diplomacy playing with that kind of handicap is entirely optional.

I have a feeling that your expression of extreme disagreement with me comes from not understanding my position. Let me elaborate, and let's see if you still think that we disagree.

-----------------------------

I know something about who my opponents are as soon as the match starts because I know which power each player is playing. I also know where my interests lie because I know which power I am playing.

Each of the 7 powers has inherent capabilities, advantages, and limitations. Those advantages and limitations (and how to exploit or work around them) constrain what is possible and define what strategies/tactics are wise or foolish.

Surely you agree with this? To me, these are undeniable, inherent properties of Diplomacy.

For example:

Your Bored Brother wrote:English Short-term Goals (up through the end of 1902):
Keep France from opening to English Channel. Whether I open there or not, I don't want France opening there. If France starts off with that opening, my strategic and tactical choices will be severely limited for several turns.

Discourage as many northern fleet builds as I can. Ideally, I will persuade Germany to build zero fleets, Russia not to build in St. Petersburg (2nd-best-case-scenario would be an army build, 3rd best would be a fleet build on the south coast), and France to build zero fleets (or else build a second fleet in Marseilles).Usually Russia can be encouraged to do this, often Germany, and rarely France.

Gain a foothold with my army. Usually this means landing the starting army in Norway, but Belgium, Picardy, or Brest is sometimes workable (in that order of likelihood). Any attempt to convoy to Denmark or Holland almost always fails.

My short-term goals require me to devote my attention to Germany, France, and Russia. Italy, Austria, and Turkey matter to me, but what they do is not an immediate concern.

Before sending or receiving any messages, I was also able to write extensively about my long-term goals as England, my opening move possibilities, and my alliance options with my neighbors. ODC Journal R1 Spring 1901

Without this a priori knowledge of how a Diplomacy match functions, if I solely operated based on what my rivals (who are out to get me!) tell me in their messages, I could be tricked into all kinds of stupid deals and moves. How do I know if my rival's offer is good or not if I don't have a preconceived idea of what constitutes my interests? In this way, lower-case-d "diplomacy" is inseparable from strategy and tactics.

If you're England, and the French player says "let me move into English Channel for my opening move and I'll be your best friend," you should have a reaction of extreme skepticism because your prior experience and theoretical knowledge of Diplomacy will inform you that this is likely a ruse or a bad deal.

Surely, Octavious, we agree to this extent?

-----------------------------

As a mentor, by far the most common question I get is a variation of "What should I say to Russia?" and my answer is invariably another question: "What do you want Russia to do?" If you can't answer the question of what you might want another player to do, then you don't even have a starting point for your conversations. Your press will be confused, aimless, and you're likely to be tricked into going against your own best interest.

The topic of this thread is "weak press." I believe that the most common mental weakness of inexperienced players is that they let their rivals' press inform their strategy and tactics, instead of using their own strategic and tactical goals as the basis of their press with their rivals.

Diplomacy is not "Mafia, plus a map!" -- but many players think and act like it is. Those players who overly depend on their rivals' press are prey for the predators who understand the objective constraints of the Diplomacy map.

When at all possible, I use emotion, friendship, credibility, and so on to manipulate those players into granting me immense tactical and strategic advantages in return for "I'll be your best friend!"

Therefore, I believe that strong press is not possible without having mastered Diplomacy's strategy and tactics. I agree with David E. Cohen that these things are relatively easy to learn. If you've a newer player and have never played 1v1 matches, try playing twenty of those and I bet your press will improve a lot.

by **Peregrine Falcon** » Sun Apr 28, 2019 5:28 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:32 pm
How on earth do you go about forming a workable strategy before you have built an understanding of who your opponents are? In gunboats you have no choice but to build your strategy on a foundation of assumptions. In diplomacy playing with that kind of handicap is entirely optional.

It would be super interesting to see how you play someday. I feel that flexibility is very much a minority approach

by **David E. Cohen** » Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:35 pm

swordsman3003 wrote: ↑
Sat Apr 27, 2019 9:58 pm
There are precious few people anywhere in the world offering to teach Diplomacy. And if I don't call attention to myself, my offer may go unnoticed...

Though I was being humorous, I do not mean to denigrate your offer. Getting past false humility is something teachers often need to do to be effective.

by **Octavious** » Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:32 pm

swordsman3003 wrote: ↑
Sun Apr 28, 2019 3:23 pm
You should understand what you want to accomplish strategically and tactically each turn before sending out and responding to messages. If you don’t have any idea of what is in your interest, if you don’t have clear goals, you will be manipulated by the other players. Your mastery of strategy and tactics won’t help you if you treat those as secondary.

I couldn't disagree more. How on earth do you go about forming a workable strategy before you have built an understanding of who your opponents are? In gunboats you have no choice but to build your strategy on a foundation of assumptions. In diplomacy playing with that kind of handicap is entirely optional.

by **David E. Cohen** » Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:21 pm

jmo1121109 wrote: ↑
Sun Apr 28, 2019 3:39 am

David E. Cohen wrote: ↑
Sun Apr 28, 2019 3:23 am
Dip tactics are easy.
The number of solo's in the ODC so far implies otherwise. Though I agree with your premise of press being harder then tactics.

Let me qualify a little. Tactics are easy for me. With sufficient study and practice they should be easy for most people. Strategy likewise. As with other games, tactical and even strategic proficiency in Diplomacy can become almost automatic; the mental equivalent of muscle memory. The area of Dip that has infinite nuance and variety, and therefore presents an unmatched challenge, is the mind of the adversary.

by **Carl Tuckerson** » Sun Apr 28, 2019 3:39 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Sun Apr 28, 2019 10:14 am
I've never really understood the desire to disconnect press from strategy and tactics. The idea that you can separate them seems to me a symptom of gunboat thinking. It's all well and good fighting with a hand tied behind your back when everyone else has agreed to do the same, but that doesn't mean that in a proper fight you should view said hand as something apart.

You certainly must use them all in coordination.
I don't think that it is especially fair to attribute distinguishing the three skills to gunboat play, since in gunboat your strategy and tactics must work in coordination too.
But in press games, the ceiling on your negotiation skills is so much higher than that on your strategy and tactics skills; as your opposition gets better the marginal returns on strategy and tactics are lower, as there's only so much to be told from the game board, but the returns on negotiation skills have no limit, as there are endless permutations of human interactions.

by **swordsman3003** » Sun Apr 28, 2019 3:23 pm

As I explained in the published portion of my ODC Journal, if you learn anything from me, learn this:

You should understand what you want to accomplish strategically and tactically each turn before sending out and responding to messages. If you don’t have any idea of what is in your interest, if you don’t have clear goals, you will be manipulated by the other players. Your mastery of strategy and tactics won’t help you if you treat those as secondary.

It’s important to approach your press with a certain amount of open-mindedness (e.g., as Germany I would honestly consider alliance proposals from any power or combination of powers), but you should maintain your own personal idea of what is in your interest. Your knowledge of strategy and tactics should tell you what are your preferred results from your diplomatic engagements (e.g., as Germany, my preferred ally is Italy; I hate western triple and would only form it to stop juggernaut; I prefer England as my ally to France if England agrees to build no armies, etc.).

by **Octavious** » Sun Apr 28, 2019 10:14 am

I've never really understood the desire to disconnect press from strategy and tactics. The idea that you can separate them seems to me a symptom of gunboat thinking. It's all well and good fighting with a hand tied behind your back when everyone else has agreed to do the same, but that doesn't mean that in a proper fight you should view said hand as something apart.

by **Carl Tuckerson** » Sun Apr 28, 2019 5:05 am

I think tactics are the easiest to develop, then negotiations, then strategy. But I would bet that in upper level games you get far better returns for improving negotiations than the other two.

by **New England Fire Squad** » Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:22 am

swordsman3003 wrote: ↑
Sat Apr 27, 2019 7:49 pm
You can learn a lot from me:

Online Diplomacy Championship Journal

I am not finished getting all the pages ready for publication, but I'm more than halfway done. I'll post a self-promoting thread when the thing is finished. The editing process is miserable because of how challenging it was to write such a thing in real time.

Have not enjoyed a read that much in a long time, and am eagerly awaiting more. As an aside, the live game that YHN referenced - I was the one who was horribly stabbed. He's excellent with press.

by **Peregrine Falcon** » Sun Apr 28, 2019 3:52 am

I think it comes down to there being easy tools to practise and improve tactics—GB, 1v1, etc—but that the equivilants for communications are incredibly time-consuming, long-term efforts.

by **jmo1121109** » Sun Apr 28, 2019 3:39 am

David E. Cohen wrote: ↑
Sun Apr 28, 2019 3:23 am
Dip tactics are easy.

The number of solo's in the ODC so far implies otherwise. Though I agree with your premise of press being harder then tactics.

by **David E. Cohen** » Sun Apr 28, 2019 3:23 am

Of the trio of strategy, tactics and communications (small 'd' diplomacy) in Diplomacy, communications is by far the most challenging of the the three and for that reason the most fun. Dip tactics are easy.

by **swordsman3003** » Sat Apr 27, 2019 9:58 pm

There are precious few people anywhere in the world offering to teach Diplomacy. And if I don't call attention to myself, my offer may go unnoticed...

by **David E. Cohen** » Sat Apr 27, 2019 9:39 pm

swordsman3003 wrote: ↑
Sat Apr 27, 2019 7:49 pm
You can learn a lot from me

Including humility.

by **swordsman3003** » Sat Apr 27, 2019 7:49 pm

You can learn a lot from me:

Online Diplomacy Championship Journal

I am not finished getting all the pages ready for publication, but I'm more than halfway done. I'll post a self-promoting thread when the thing is finished. The editing process is miserable because of how challenging it was to write such a thing in real time.

Weak Press

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Weak Press

Re: Weak Press

Re: Weak Press

Re: Weak Press

Re: Weak Press

Re: Weak Press

Re: Weak Press

Re: Weak Press

Re: Weak Press

Re: Weak Press

Re: Weak Press

Re: Weak Press

Re: Weak Press

Re: Weak Press

Re: Weak Press

Re: Weak Press

Re: Weak Press

Re: Weak Press

Re: Weak Press

Re: Weak Press

Re: Weak Press