webdiplomacy.net

I personally don't think poorly of stabbers in following games. I do note, however, when players are poor sports.

Your thoughts?

This one is tricky. To some extent it’s on you to get to understand the personality of the person you’re planning to stab and mitigate against the possibility they may very well rage on you. I’ve been burned by bad rage-quits and I’ve benefitted from encouraging stabs that I had good guesses would go that way.

Circumstances matter as well. Vengeance is a very understandable consolation prize for most players so if you stab somebody to the point where their game is unwinnable while still allowing them a chance at revenge then you shouldn’t have any expectations they wouldn’t take that opportunity for sake of venting their hard feelings.

Some people do value revenge over gameplay, and these people do indeed lower the bar of game quality. In Diplomacy you have to be understanding relationships will come and go and betrayals will happen. If there’s still a lot of life in your game but you’re so thin skinned all you care about is making somebody pay at all costs then this probably isn’t the game for you. Making a complete stranger pay for their lack of superficial loyalty towards you in a game designed to have only one winner at the end is irrational and ridiculous and probably is worthy of some self-reflection towards your inner demons and/or stunted maturity.

Thanks, vi... thoughtful response.
I was mostly just complaining about people who stop entering orders (or just blase finish) when they are on the losing side.
:-/

And I agree with your comments. Wish I had written them.

I only think poorly of those who fail to set up a stalemate line i.e. those who against their own wincon. Everything else is often understandable.

People who just stop playing altogether are the worst.

I kinda do agree though that giving up on a game, well there are reasons for it.
There really are some circumstances where at which point are you just stalling the game for no reason.
Take my world game, for example, all I own is Africa, minus the northern and western portion of it. My only ally owns China, and not even all of it.
The rest is owned by a 5 country alliance that has been alive for months.

Old Kenya NMRed himself, and I joined the game, I tried everything I knew to break their little alliance, at this point in the game, why continue fighting if it's going to continue being a steamroll...?

I find it hard continuing games where you are practically dead, and you dying now, or you dying in a year or two, really makes a difference...

Having been in games were players have come back from 1 SC to go on to solo, I have a very hard time accepting that mentality. At some point it’s just a weakness of character, lack of competitive spirit, and/or lack of confidence in oneself.

VillageIdiot wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 20, 2019 11:57 pm

Having been in games were players have come back from 1 SC to go on to solo, I have a very hard time accepting that mentality. At some point it’s just a weakness of character, lack of competitive spirit, and/or lack of confidence in oneself.

I wanna see these games!!

I do think there are scenarios where a highly stable alliance is grinding you down before a probable draw where your decisions largely cease to matter, but especially in Classic where the board is somewhat cramped, even in a losing war you can hole up in a key stalemate position and just make yourself so damn aggravating and difficult to remove from the game that the alliance can't get the job done in time.
I had a recent game like this as England in gunboat where Germany made impressive early games and massively committed to trying to kill me. At one point he had something like five fleets and three armies. Obviously that fight is unwinnable face-up, and it's going to take a shift somewhere else in the board to prevent Germany from grinding me out. But I made a big push for Iberia and Marseilles and got lucky enough to capture them while France, bless him, decided to suicide on solo frontrunner (and eventual victor) Italy. When I got the chance I built two armies on the island with Germany blockading all the oceans around it, just to be as big of a pain in the ass as possible to kill.
The plan almost worked perfectly--Russia saw the writing on the wall (that either Italy would overrun him and be the solo threat, or that Germany would overrun me first and then turn around and eliminate Russia himself) and ceded a bunch of territory to Italy to force us to stop fighting, and even despite Germany committing (in my opinion) far too much effort toward killing me at the end and not enough to setting up defenses, we got to the stalemate position before we were overrun and, importantly, Germany could not safely eliminate me without Italy winning.
Gunboat being what it is, we couldn't talk and settle our differences, so Russia threw St. Petersburg to Italy out of frustration with Germany, and we lost. But the lesson remained--if you know the stalemate lines in and out (so you know where you must evacuate), recognize when a battle is a winner or loser far enough in advance, and fight your tail off not to die, you will be surprised by how frequently conclusions that appear foregone can shift.

VillageIdiot wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 20, 2019 11:57 pm

Having been in games were players have come back from 1 SC to go on to solo, I have a very hard time accepting that mentality. At some point it’s just a weakness of character, lack of competitive spirit, and/or lack of confidence in oneself.

I've also been in games where players with 17 SCs manage to get eliminated.
Oh, also, most of the time I was playing them.

Durga wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:14 am

VillageIdiot wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 20, 2019 11:57 pm

Having been in games were players have come back from 1 SC to go on to solo, I have a very hard time accepting that mentality. At some point it’s just a weakness of character, lack of competitive spirit, and/or lack of confidence in oneself.

I wanna see these games!!

This one was especially epic. Enjoy.

http://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=156309

There was also a solo in the last (not current) ODC from two centres. I can't find the game anymore though.

I will tear strips off people who stab or break alliances, especially when they're helping a solo risk, but that's just buzzsaw to get them to back off. Doesn't usually work.

I did have a solo from 3 units once.

webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=136093

Ogion wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 21, 2019 10:00 pm

I did have a solo from 3 units once.

Oddly enough that's how 6/7th's of mine happened too

VillageIdiot wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:08 am

Durga wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:14 am

VillageIdiot wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 20, 2019 11:57 pm

Having been in games were players have come back from 1 SC to go on to solo, I have a very hard time accepting that mentality. At some point it’s just a weakness of character, lack of competitive spirit, and/or lack of confidence in oneself.

I wanna see these games!!

This one was especially epic. Enjoy.

http://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=156309

Holy cow...

I'm currently in a game as Germany where Italy is probably going to solo soon. Leading up to it, I tried to form an alliance. France just died completely after 1901. England and I worked together, but his army in Belgium really bothered me. I eventually took it out, gave up Sweden in exchange, which he took. However, he decided he wanted to take me out instead of fighting Italy and attempt the solo for himself.

I tried to warn him that it was too soon. Sure enough he stalled on the map, and began stalling on entering the moves. Eventually, he went into civil disorder and was replaced.

This is like my third game in a row where Italy dominates. I'm in a land of confusion.

Bark wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:26 pm

I'm currently in a game as Germany where Italy is probably going to solo soon. Leading up to it, I tried to form an alliance. France just died completely after 1901. England and I worked together, but his army in Belgium really bothered me. I eventually took it out, gave up Sweden in exchange, which he took. However, he decided he wanted to take me out instead of fighting Italy and attempt the solo for himself.

I tried to warn him that it was too soon. Sure enough he stalled on the map, and began stalling on entering the moves. Eventually, he went into civil disorder and was replaced.

This is like my third game in a row where Italy dominates. I'm in a land of confusion.

All of this is directly correlated to how France played the game. The game (which is found at http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=238643) is just a result of France quitting for 1903, and never undergoing a CD, but just inputting all holds. Although England leaving the game was poor sportsmanship, I feel that entering all holds, although technically abiding by the rules, is, in a way, worse, if you prolong your own death. It's keeping a nation in a continual state of civil disorder if that makes any sense.