Backstab...or Trojan Horse?

New players can go here for helpful advice and to sign up for our mentor program, or if you're a veteran help answer questions.
Forum rules
This is an area for new members or members looking for help with the site or Diplomacy. Off topic threads and replies will be moved to the appropriate category.
Post Reply
Message
Author
swordsman3003
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 264
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 2:51 pm
Location: Texas
Karma: 607
Contact:

Backstab...or Trojan Horse?

#1 Post by swordsman3003 » Tue Dec 10, 2019 6:40 pm

Hello again friends. This is the second in a series of articles. This series is an exploration of my thoughts on why players get backstabbed.

The Top 5 Reasons You Got Backstabbed: #2 The Trojan Horse

Please confine comments in this thread to this particular explanation for stabs: sham alliances where the whole point is to set up a stab. I will be writing 3 more posts on other reasons for stabs and we will have plenty of time to discuss those reasons later.
6

yavuzovic
Posts: 2912
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:42 pm
Location: Istanbul
Karma: 570
Contact:

Re: Backstab...or Trojan Horse?

#2 Post by yavuzovic » Tue Dec 10, 2019 7:44 pm

Which one of us doesn't make agreements with all the surrounding nations at the start? Are there honourable people who openly declare war in 1st turn?
1

mhsmith0
Posts: 318
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2018 12:35 am
Karma: 186
Contact:

Re: Backstab...or Trojan Horse?

#3 Post by mhsmith0 » Tue Dec 10, 2019 8:08 pm

I think there are some levels of it...

Like if you're England, you're either opening LON-ENG and EDI-NTH, or LON-NTH and EDI-NWG. The first is anti-France, the second anti-Russia (if you open to Yorkshire, the channel move isn't THAT hostile to France but it's still obviously not friendly).

You can dress it up as you like one way or the other, but you're doing one of those two things, and it's hard to ally w/ the person you're opening against, so you're either going to tell a lie that will be very quickly discovered (creating a lot of hostility), or you're gonna have hard time convincing that person you're friendly in your spring 1901 communications.

Side/personal note: I was Russia when England opened north, TOLD ME he was opening north, and then was like "don't worry we're totes gonna work together" :? :? :?
Guess who ended up getting Sealioned while Russia also opened north? :-D :razz: 8-)
5

swordsman3003
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 264
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 2:51 pm
Location: Texas
Karma: 607
Contact:

Re: Backstab...or Trojan Horse?

#4 Post by swordsman3003 » Tue Dec 10, 2019 8:39 pm

mhsmith0, that's fascinating. I didn't have occasion to discuss this yet on my blog, but I made an almost identical analysis of England that match.

At the start of Spring 1901, I tried to see if England would agree to open to English Channel. When England said that they had made up their mind to open to Norwegian/North (in my opinion, before even caring what I had to say), I messaged you that Sweden was yours (since I typically let Russia into Sweden if England won't open to the Channel), and started taking the idea of a Sealion seriously. My near-certainty that England would indeed make their stated opening convinced me that the Sealion would, you know, work (and it did).

I think it was a mistake for England to unequivocally state what their moves were going to be so early in the turn. I've been intending to write more about that, but haven't gotten around to it yet. I'm glad you said that about your thinking though; that's good information for the post-hoc analysis.
1

swordsman3003
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 264
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 2:51 pm
Location: Texas
Karma: 607
Contact:

Re: Backstab...or Trojan Horse?

#5 Post by swordsman3003 » Wed Dec 11, 2019 1:32 am

Okay my last post is seriously confused and mixed up. I apologize for that. what I said about a sealion was true. Mea culpa on the rest.
1

FlaviusAetius
Posts: 2682
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2018 3:15 am
Karma: 275
Contact:

Re: Backstab...or Trojan Horse?

#6 Post by FlaviusAetius » Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:17 am

The best way to do it, is to do it in an alliance that makes sense, that way they always conclude, well I guess this guy wont betray me, he'd get destroyed

my personal favourite though is doing it against people who have like 1-2 SC's left, just give them a fanciful scenario to hold onto, then betray them literally the next turn, or two
2

jay65536
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2019 7:36 pm
Karma: 53
Contact:

Re: Backstab...or Trojan Horse?

#7 Post by jay65536 » Tue Dec 17, 2019 1:46 pm

mhsmith0 wrote:
Tue Dec 10, 2019 8:08 pm
if you're England, you're either opening LON-ENG and EDI-NTH, or LON-NTH and EDI-NWG. The first is anti-France, the second anti-Russia (if you open to Yorkshire, the channel move isn't THAT hostile to France but it's still obviously not friendly).

You can dress it up as you like one way or the other, but you're doing one of those two things, and it's hard to ally w/ the person you're opening against, so you're either going to tell a lie that will be very quickly discovered (creating a lot of hostility), or you're gonna have hard time convincing that person you're friendly in your spring 1901 communications.
I think it would be too big a digression from the OP for me to explain why, but I strongly disagree with all of this. (Just to briefly highlight one of the issues, if England has only two clear options, to antagonize France or Russia, how does England attack Germany? And how does she convince other countries she wants to?)

As far as the article itself from the OP, I think what swordsman has written on the subject just scratches the surface. This is, of course, a big reason why stabs happen, and to me it can be succinctly summed up as, "Your opponents are allowed to have a strategy."

For example, in this very article, swordsman gives a "pre-fab" solo strategy for France: take out England first, then stab Germany while taking Tunis, then roll through the north. Let's say you're following this strategy and you stab Germany in the midgame. The German player would be left to wonder why they've been stabbed, and the reason would be, you're following a strategy that called for stabbing Germany at this time. OP, does that, in your view, fall under the topic this article is talking about? I would think it does.

So then to me, the most interesting question raised by this concept is, how do you differentiate a stab that you could have prevented by being a better negotiator, from a stab that happened just because your opponent was following their own strategy? I think this is a huge question, and (in my opinion at least) consistently getting it wrong can hold people back from becoming better players. It doesn't help, of course, that many players will not just come out and admit, "you couldn't have prevented this stab". They will make up reasons why it was your fault, and sometimes you have to see through those.
4

swordsman3003
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 264
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 2:51 pm
Location: Texas
Karma: 607
Contact:

Re: Backstab...or Trojan Horse?

#8 Post by swordsman3003 » Tue Dec 17, 2019 3:40 pm

It's no "Trojan Horse" to backstab a genuine ally who has outlived their usefulness.
jay65536 wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 1:46 pm
Let's say you're following this strategy and you stab Germany in the midgame. The German player would be left to wonder why they've been stabbed, and the reason would be, you're following a strategy that called for stabbing Germany at this time. OP, does that, in your view, fall under the topic this article is talking about? I would think it does.
No, absolutely not.

As France, I may create a Trojan Horse alliance with England solely to facilitate my attack on England. I do not help help England capture centers. I lure England out of position, and then attack. That's what makes it a Trojan Horse.

Attacking your ally of many years because it is has become strategically convenient for you is not a Trojan Horse alliance. The alliance is not a Trojan Horse because, for some time, the alliance was genuine.

I have 3 more reasons for backstabs coming! And attacking an ally who has outlived their usefulness is a different reason... :!:

(Let me be clear about my thinking though: I made up these categories to make it easier for players to learn what I offer to teach. In practice, not every backstab will fall neatly into one of these categories. And it doesn't really matter how we classify the reasons for backstabs. These are simplifications to make this subject learnable. I'm sure you get what I'm saying.)
jay65536 wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 1:46 pm
So then to me, the most interesting question raised by this concept is, how do you differentiate a stab that you could have prevented by being a better negotiator, from a stab that happened just because your opponent was following their own strategy? I think this is a huge question, and (in my opinion at least) consistently getting it wrong can hold people back from becoming better players. It doesn't help, of course, that many players will not just come out and admit, "you couldn't have prevented this stab". They will make up reasons why it was your fault, and sometimes you have to see through those.
This is 100% the purpose of this series of articles.

You're saying that my theory of Trojan Horse alliances raises the broader question of "what stabs are preventable?", and I kind of agree and disagree (or maybe I'm confused on the point you're trying to make here; sorry if I misunderstand).

1) I believe I am already raising the broader topic, which I am calling "The Top 5 Reasons You Got Backstabbed" and why I have been including my advice on how to prevent these stabs. The Trojan Horse concept is a sub-topic that I have created into order to make the question "Why were you backstabbed?" answerable.

It's absurdly difficult to answer the question "Why were you backstabbed?" without reviewing a given match and interviewing the players who played, but gosh-darn-it I'm trying. If a player learns the concept of Trojan Horses (and the other ones I want to teach), maybe they will learn to self-assess where they went wrong.

2) There are no "unpreventable" stabs. In the case of a Trojan Horse alliance, you could have prevented the stab by not allying that player. You can't be stabbed by someone who is not your ally.

3) I absolutely agree that many players are full of crap about why they backstabbed you. I may be a ruthless bastard in my matches, but at least I am open and honest when the match is over. Learn from me! Subscribe to my blog! I will do everything in my power to help you learn from your mistakes.
jay65536 wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 1:46 pm
I think what swordsman [a.k.a. BrotherBored] has written on the subject just scratches the surface.
BrotherBored publishes a 5,000+ word article....it "just scratches the surface."

I must say though, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Diplomacy is the deepest game I have ever played. The skill curve is infinite.

But at some point I have to determine that the article is finished and publish it. I could definitely write 10 times the content on just the subject of Trojan Horses, or write 100 times as much as I pick apart my past matches in even greater detail.

But who would read that? I think as published, this article already wanders around quite a bit and is maybe too long (it's twice as long as reason 1). Oh well.

I think I'm kind of sensitive to this remark, because almost everything I write about Diplomacy, someone eventually criticizes it by saying that there was a point I left out, that the subject is much deeper than I imply, or that I've over-simplified something. This feels unfair to be, because 1) I write gigantic articles and 2) nobody but CaptainMeme is offering to write their own guest post.

So if you think I'm scratching the surface here, I ask you (or even challenge you) to write your own article on this subject. I will gladly publish it on my blog as a guest post (if you would like that).
jay65536 wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 1:46 pm
This is, of course, a big reason why stabs happen, and to me it can be succinctly summed up as, "Your opponents are allowed to have a strategy."
Alright, I'm going to push you back here. I just wrote a long series about how you can see through your opponent's lies by recognizing their strategy.
Diplomacy Games are Like Onions, Layer 1: Politics
Diplomacy Games are Like Onions, Layer 2: Tactics
Diplomacy Games are Like Onions, Layer 3: Strategy
The Top 5 Strategic Goals in Diplomacy
In my article about Trojan Horse alliances—the one we're talking about—I recommended reading that series as a way to get better as detecting Trojan Horses. So I agree with you, but it feels like you're not acknowledging that I have already written a great deal on the subject of "Don't forget, your opponent has a strategy."
2

jay65536
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2019 7:36 pm
Karma: 53
Contact:

Re: Backstab...or Trojan Horse?

#9 Post by jay65536 » Tue Dec 17, 2019 7:02 pm

swordsman3003 wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 3:40 pm
It's no "Trojan Horse" to backstab a genuine ally who has outlived their usefulness.
jay65536 wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 1:46 pm
Let's say you're following this strategy and you stab Germany in the midgame. The German player would be left to wonder why they've been stabbed, and the reason would be, you're following a strategy that called for stabbing Germany at this time. OP, does that, in your view, fall under the topic this article is talking about? I would think it does.
No, absolutely not.

As France, I may create a Trojan Horse alliance with England solely to facilitate my attack on England. I do not help help England capture centers. I lure England out of position, and then attack. That's what makes it a Trojan Horse.

Attacking your ally of many years because it is has become strategically convenient for you is not a Trojan Horse alliance. The alliance is not a Trojan Horse because, for some time, the alliance was genuine.

I have 3 more reasons for backstabs coming! And attacking an ally who has outlived their usefulness is a different reason... :!:

(Let me be clear about my thinking though: I made up these categories to make it easier for players to learn what I offer to teach. In practice, not every backstab will fall neatly into one of these categories. And it doesn't really matter how we classify the reasons for backstabs. These are simplifications to make this subject learnable. I'm sure you get what I'm saying.)
In that case, some of my original response doesn't apply. I didn't realize that in your pedagogy (for lack of a better term), "your opponent is allowed to have a strategy" stretches across multiple "reasons". (And yes, I do get what you're saying.)
jay65536 wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 1:46 pm
So then to me, the most interesting question raised by this concept is, how do you differentiate a stab that you could have prevented by being a better negotiator, from a stab that happened just because your opponent was following their own strategy? I think this is a huge question, and (in my opinion at least) consistently getting it wrong can hold people back from becoming better players. It doesn't help, of course, that many players will not just come out and admit, "you couldn't have prevented this stab". They will make up reasons why it was your fault, and sometimes you have to see through those.
This is 100% the purpose of this series of articles.

You're saying that my theory of Trojan Horse alliances raises the broader question of "what stabs are preventable?", and I kind of agree and disagree (or maybe I'm confused on the point you're trying to make here; sorry if I misunderstand).
Maybe. I'm not saying that we should be trying to prevent all stabs, or even that if we can see the stab coming, we can prevent it. What I'm saying is that if I get attacked, one of my reactions is going to be "at what point was this inevitable", mostly so that I can properly analyze where (if at all) I made a mistake in the game.

I'm reminded of something that happened in a (semi-)recent game of mine, though I won't go into too much detail. Basically, I was France, and I remain convinced, to this day, that the Italian player never harbored any desire to do anything other than attack me. He delayed the attack until 1902, in my estimation because he thought he could surprise me that way. He always claimed that he attacked me in 1902 because I made hostile builds; I, of course, made those builds having come to the conclusion that he was always going to be hostile.

Whether I'm right has a great impact on the lesson I take from the game (I ended up losing, as did Italy). The lesson I chose to take was that I should not antagonize a player (in this case I mean England) without being very certain I can get away with it. I should have realized that the state of relations with Italy meant I should not have taken the Channel in Spring 01. Of course, if I believed what Italy told me, I would have concluded that my mistake was not committing enough to the English attack and thereby leaving Italy alone. These are very different things!
jay65536 wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 1:46 pm
I think what swordsman [a.k.a. BrotherBored] has written on the subject just scratches the surface.
BrotherBored publishes a 5,000+ word article....it "just scratches the surface."

I must say though, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Diplomacy is the deepest game I have ever played. The skill curve is infinite.

But at some point I have to determine that the article is finished and publish it.
I guess I need to clarify: as a former academic, I absolutely do not mean it as a put-down when I say that a long article on a certain topic just scratches the surface! I myself have written longer stuff that I feel scratches the surface of its topic even less!

And I agree about Diplomacy being a deep game.
4

BunnyGo
Posts: 13635
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2019 12:21 am
Karma: 4457
Contact:

Re: Backstab...or Trojan Horse?

#10 Post by BunnyGo » Wed Dec 18, 2019 2:42 am

swordsman3003 wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 3:40 pm
Iand 2) nobody but CaptainMeme is offering to write their own guest post.
ahem.

Claesar
Posts: 1965
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:34 am
Karma: 1490
Contact:

Re: Backstab...or Trojan Horse?

#11 Post by Claesar » Wed Dec 18, 2019 7:25 am

jay65536 wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 7:02 pm
I'm reminded of something that happened in a (semi-)recent game of mine, though I won't go into too much detail. Basically, I was France, and I remain convinced, to this day, that the Italian player never harbored any desire to do anything other than attack me. He delayed the attack until 1902, in my estimation because he thought he could surprise me that way. He always claimed that he attacked me in 1902 because I made hostile builds; I, of course, made those builds having come to the conclusion that he was always going to be hostile.

Whether I'm right has a great impact on the lesson I take from the game (I ended up losing, as did Italy). The lesson I chose to take was that I should not antagonize a player (in this case I mean England) without being very certain I can get away with it. I should have realized that the state of relations with Italy meant I should not have taken the Channel in Spring 01. Of course, if I believed what Italy told me, I would have concluded that my mistake was not committing enough to the English attack and thereby leaving Italy alone. These are very different things!
Different things, but you're right that choosing either would've been better than trying to do both. So once you decided to open to the Channel, it wasn't wise to make hostile builds.

jay65536
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2019 7:36 pm
Karma: 53
Contact:

Re: Backstab...or Trojan Horse?

#12 Post by jay65536 » Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:09 pm

Claesar wrote:
Wed Dec 18, 2019 7:25 am
Different things, but you're right that choosing either would've been better than trying to do both. So once you decided to open to the Channel, it wasn't wise to make hostile builds.
Again, it would be too much of a digression to fully defend my play, but what actually happened in the game was that in Fall 01 I completely backed off of England, moving Eng-MAO and even taking Munich, making the gamble that I could make up with England once he saw a set of friendly moves. England attacked me anyway. So part of my mistake in the game was antagonizing the specific player in England who would just needlessly punish me instead of reading the situation around the board and taking my offer (and punishing me did actually work to his detriment, as he was also eliminated).

EDIT: You know, now that I think about it, the game in question will probably end up exemplifying several of swordsman's different reasons for stabs by the time his series is fully out. My treatment of England in Spring 01 in that game was definitely what he would call a Trojan Horse, for example. And I feel confident he's going to have a future article that will cover how I played Fall 01...
2

RoganJosh
Silver Donator
Silver Donator
Posts: 556
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:02 am
Location: Stockholm
Karma: 464
Contact:

Re: Backstab...or Trojan Horse?

#13 Post by RoganJosh » Thu Dec 19, 2019 10:28 am

From the perspective of how to prevent being stabbed, I thought it was a bit disappointing that both examples in the article were from the opening. The opening moves are so standard that it's hard to read intentions into them. Take the second example with Italy. Austria in the opening has little choice but to trust that Italy will be friendly. (More so in gunboat, but to some degree also in press.) And the Italian orders would have been exactly the same, up to and including S02, had Italy been genuin. And in this position, unless Austria is 100% that Italy will stab, then, in my opinion, Austria's best option - tactically - is to ignore the Italian threat.

Long story short, I don't think the Austrian pieces are out of position in the second example. They are where they should be.

Austria's leverage, in this position, is that if Italy stabs, then Austria will throw Balkan to Turkey and/or Russia. That did not happen in this game. Partly due to a passive Turkey, a Russia with northern troubles, and an Austria with sub-optimal tactics. But, also, due to a very efficient Italy. This was the nicest early Italian stab of Austria that I have seen in a loooong time--refreshing! I had almost drawn the conclusion that this was not possible!

There should be similar trojan horse alliances close to the end of the game. Hypothetical situation: convincing a player that it is time to form a solo-stopping-alliance a few turns before it is actually necessary, and when he turns away, stab him to cut down the draw.

On a side note: Swordsman, I think that you should embrace and encourage the criticism. And, you should most definitely not take it personal. You get criticism because people read your articles, and because they relate what you wrote to their own experiences. As soon as there is a mismatch, people will make a comment, and that comment will be phrased as a criticism of your article. There's no way around it--the only way you would not get criticism is if nobody read you articles.
4

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 51 guests