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."