Idiots Guide to Diplomacy: The Difference a Deadline Makes on Strategy

[VillageIdiot]

Wanted to start a thread to discuss how strategy differs in games with longer and shorter deadlines. I'll break it up into short (<=24 hours), medium (2 or 3 days), and long (4 days+). My input on long deadlines is going to be very limited as I’d only played one game at this pace so if anybody has played the full spectrum of games to chime in. If anybody's got experience with playing LIVE classic games or FTF games would be interesting to hear about experience with that as well.

Very Short Deadlines (<= 24 hours)
When I first starting playing this was my bread and butter of my Diplomacy experience and by and far my favorite just for personal tempo preference. This certainly is not for everybody since you need to be willing to be dialed in pretty regularly. To be good at these games you need to be decisive in your strategy and fast to react to all correspondence. Punctuality matters since it's too easy to miss a window to communicate with an ally or potential negotiation opportunity and it's too easy of an alibi for a player to pull out the "opps, i didn't get that message in time" excuse. Because of the fast pace of these games you'll find a lot more impulsive decisions, sometimes good and sometimes bad. If you're the persuasive type you may find you do well in these games as you convince players to take your offers without having to deal with days of counter-offers.

Medium Deadline Games (2 or 3 Days)
This is my wheelhouse these days. I've noticed these games to have a noticeably more sophisticated maneuvering, although that may be because I've spent most of my medium deadline games in Top 10, invitational, or Tournament games. More time means more opportunity to think through every angle and have deeper conversations with your allies to iron things out. I've also found stress tends to get a bit more increased as debates over best courses of action tend to get very drawn out and teeter-totter as minds change and then change again. I've also found frivolous head-butting tends to get worked through more easily however serious clashes tend to dig deeper. Debates over negotiations can get very heated and players tend to take breakdowns in talks pretty personally. I've seen more than a few games completely implode due to backroom conversations having gone very sour. To do well in these games you need to have a knack for negotiation, an ability to maintain diplomatic composure during disagreements, and the ability to keep your fingers in goings on in all parts of the board.

Long Deadline Games (4 Days +)
I’d only played this once and my impressions was that these tend to be very heavy on the negotiations. You'll ultimately get first round, second, round, and third round drafts on a plan. A new offer coming in will completely scrap your original plan and then back to the drawing board to try it yet again. Head butting will occur, then days or weeks may go by without having any interaction with that person, and by the time you get back to dealing with them again you almost have to treat it as a brand new relationship as any anger you had towards them is a distant memory. I suspect in these games lead to a lot more players bowing out early once their chances of winning seems a distant memory and the notion of keeping one unit in a draw starts to seem hardly worth the effort. To do well in these types of games I guess you just need to have a strong start and good endurance.

[Durga]

I'll give some input on long games as I play them quite a bit. I've played several on webDip, and now I'm playing one with quite a few top players over email (4 world champs, 1 Edi Birsan, and.. you get the idea). Ideally, it would be what VI described it as. However, I find that once you're over 3 day phases, what generally tends to happen is that people just conduct their press a day or two before the deadline anyway. And this is not only for all the games I've played on webdip, but the email game as well. So I'm under the impression that it isn't a skill based reason that people don't bother sending press for every day the game is going on, but rather that it's just difficult to sustain constant press when things aren't actually happening. It's also really easy to stop caring about games that are really long in phase length. Playing often becomes more of a chore than something fun.

In terms of strategy for longer games, it is definitely easier to get people to forgive your actions when the phase only changes once a week or so. Definitely capitalize on that more, especially if people in your game lack constant engagement. Another strategy that can help is just being that one person who sends press throughout the entire phase rather than the last day or two. It might give you the edge on building relationships. But just like any other game, being on during the last few hours of the phase is really key.

[VillageIdiot]

Durga, you would have some insight. How does a FTF tournament game differ in terms of adjusting strategy? I assume there’s a meta consideration that comes into play.

[Octavious]

I've not yet played in any face to face tournaments, but have started to increase the number of stand alone face to face games I've played. It is remarkable how different it is to the online version.

The business of negotiating in person rather than via message is not all that great a difference, which surprised me. The time constraints of ftf negotiations are little different to those in live games. Trying to remember the board or getting used to taking photos is initially irritating, but no more so than when you first have to get used to a website. The only big change is that it becomes a lot less easy to ignore someone or brush them off without making it painfully obvious that is what you're doing.

It is, however, the game time limit that makes for the biggest change. Indeed, a change so big it might as well be a different game. We are blessed in the online game of being able to play all our matches to a natural conclusion. A blessing that has made us firm believers in the goal of the solo, the equality of different sized draws, and the futility of survives. The solo to face to facers is a rare thing, rarely achievable in the time available. The centre count takes centre stage. As almost every game ends in a "winner", many players soon discover that this will not be them and dedicate the final phases to king making. The flow, therefore, is completely different. What motivates players is completely different. It is an enjoyable game, but in order to create something workable it is far removed from the original idea of the game.

[ghug]

The biggest difference I noticed in FTF was the inability to have independent, simultaneous conversations. Not being to talk to one person about what another person is saying as continuously really limits the amount you can get done in 15 minutes, even compared to a five minute phase online.

[VillageIdiot]

If the goal tends to me more about centre count then do you see a higher amount of stab-and-grab tendencies just for sake of moving the needle that much more? Or is it opposite where fluctuating alliances are less so due to the lack of time and discretion to persuade others to do a drastic switch?

[Durga]

If the goal tends to me more about centre count then do you see a higher amount of stab-and-grab tendencies just for sake of moving the needle that much more? Or is it opposite where fluctuating alliances are less so due to the lack of time and discretion to persuade others to do a drastic switch?

Personally, I find it harder to stab when I haven't had multiple hours to think it over and come up with the best possible way to do it. I think you'll also see worse stabs, and worse tactical moves in f2f then you would online perhaps. However, the best players are really quick to think on their feat and know what to do when. I suppose those aspects are more akin to live games than they are to longer ones. Also, personally I find it harder to stab someone who's standing right in front of me!

I'll talk to the meta that comes into play f2f - however, let me preface this with the fact that I've only ever played 7 games. They just happened to be fairly good ones I guess :) I'm sure other people who have played more have better insights than I do.

I haven't quite developed my f2f "play-style" solidly yet, I've just sort of been doing what feels right. I was never a live game player so adjusting has been tough. Here's a couple things to keep in mind:

a) People know who you're talking to and how much time you're spending with them. So if you're going to spend 8 minutes of phase time talking to Germany, just understand the potential repercussions of that.

b) Stabbing someone f2f can be worse, since it's a lot more personalized and they're right in front of you. At the same time, in my experience a lot of people are willing to forgive and don't tend to carry grudges across games. However, I have seen games where people almost throw because they're personally upset. Be careful how you stab someone in a f2f game, and don't do it without reason. Also, don't lie without reason. You don't want to build up a reputation as an untrustworthy/unreliable player.

c) Since it's much easier to misorder when you have to write down all your moves, be wary of players telling you that moves they made were an accident - sometimes they really aren't. Usually if it's to their benefit, it isn't a misorder.

d) Stamina is a big part of the game in the US hobby. You're more likely to do well if you don't feel like giving up 3 hours into the game. I've seen players get frustrated and sort of "give up" because they don't want to play anymore. I'd try to take advantage of these people, because they'll essentially do what you tell them to.

[Durga]

I disagree with Oct's point about people not playing for the solo. In the US hobby the game can go on for unlimited years, and people in tournaments try and care about soloing. Almost moreso than people do online, I find.

Also, here are a couple of other practical points people have given to me:

• always write down your units at the beginning of the round on your paper before you get up to go negotiate

• take a picture of the board so you don't have to keep returning to it with whoever you're talking to, you can just make reference to it on your phone

• make sure you write down your orders before the last minute, some people aren't flexible with giving you extra time

• some people write down a few different movesets and show the moveset that favours the person they're talking to to that person! (i'm not crafty nor fast enough for this, but give it a shot if you can)

• make sure you cover the moves you've written down because people *will*
  read your orders if they can (apparently my first game was a mess for this although I still topped ;D)

[Octavious]

Playing face to face without a time limit would be quite different, I agree. It's nice to know that it happens somewhere, and it'd make sense that people willing to commit to such a game are likely to care for solos. In the UK, if such games do exist they're pretty rare.

[Claesar]

Playing face to face without a time limit would be quite different, I agree. It's nice to know that it happens somewhere, and it'd make sense that people willing to commit to such a game are likely to care for solos. In the UK, if such games do exist they're pretty rare.

Tickets to Amsterdam are cheap nowadays. We'll set up a game if you come over We even organised one impromtu within a couple of hours when Durga was in the area.

[Durga]

Playing face to face without a time limit would be quite different, I agree. It's nice to know that it happens somewhere, and it'd make sense that people willing to commit to such a game are likely to care for solos. In the UK, if such games do exist they're pretty rare.

Tickets to Amsterdam are cheap nowadays. We'll set up a game if you come over We even organised one impromtu within a couple of hours when Durga was in the area.

Can confirm, these guys are awesome

[Phanes]

Just curious, if a player has moves saved but doesn’t change the order to “ready” by the deadline, are the saved moves executed by default? Or would no moves be executed?

[Durga]

Just curious, if a player has moves saved but doesn’t change the order to “ready” by the deadline, are the saved moves executed by default? Or would no moves be executed?

If your moves are saved then they will be the moves that will be executed when the phase ends. You do not need to hit ready by the deadline, or at all :) Make sure you always hit the preview button to see what moves have been saved.