Diplomacy players should fear everything and everyone. Nobody is trustworthy - not even an apparently dormant power. Only those with no units are trustworthy (and then only if they own none of their home centres)

But you should prepare for just that eventuality... After all, you are getting an unfair advantage *not* having to defend against that country when it is in CD.

Or better yet, just crush the CD country so it has 0 SCs and 0 units.

Well, if you need a RL reference, imagine that ENG had a revolution, after which the government changed and the new guys in power decided to change alliances. This actually happened during WWI with Russia.

I don't see anything wrong with someone taking over a valid CD position - yes, some of the other countries will suffer from it, but others will benefit - and I always found it somewhat perplexing and contradictory to hear about a "surprise attack from a CD" :)

Cheating is a different problem - but then you should not be playing cheap live anon gunboats to start with - unless you know the players are real.

Serves you right for trying to take advantage over the weak nation.

As for the real life reference - how about Italy in WW2?

figle +1.

I quite like taking over CD countries because often the other powers will not concentrate on you so much and you can sneakily gain quicker. Of course, this doesn't work if you're the biggest or about to be crushed, but i know that exactly 20% of my wins are from taking over a CD country (However, if you look at my stats, you'll know that's not quite as good as it sounds). ;)

So all of 1 win, Hellenic Riot?

I do look at takeovers sometimes and have got into good games. I do though read previous press to see what has been agreed and then decide whether these agreements are worth keeping.

My comment above is about the cheating. But then I have said a lot this year on that topic.

Yeah, despite the mods valiant efforts to stem the flow, and even considering many of the accusations have been false, we have had an influx of cheating Since I came on board in Nov '08. But I think that was inevitable as the site has grown in popularity.

Yeah, the growth in popularity has very much made the site decline in quality. :-(

I haven't seen an increase, but back in spring 08 I had the hours to keep it right down under control, and whilst its still quite good we aren't as effective as we once were.

As has been commented above, I think your tactic is wrong. A CD country is a threat. Instead of fighting Germany and ignoring England, you and Germany should have been dividing up England. Harder to arrange in a gunboat game, but hey, that's gunboat for you. Play real diplomacy if you don't want that to happen.

If you think one of the players took over the CD with a second account, then send an email to the mods asking to have the game checked.

Oh, no, I don't think it was cheating, just poor luck.

The real-life examples don't make sense, though. England didn't do anything in the first place, just sat there. I never acted against England - the attack was totally unprovoked.

"Serves you right for trying to take advantage over the weak nation."

^ in response to that in particular. I didn't know taking Norway while England sat there drinking tea and crumpets and LETTING ME IN was taking advantage over the weak nation, but whatever.

I don't think you're going to get much sympathy if you say, "I don't like having to play against players." Yes, the other players might oppose you! Sometimes after not opposing you. It's true.

It isn't, but that wasn't what I commented on. You were saying it was unfair that somebody took over a CD nation and used it to attack you after you'd decided they weren't there so you didn't need to defend the border. You were trying to take advantage of the fact there was nobody playing England to save you having to defend your border against them.

figle +1

Seriously. Not having to defend a brodering nation gives you that much more you can through at the rest. It is still taking advantage of that nation's absence and is an unfair advantage, so stop whinging about it.

Suck it up!

Ideally, no one would CD in the first place, which would make the question non-applicable. So while I find it annoying, I live with it.

"I fear all we have done is wake a sleeping giant.". OK, Adm. Yamamoto may not have said those exact words, but that is generally accepted as his view. The same applies here.

Yes, one win. But i took over as England and easily sided with Germany against France, making myself a solid alliance and taking out the rest of them until i switched to ally myself with the only other remaining country, Turkey, and successfully stabbed Germany. Either way, it was only possible due to me taking over, and i had just Britain and Belgium when i joined. By coming later it was much easier to ally with Germany and therefore win.

President Eden's complaint has absolutely no validity whatsoever.

While a country is in CD, and therefore does not threaten you, you are gaining an unfair advantage. It is therefore better for everyone in the game for that CD country to be taken over by a real player.

In your 'case in point' example, you should have known it was possible that someone would take over England, and kept a couple of units in reserve to guard against this. Your failure to do this represents poor strategy on your part. Your demise in that game was the deserved outcome of your weak play.

@Jamiet99uk +1

Hmm, I don't think I'd go quite that far - more that it was a gamble that didn't pay off.

"I don't think you're going to get much sympathy if you say, "I don't like having to play against players." Yes, the other players might oppose you! Sometimes after not opposing you. It's true."

Obtuse misrepresentations of what I said aren't getting anywhere.

"It isn't, but that wasn't what I commented on. You were saying it was unfair that somebody took over a CD nation and used it to attack you after you'd decided they weren't there so you didn't need to defend the border. You were trying to take advantage of the fact there was nobody playing England to save you having to defend your border against them."

I never said it was unfair, just that it was annoying. And if there were an England, I assume I'd have let him into Norway and fought Germany (who was belligerent all game) with him. England's not being there -- and then subsequent arrival and attack -- ended up as a DISadvantage, because by the time England joined his only recourse was to attack someone and take SCs if he wanted to survive (and, thus, I didn't exactly have a decent shot at negotiating).

"While a country is in CD, and therefore does not threaten you, you are gaining an unfair advantage. It is therefore better for everyone in the game for that CD country to be taken over by a real player.

In your 'case in point' example, you should have known it was possible that someone would take over England, and kept a couple of units in reserve to guard against this. Your failure to do this represents poor strategy on your part. Your demise in that game was the deserved outcome of your weak play."

Sparing units wasn't exactly an option. Austria, Turkey and I were in a three-way battle (it was a sort of free-for-all, but as it dragged on it turned into AT v R) that demanded basically all my attention. Had England been there, I could have negotiated a peaceful resolution and maybe had an ally; his late reentry forced him to take whatever he could get, and in this particular case I ended up footing the bill.

Come to think of it, where did I ever say it was undeserved? All I said was that it was annoying. Granted that the "why should we have to fear" bit sounded more like "wah this is unfair," but that wording was a result of limited characters in the first post, not because I actually felt it unfair.

"Sparing units wasn't exactly an option"
Then you should have made this clear to England & possibly even Germany.
If he'd taken over the nation to find a few welcoming messages and a request for alliance, you might have been in a better position.

...it was Gunboat.

(Had it not been, yes, I'm a total idiot. As it stands... well, still an idiot, but I like to think not completely so.)

Gunboat - sorry my mistake.
The fact remains if you leave yourself exposed just because someone's away you're asking for trouble.
I, and I think most others here, would agree you were a bit unlucky, but that you could have dealt with it. It was a gamble not to defend against England, a gamble you lost.

I would suggest that leaving a unit back support-holding him could have been a good idea, or wiping him out, but yes I agree someone taking over in a gunboat is always going to be hard to deal with.