A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Start a new discussion in the public forum
Post a new thread
If your post relates to a particular game please include the URL or ID#
of the game.
If you are posting a feature request please check that it isn't mentioned in the todo list.
If you are posting a question please check the FAQ before posting.
If your message is long you may need to write a summary message, and add the full message as a reply.
Anyone still interested in having their signature added to the CREATOR OF DIPLOMACY's birthday card needs to send me a message ASAP. Even if you can't get me something handwritten, send me an email with your location.
Rule #2: refer to rule #1. There's no reason for you to draw that game Diplomat... you easily could have won. Admittedly I have drawn 17-17, and the other player allowed me to get to 17 when he easily could have won. I appreciate him doing that, but I would have absolutely stabbed him had I the ability.
I think it depends on the type of player you are, and the type of game it was. if it was a "team effort" to wipe the board clean, then I would happily draw. but that works on the basis of working together and supporting each others troop movements for most of the game... but that's just me.
@Azygous - Ursa means Bear and happens to also be part of the reasl name for the big and little dipper (Ursa Major and Ursa Minor). I can't answer for Ursa why the name choice, but it is more common than some M:TG reference in the adult world.
@Dip33: "A 17-17 Draw is really satisfying because it demonstrates great trust and cooperation, as well as diplomatic skills."
Actually, I think the real winner is Benbase. He used his diplomatic skills to fool you into not taking the win. Diplomacy is about knowing when to trust and when to deceive. If you played in f2f tourny's you'd realize that most vicious stab is cheered and viewed as masterful, not the hate-filled tirade you get here.
The only reason I'd take a 17-17 draw is if stalemate lines were met (which demonstrates a poorly planned end game). That'd be a mark of shame on my mind.
There's a slight possibility I'd do it in the case PE brought up. "Look, I've done it before, so trust me!" Then take the win from the sucker ;)
'There's a slight possibility I'd do it in the case PE brought up. "Look, I've done it before, so trust me!" Then take the win from the sucker ;)'
that kind of meta-gaming is exactly why anon was invented...
no wait, it is the precise reason i try to avoid playing anon if at all possible.
I know it makes it harder to 'better' players to win if their history is known, but i'd much prefer to learn from history and thus avoid repeating it... learning is part of the fun of overcoming the challenge of playing good players.
I'm with you, Diplo. 8 "Shares" in 45 games. And I can tell you from experience, for those who play for the "challenge", there is no greater challenge than trying to orchestrate a 17-17 without being stabbed.
It's the great thing about Diplomacy - there are many variants, including PPSC which makes 17-17 possible.
Everyone is talking about whose diplomatic victory and defeat it is, yet nobody points out how the last nation to be eliminated was clearly the one who lost diplomatically. That nation should have been in position to threaten a solo should anyone touch him, so ultimately it is his inability to sow doubt into the other players that leads me to believe it is his loss more than anyone else
I was Russia and I could stab Diplomat33 but like said before, make a 17-17 is a challenge that's very nice to make. I trusted Diplomat33 to the end and so we could make a great draw... It's my second 17-17 draw and it stays something nice to do !!
"They are satisfying on a moral level which lying and stabbing to win doesn't do." +1 Diplomat33
"Diplomat, if you had fun, don't let anyone tell you that is wrong. (though i know all of those people would have stabbed much earlier...) " +1 orathaic
Wow... This conversation reminds me of a big one that occured not too long ago! *Go figures which one it was*... But it also reminds of a discussion I had with some of my friends this weekend about hockey. I'm a HUGE Hockey fan (there goes my Canadian way!), and I tried to sell my friends the idea of liking this sport for, not only the winning side of it, but for the beauty of this sport, for the skills involved, the beautiful plays made by the players, etc. I then told them that I'd prefer seeing my hometown team, the Montreal Canadians, lose a game 6-5 to the Toronto Maple Leafs, in a regular season game, but with AWESOME plays, dekes left and right, one timer goals, tic tac toes, than watching a game that would finish 1-0, with a Montreal Canadians' victory, but with a boring game from A to Z. But, of course, playoff time, I'll want my team to win no matter what, because I will then Does that make me a hater of my sport, or just someone that thinks there's so many sides to appreciate in a game, no matter what kind of game we're talking about?
My analogy also applies to Diplomacy. Is there only "ONE" way to play this game? Should the competitivness of this game always prime over simply having fun playing this game we all like so much? Sometimes, you go for the win, sometimes, you go for that other aspect of the game you want to test.
So, I'm going to buy my first smartphone soon. I think I've narrowed it down to the Razr or the iPhone. The razr's hardware really trumps the iPhone but the iPhone is, well, the iPhone. Any thoughts or suggestions?
What is the mods general opinion on the following subject?
One of our mods <*cough*>abgemacht<*cough*> has just stated that outside of the game deals (threats, bribes, etc.) aren't "a big deal" to him and he wouldn't do anything about them. I have a problem with this. What about the other mods? How do you all feel? Is this a tolerable activity?
I have noticed that there tend to be a lot of games that have only public messaging or no messaging at all... I was wondering why people would even play this type of variation in the first place. it seems to me to be equal to playing a game of poker with only half a deck of cards...
What do you tell your enemies? And far-away lands?
I am aware, that most of the best players communicate actively and frequently with everyone on the map, no matter seemingly irrelevant or outright foe. I have some questions for you: 1. What do you discuss with the countries you are fighting? 2. What do you discuss with countries on the other side of the map?