also nice picture link haha

Hitler's the dude who stabs three players by 1904, and then gets put down liike a mad dog by a coalition of basically everyone.

Pretty much yeah lol.

Genghis is the guy who is a god and is obviously going to solo and no one else can get their shit together enough to stop him.

Napoleon was what I imagine someone actually good at this game would be like IRL.
He was really good at tactics and actual battles, but also not a total ass like Hitler.

Oh, and given the way Hitler went out, he'd probably wind up CDing after the coalition starting wiping his eight SC owning ass off the map.

Eh. I had some good reasoning. Most modern Generals cant qualify because they have the actually art of war in their mind with: food, rest, training, supply's and number's. This game its just 1 army that never loses unless it cant retreat or you lose an SC. So I say a politic (dumb auto correct wont give me the right word) would be good at this game. They can lie and tell everyone what they want to hear.

That's the funny thing about world history.

The only "players" who ever got fairly close to conquering Europe or an equivalently large territory were not the archetypical ration one-minded diplomacy players.

They were one-minded sure, but they were usually seen as freaks of nature, indeed, almost like gods.

The people we usually say would make the best "diplomats" are also people who often did not actually control or conquer much territory.

Maybe that just speaks to the differences between this game and, you know, real life.

well Napoleon has good tactics but that's with what I stated before.

Cesare Borgia comes to mind.

(Although I guess he wasn't that successful really, so nm).

To mind for what? Do you mean like someone who came close to "soloing" but was also a good diplomat and not somehow extraordinary?

Because if so I don't see how, it seems like he didn't really make it out of Italy. Though I don't know much about him.

Oh nvm myself you posted that just before me.

Well, Thucy, I don't think the right criterion is whether somebody successfully took over a lot of land. The right criterion is whether somebody was a successful schemer and manipulator. If they did that well where they were, with what they were trying to do, then probably they could have done it over a Diplomacy board too.

But they have to do both do they not?

If you don't take any SCs, you lose / you're not playing Diplomacy.

So what I was saying was kind of "isn't it weird how the only historical people who tried to conquer a lot of land (read: play Diplomacy IRL) were actually not very good negotiators/schemers/Diplomacy players?"

Because there are also obviously plenty of people who are good Diplomacy players, diplomats, or politicians who did not attempt, or failed in their attempt, to control large areas of territory.

Like Machiavelli. Lol

Thucy, I guess I misunderstood your question. I thought you meant, which historical characters would be good at the actual board game diplomacy.

I've met MadMarx. He's extremely good at Diplomacy. But unless he's really good at hiding things, he's never once tried to take over Europe, and he didn't much seem like the kind of person who would.

So no, as you asked the question, I don't think that actually taking over Europe has much at all to do with being good at playing Diplomacy.

I've met Genghis Khan (he's family). We played diplomacy once at a reunion. He was France. Uncle Jochi and I knocked him out of the game by 1904. If Tolui hadn't kamikazed against me, I might have soloed.

When it comes down to it, being an actual Emperor really isn't that much fun. You get a huge workload, constant assassination attempts that make holidays awkward at best, women only want you because they're attracted to power, and getting a retirement plan that avoids your enemies taking advantage and arresting you for crimes against humanity is next to impossible.

Anyone truly good at Diplomacy (the game) is bright enough to realise that doing it in real life isn't worth it. You'd have to be mad to want that kind of life.

Agree with Octavious.
That is why Plato said that a happy society will need to be governed by people who are forced to it. Only fools WANT to be governors.
This is the paradox that is our misfortune, and if God has a sick sense of humour, he showed it here.

I would like to play a DipGame with Fidel C. His capacity of survival, based on realism, patience and flexibility is worthy of a grand literary epic.

ozzie? is that you?