Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 989 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Lando Calrissian (100 D(S))
16 Nov 12 UTC
Important strategic discussion
Let us talk about which alliance groupings can be the most powerful.
20 replies
Open
Guns Mute People
See Above
2 replies
Open
krellin (80 DX)
17 Nov 12 UTC
Krellin Doesn't Mute People
He is simply incapable of seeing the moronic words of fools. You may now troll away on this thread, which I will, likewise, ignore.
20 replies
Open
hellalt (113 D)
15 Nov 12 UTC
portugal greece spain italy
an excellent video on the "crisis"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmj7xYStJDQ&feature=player_embedded#!
4 replies
Open
Moondust (195 D)
17 Nov 12 UTC
Crud. How do you unmute a thread?
Crud. How do you unmute a thread?
2 replies
Open
krellin (80 DX)
17 Nov 12 UTC
I *so* win...
And having thrown this bomb, I will ignore this thread and let the silly trolls cry out in vain once again. You're so easily manipulated...and I'd say you know who you are, but you might truly be too stupid to recognize how I manipulate you.
3 replies
Open
bo_sox48 (5202 DMod(G))
17 Nov 12 UTC
ELOHSSA
.elohssa na er'uoY .bud ,era uoy tahw s'tahT

Don't judge me.
10 replies
Open
Moondust (195 D)
17 Nov 12 UTC
GuildWars2 - Just got it
GuildWars2 - Just got it
3 replies
Open
Moondust (195 D)
16 Nov 12 UTC
Noob Question: Playing for Fun versus Blood
Are there a lot of people or "that one person per game" who plays for blood and not fun? And pretty much ruins it for others. Is that typically to be expected in these games 100%?
16 replies
Open
Moondust (195 D)
16 Nov 12 UTC
Noob Question: Duration of games
How long in weeks approximately, would a 20 hour game last? The regular Diplomacy for instance. thanks!
5 replies
Open
Gen. Lee (7588 D(B))
17 Nov 12 UTC
Hey Obama, MAN UP!
I have it from a good source that when Obama MANs UP and shows us his college transcripts from Columbia then and only then will krellin MAN UP. That's all for now.
9 replies
Open
Gorkamungus (100 D)
16 Nov 12 UTC
I'm calling multi
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=104384
Musicman14579 and Kurtss
11 replies
Open
redhouse1938 (429 D)
15 Nov 12 UTC
Yesterday, disaster has struck Europe
http://www.euractiv.com/socialeurope/commission-gives-green-light-gen-news-516048
45 replies
Open
Moondust (195 D)
16 Nov 12 UTC
Noob Question: on anonymous games
Are we allowed to ask people we know if they're in the game? And find out who they are if they want to tell us?
29 replies
Open
Draugnar (0 DX)
16 Nov 12 UTC
A big thanks to Moondust...
Dude, you have been asking some great questions on here and really making us think while not being disrespectful ro breaking a rule and then asking if what you did was OK. Well done. And I mean that. Members like you prove that not all noobs are disrespectful little sh*ts! Welcome to the site!
4 replies
Open
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
16 Nov 12 UTC
Bitcoins
Anyone here a miner? Are Bitcoins the currency of the future, or just a great ponzi scheme for people good with computers, but bad at math and economics? Does anyone even know what Bitcoins are? Thoughts?
56 replies
Open
Zmaj (215 D(B))
16 Nov 12 UTC
A big day for a small country
I know this is not big world news, but I wish to share my joy with you...
8 replies
Open
Al Swearengen (0 DX)
14 Nov 12 UTC
On Opening Strategies
As per below
Al Swearengen (0 DX)
14 Nov 12 UTC
I've been playing here a few months now and can report having a largely positive gaming experience. As some of you may know from an article I've written for this site, I've been playing for almost thirty years. Well I'm definitely not the best Diplomacy player in the world, I'm at least proud of the fact that I've learned a lot in my brief time here.

One thing puzzles me about opening press here. To understand, you need some kind of insight into the (rather mediocre) face-to-face Diplomacy games that I was weaned on as a lad. I would often approach the players of neighboring countries, floating wild theories about long-term development strategies, most of which would hinge on immediate and violent attacks against our neighbors. Of course, I would want them to make an immediate and binding commitment to this plan.
Usually they were hesitant to do so, especially the older players. Their response to me was typically "Gee, that's a neat idea kid, but why don't we all make our opening moves and strategize then? I'd like to work with you, but actions speak a lot louder than words."
Years later I bumped into some of the strategy articles written by the recognized Diplomacy champions, and most of them confirmed this strategy: stay neutral as long as possible.
It comes to my surprise that, despite the fact that there is almost certainly a higher level of play here than that I was exposed to as a youngster, most players will make agreements about the destruction of one neighbor and lay general plans for the destruction of another neighbor even in Fall 1901!!
Obviously, I'm in no position to criticize this style of play. If anything, I usually go along with it as I don't want to send my (frequently hot-blooded) neighbors the impression that I don't support their Napoleonic ambitions, but rather I question why so many bright people are adverse to playing the field? Why is early commitment that important? I personally feel that most deals will have to be renegotiated anyway after one gets a sense of which way the momentum is likely to go.

Thoughts? Opinions?
jmbostwick (2308 D)
14 Nov 12 UTC
Simple convenience. It's much easier to have clearly-delineated allies and enemies, even temporarily, than to try and please everyone here. The general tone seems to be more aggressive, with people pouncing at perceived weakness and often being nearly-impossible to turn from a set course. In this environment, quick action and bold lines lead to better outcomes than caution and balance.
Gen. Lee (7588 D(B))
14 Nov 12 UTC
I think the difference can be attributed to F2F vs. internet. Playing face to face it is probably more difficult to lie, you have disguise body language, you have to think fast on your feet and answer some compromising questions. Actually that might go against my argument I'm confused...but I've never played F2F so idk.
Draugnar (0 DX)
14 Nov 12 UTC
I push for agreements to get others fighting but I don't actually get involved. For instance, as Germany, I try to get Austria against Italy, Turkey against Russia and England against Germany. Then I join with the one I think will serve me best.
Draugnar (0 DX)
14 Nov 12 UTC
England against France.
C-K (2037 D)
14 Nov 12 UTC
Some players make those agreements with all there neighbors and then decide which one to take up on the deal. Also, I think many players have opening that they prefer and so try from the very start to get the partner that they want from the beginning of the game. That's probably due to the sheer number of games you can play on-line.
Draugnar (0 DX)
14 Nov 12 UTC
And those that don't start scheming early here tend to be the ones who get schemed against.
2ndWhiteLine (2736 D(B))
14 Nov 12 UTC
"quick action and bold lines lead to better outcomes than caution and balance."

This is entirely dependent on the game. With some countries, you can afford to be a bit more aggressive, with others, its better to take it slow; as always, though, it depends on the game. There is no one hard and fast rule that you can follow for every game. In my opinion, it really is beneficial to see how the board is playing out before making any commitments, especially as most countries have a "neutral" opening that encourages civility for the first turn or two.

To evidence this, take a look at most games played by high ranking players on this site. 1901 moves are, in a word, boring. But this is for a very good reason. With a skilled board, the early aggressor is often cut down early as well. Nobody wants to fall victim to Early Leader Syndrome. There might be minor disagreements over Belgium or Sweden, but it is rare that a player shows clear signs of aggression right off the bat.
Octavious (2802 D)
14 Nov 12 UTC
I have to disagree with jmbostwick when he says people are often near-impossible to turn from their chosen course. In my experience it is seldom easy, but very doable and rarely impossible.

And c'mon, Draug. Everyone gets schemed against :p

As somebody (Thucie maybe?) pointed out a couple of months ago, being on-line when the game starts lets you start talking to all the other players right from the off. By the time Johnny-come-lately gets into the game hours later, the early-starters have already made alliances and agreements against those who weren't around to negotiate earlier. Getting somebody who's made agreements (and maybe already entered their moves) to change their mind (and moves) isn't going to be easy.
gramilaj (100 D)
14 Nov 12 UTC
Not just talking about making alliances in 01, but alliances often seem more durable in online play than FTF play. I know there are exceptions, but I think it's generally true.

1) In addition to Speaker's point, in FTF play, you write orders at the end of the phase AFTER talking to everyone. In online play, you often put in prelim orders when you log in so you don't NMR. Those prelim orders are based on how the game has been going, and will then tend to flow in that direction. It's psychologically easier to change course after everyone has talked to you and presented their case at the end of the phase.

2) Online time works differently than FTF time. Online, I send the messages that are needed to maintain the game I want to have, and move on with my net routine. In FTF, I'm in a room for 8-20 minutes, conversations with allies take 5 if you've got a lot to talk about. You use the additional time to check in with your enemies, almost always. This also tends to make net games follow the previous flow.

3) You can't see who is talking to who online. You can can see your allies scheming with other people in FTF. I bet if you could see the number of messages your "ally" was sending to your "enemy" online, people would be more hesitant about committing to a long term alliance right off the bat.
Tru Ninja (1016 D(S))
15 Nov 12 UTC
Here are my thoughts on the matter:

In the game of Diplomacy, time is not frequently an asset. Even in the tournament scene, you have to buy each year you have through hard work. Let's look at this a bit closer on another level, by example.

Let's assume you wish to see the developments of the first year before making a decision on who to work with, and you're one of the countries in the eastern sphere and the rest of the east holds that same philosophy. In the west, let's assume that the opposite is true and that sphere is working to jump a player in 1901.

What will happen is that the west will consolidate into two powers at least a full year before the east does, and the east may not have its ducks in a row, so to speak, when two western countries look to find new targets. Let's assume that it takes 4 years to finish off a western player. Starting S05 (which is really slow by most standards) Russia and Italy will begin possibly feeling pressure from the remaining two western powers who are still embroiled in a battle to consolidate down to three players, let alone two. This very well could mean that the guy on the bottom in the east will gladly work with the two significantly larger western powers to beat back the three fractured eastern ones.

Ultimately, what I'm getting at is that you have to be the first group to eliminate a player so that you have the center size necessary to take on a new foe, which could come from your sphere or even the opposite one. The last thing Italy or Russia want is to be knee-deep in a battle to eliminate Turkey when a western power attacks (or vice-versa) and they have to fight a two-front war. This makes you incredibly vulnerable.


A second reason for speed in finding a target is that you don't want to be the guy that says "let's wait and see how the first year plays out before making decisions" while the other guy says "sure, I like your plan and let's go for it" because then YOU are the one without an 01 ally.

You really want to get that jump on your enemy before someone else gets the jump on you.
@Al - I really haven't had that experience too often on this site. Myself, I try to stay neutral as long as possible. Being the last neutral power has benefits, as Draug alluded to. Bold moves happen in 1901, but are not the norm and often take the rest of the board by surprise. Regarding alliances being locked, it depends on who you play with. Even among high ranking players, there are some who like to lock themselves into an alliance (often for their own safety...these people who are concerned about their spot in the draw). I have a mental list, though, of people who are always willing to sharpen their knives and change sides. Those are the fun ones :)
Al Swearengen (0 DX)
16 Nov 12 UTC
Thanks everyone for your input. A couple of follow-up questions:

@C-K But isn't this rather short-sighted? Personally, I have a policy never to ally with someone who lies to me before Fall Builds (1901) and will often attack them. While this practice is hardly universal, it appears to me, on the surface at least, that the players who do this don't do very well. I take this sort of behavior as a sign that a person is unable to be honest with me, even when there is no real compulsion to lie.

@goldfinger
Just had a glance at some of your previous games and you're right. I need to have a game with you sometime.
"Personally, I have a policy never to ally with someone who lies to me before Fall Builds (1901) and will often attack them."

I half agree with you on this one. I don't like allying with them, but my policy is that I will always ally with anyone if its right for me. If its right for me to ally with the liar then I will. I'll just wait for them to suffer for a bit before I move in to help, that's all...

But when I start joining game again Al, I'd love to


15 replies
orathaic (1009 D(B))
16 Nov 12 UTC
here we go again...
...
2 replies
Open
Freact (100 D)
16 Nov 12 UTC
Live Game!
Join!
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=104357
Join!
1 reply
Open
Chaqa (3971 D(B))
16 Nov 12 UTC
Eog: Thursday Night Live 10
Good game I guess. After Egypt and Carthage just disappeared I knew I was in trouble. You honestly should have just drawn, Rome, the game became unfair at that point.
0 replies
Open
mattsh (775 D)
09 Nov 12 UTC
Are players allowed to threaten delay of game because they want in on a draw?
I am in a game where a player is about to lose because he stabbed me and I won't let him in on a draw now. Despite the inevitable, he is taking the full phase-length to enter moves to be a pain in the ass. Previously, he was entering moves immediately after phase start. Is this meta-gaming allowed, or can we somehow get him banned / speed things up?
31 replies
Open
Chaqa (3971 D(B))
16 Nov 12 UTC
Thursday Night Live 10
Please vote draw, Rome. 2 players have left and it's become a bit unfair because of that.
0 replies
Open
Babar (0 DX)
16 Nov 12 UTC
Anybody up for a live game?
2 replies
Open
HITLER69 (0 DX)
15 Nov 12 UTC
Ron Paul's congressional farewell speech
http://youtu.be/Zqi6paX3ong

For those of us who supported, it's the end of a long and honest era.
1 reply
Open
Zmaj (215 D(B))
16 Nov 12 UTC
EoG: Thursday Night Live Gunboat
Lol... That last round was a gem.
9 replies
Open
NigeeBaby (100 D(G))
16 Nov 12 UTC
A truly incredible and magnificent person.....
http://www.borntorun.com.au/5deserts/Jess-Baker
3 replies
Open
Alderian (2425 D(S))
14 Nov 12 UTC
Nifty
I just found IE on my XBOX360 and have plugged a USB keyboard in and am now playing diplomacy on my big screen TV.
9 replies
Open
Zmaj (215 D(B))
15 Nov 12 UTC
EoG: Marsupilami
Divided we fall.
32 replies
Open
NigeeBaby (100 D(G))
15 Nov 12 UTC
Still don't get it do you Mr Romney....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20344750
Mr Charisma-Bypass still doesn't get it ...... in his own head he thinks he could be Barack, the guy is living in cloud cuckoo land.
Bad losers always find someone else to blame....
22 replies
Open
Page 989 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top