Yeah, I very much valued the punishing of the stabber in that specific game, the Turk really made me Mad! ;-)

@V+

I believe the main problem for me was that, clearly, you played this game with the conviction that no matter what happens you'll be able to offer me a deal at the last moment and I will automatically have to agree.

Whatever I said was considered a bluff, up until the very end, so I literally had no way to get you to do anything. You didn't make a single compromise and pushed me right up to the wall.

I know revenge may be a strong force, but this was not my motivation, just an added bonus.

I just don't accept that I have to adhere to a code of conduct which effectively gives the other side (E and F in this case) the right to do whatever they want with no consequences. Similar to little children, you have to let them fall a thousand times before they learn to walk. I'm not your mother to save you and be forgiving :)

Hmm, now that I read the last sentence, it might not sound right in English. Tried to paraphrase a local proverb but didn't work out :)

My point is - what else could I have done to made you give me some space and security? And how do I convince you to not pull the same stunt again next time. Cause I've been stabbed in such situations before, and you have to admit you did look suspect. Tur was going to drag on. It was a very mathematical decision for me and I was amazed you didn't consider it valid. The fact you still look sceptical about its validity kind of proves I was right, doesn't it? From a metagaming perspective it's a necessary sacrifice :)

"I believe the main problem for me was that, clearly, you played this game with the conviction that no matter what happens you'll be able to offer me a deal at the last moment and I will automatically have to agree."

Ivo, I couldn't agree more, and am yet again frustrated how well you express your thoughts, especially given the fact I often have the same thoughts and do such a poor job of getting them out.

Ivo, you're absolutely right. I assumed you'd have to accept the deal for the draw, because I assumed you'd want the draw rather than the loss, but now it's clear to me that not everyone values the draw over other non-win results. You ended the game on your terms and in doing so taught me a valuable lesson. Like I wrote in the global chat of the game, thanks for the challenging and educative game.

V+, why do you continue to ignore the fact that Germany was extremely likely to be eliminated if Germany did not help Turkey solo?

MM, I'm not ignoring it, I'm just I saying that even if Eng and I had eliminate Ger, in my mind it would have been the exact same result for Ger: a loss. But as I've repeatedly written, I now know that my idea of win, draw, or loss is not shared by all players, and I'm thankful to Ivo for the lesson.

I don't think Ivo is saying he would prefer loss to draw... but rather that he was looking at a loss either way, and so decided to lose on his terms rather than EF's.

Pres, that's exactly what I understand Ivo's position to be. I'm just saying that I don't agree with that position. Losing on your own terms is still losing. I would rather lose while playing for the draw then lose while sticking my finger in someone's eye. But, again, it's clear to me now that that's just me.

It's a rather semantics-based approach. My general philosophy on endgame situations is (1) win; (2) draw; (3) survive; (4) lose, and commit your last actions to resisting the one that beat you; (5) sit there and take your loss. Once you get past (3), it doesn't really matter whether you hit (4) or (5); it's little more than a moral victory to stave off the disappointment of defeat to accomplish (4), but you lost either way, so it's not really that big a deal. Essentially, it's schadenfreude.

V+, thanks for beating that into my head, I finally get it!! The way you see things is so foreign to me it took a while for me to realize your view was even possible and/or exactly what it means, which is exactly how you feel in reverse... I've often found Ivo to be my clone in the way I think, guess I've now found the one who thinks the exact opposite of me, which is even more amazing since I sincerely enjoy playing games with you so much! :-)

V+, I may be wrong, but I have a feeling you still don't really understand my motivation. This has nothing to do with revenge and I'll explain and prove why:

1. I am not going to even try to argue against the fact that, if we take the 1911 map, out of context, the only reasonable move to GER is to play for a draw. This is clearly obvious, however you seem to be under the impression I am disputing it, which is not the case. I have never said anything like it?

2. I am not only interested in a snapshot of the game. My main concern is how we got to 1911. I know what the right thing to do in 1911 is - and if my life depended on it I would have obviously played for a draw - but it doesn't. So, while I strongly believe one should play each game for itself, I also strongly believe this valid when it comes to communication and tactics, not so much when talking about principles.

3. This was blackmail for me. Imagine a few guys with knives surrounding someone with a Bazooka. You have to consider the "Don't come any closer" seriously at some point, it's a matter of self-preservation? If you lack it why do you assume the other side is bound by it? :)

4. If you'd allow me, I'd like to 'reuse' your "poke in the eye" example. Yes, in the end there was a poke in the eye, but it was because you didn't see what you're making me to. Gave me the key to the game, but denied me the key to my own destiny.

5. I could ague I actually wanted a draw more than you did - because I certainly metagamed and committed suicide for it. What did you do? Apart from try to convince yourself I'm unreasonable? :)

6. I'd bet that next time you're in a similar situation you'll act different. This was the best result I could get out of this game. Revenge was never the issue, I was pissed off because I realized I have to do this - and it's not really the best when you know you're playing for a negative result. Not to mention the explaining one has to do after :)

7. Btw, I'll also play different, especially as far as communication goes. Clearly this is a topic people are totally split on. I certainly did not expect my point of view to be so absurd to you.

There is an obvious difference in how I and V+ on one side and MM and Ivo on the other side view and value the objectives of the Game of Diplomacy. However I don't think this is the only or even the main reason of our inability to understand each other in this particular game. I strongly suspect that the differences in our views were amplified by a couple of unnatural aspects of the game that created a special kind of psychological stress.

First, due to Austrian civil disorder it has soon become apparent that Turkey must either win or be included in a draw. Perhaps the word "must" is not absolutely correct, but anyway, cooperating with Turkey on a draw was definitely much easier way to an acceptable outcome than fighting him. A 3-way draw of E-F-T seemed to be almost guaranteed.

A little later Russia, that was one of the cornerstones of the temporal balance, left the game in very unpredictable manner -- s/he basically gave two important centres to Turkey for free, because s/he wanted to leave the game as quickly as possible before holidays. It was the first shock for me, but I still believed the game is a forced 3-way draw.

Unfortunately I missed the first turn after Russia's suicide. I don't know how that happened and I even suspected a bug in the system, but this is not important any more. Which is important, is that the balance of powers radically changed and a 3-way draw of E-F-T was no longer guaranteed or even likely.

And in this very point I made the decisive mistake, because I was not able to adapt to the new situation as quickly as necessary. We (I mean F+E) had to start cooperating with Germany and Italy immediately, but we didn't, and once we tried it a little later, it was already too late.

I believe that this psychological aspect explains my and Ivo's inability to understand each other better than our different views of the game objectives. Germany has been playing a lost game until then and his mind was too focused on giving solo to Turkey if possible, while I've been playing a guaranteed draw and my mind was overly focused on eliminating Germany as a necessary step to this draw.

That's also why I and Germany considered one another a totally untrustworthy partners. He insisted on guarantees that I won't eliminated him (as I've been trying all the game before), but I didn't want to eliminate him any more and thus I didn't understand, why would he need such guarantees. On the other hand, I insisted on guarantees that he no longer wants to give a solo to Turkey (as he wanted all the game before), and he obviously didn't understand me.

Well, it was not a good game for me, but it was definitely one of the most interesting I played here this year.

Good analysis.

Btw, if this was non-anon (or FtF), this would not have happened.

why, Ivo? Because people would understand you'd be willing to follow through on your threat, or because you'd want to screw MM? ;)

Do agree with Strat there: it shouldn't matter if it was anon or not etc.

Well, I'm not saying that it doesn't matter, fig - one of the reason *I'm* willing to follow through on a threat to kamikazi, along with the sheer joy of ruining my enemy's day, is so people understand that I'm not the kind of player who just going to sit in a corner and sulk, and let the stabber use my remaining centers as armor against other players while he or she races for the solo.

Without knowing who I am, that deterrence goes out the window

No, strat :), it would have ended different because I would never come to the conclusion ENG and FRA can be so unreasonable. Plus, yes, they would have probably taken my threats more seriously.

And why would I want to screw with MM - he's the only one who was on my wavelength?

We have a saying here in Bulgaria - that people usually suspect others of what they'd do themselves. Just saying :)

Anyone who believes they should play in exactly the same way, regardless of the availability of critical new information (e.g. knowing your opponent), has to seriously consider how incredibly illogical this sounds :P

strat, consider me offended you so quickly assumed anyone/everyone would default to wanting to screw me over! ;-)

Seriously though, thanks for the continued discussion, especially from those in the game, seems people are starting to understand what happened a little better.

Ivo, why do you call it metagaming when you helped Turkey win in an anon game, that makes no sense to me?

V+, now that I think about it, you first argue that Germany should have accepted your draw offer without thinking because the draw was so easy to get (or something like that), giving me the impression you would 100% for sure follow through with the draw, then you later make it sound like you would have killed off the German for a three-way and it shouldn't matter to the German because a loss is a loss. I know I'm not wording it well, but you seem to be making contradictory statements.

If you've offended by *that*, MM, you're just gonna *love* the slander I tell everyone about you the next time we play.

As in:
Comment from MM: "What do you see happening next turn?"
Response: "dunno, haven't had a chance to think about it"

What I tell someone else: "{nation} asked me to move to X, as he's trying to set up a convoy into {unprotected region}; how do you want me to answer him? I'm not overly thrilled with helping him screw you, but you need to be aware of what he's planning - watch your flanks, bud"

"V+, now that I think about it, you first argue that Germany should have accepted your draw offer without thinking because the draw was so easy to get (or something like that), giving me the impression you would 100% for sure follow through with the draw, then you later make it sound like you would have killed off the German for a three-way and it shouldn't matter to the German because a loss is a loss. I know I'm not wording it well, but you seem to be making contradictory statements."

The statements shifted, if I'm reading this right, because the perspective shifted. V+'s first statements did imply a follow through with the draw; he was arguing on his perspective, his terms if you will. Ivo didn't concede the point, so V+ argued from the apparent German perspective. They aren't contradictory: it's giving a main argument, then saying "And if you don't accept that, <argument from the opponent's perspective>."

Hmmm, now I'm confused for sure!

I see it as V+ first saying Germany should have accepted the draw because it was so easy to secure the draw, then V+ saying Germany would have been eliminated (thus having no chance of getting a draw), which means the draw was not really easy to secure.

strat, I'm just going to kamikaze/metagame you if we play again so I don't have to worry about it! :-P

@MM- V's point is that Germany didn't know he wouldn't be in the draw by the end. He could think there was a small chance he would be, but by going with you there was no chance.
Therefore, as grudges are irrelevant, as is survival v.s. elimination, he should stop you, and take the slim shot at a draw.

But dave, using that maximizing-possible-positive outcome logic invariably gives others too much of a lever against you, and *guarantees* that someone will exploit it.

It's like those who claim "everyone must, always, invariably stop the largest player", but have no compunction about picking off centers from the person they expect to do that.

Diplomacy isn't something that submits well to Games Theory, because of the *Diplomacy* aspect of it. People will *not* always act in the way that would 'logically' be most likely to offer them a positive outcome - or minimize a negative outcome - because you're not playing against a set of scripted responses, you're playing against people, who may do something you find completely bizarre just to tick you off.

"Diplomacy isn't something that submits well to Games Theory, because of the *Diplomacy* aspect of it. People will *not* always act in the way that would 'logically' be most likely to offer them a positive outcome - or minimize a negative outcome - because you're not playing against a set of scripted responses, you're playing against people, who may do something you find completely bizarre just to tick you off"

Well said, and that's why I enjoy the game of Diplomacy.

When talking about winning, drawing, throwing the game, we are really talking about goals. There is the number one goal, which is to win. There are lesser goals, which are to draw, survive, etc. Everyone enters the game with this kind of a mindset. It is true with every game that there is one goal: to win.

Diplomacy is interesting because a player has the ability to adapt his goals to shape his future because winning sometimes becomes impossible. With everyone's goals changing, it's hard to keep updated. Obviously the case here in this game. Poor communication from France and England in addition to a lack understanding from Germany led to Turkey winning. In a paradisiacal environment, everyone would understand each other's goals and would be able to adapt their own.

Another beauty of the game of Diplomacy is miscommunication and lack of understanding. The game is played by humans with less rationality and poise than a frightened animal. Unpredictability is part of the game. Someone's goal to kamikaze is not unnatural considering circumstances. Granted, still silly and unethical in the eyes of others, it is perfectly sound to the people on the other side. When the eyes are opened and the game is savvy, is when the game has reached it's boring cessastion.

Ivo Ivanov did what was not expected of him because that is Diplomacy, plain and simple. His goal was a common one, but not completely understood one. He didn't give V+ and MarekP the benefit of the doubt because of past experiences in the game and poor communication.

Good job MadMarx, even if circumstances such as this fell into your lap.

@stratagos

You're right that when you string games together, it is very valuable to have a reputation for going kamikaze on people as people will use it. However, within a said game, going to the brink of giving away a solo is the best option really- and if you play anon, its always your best option as long as your press conceals your identity.