how is that metagaming.

Can we agree that it was still underhanded, and should at least be frowned upon? especially considering I was forced into a seven-way draw?

gameID=58163 if anyone was wondering.

Metagaming means beyond the game or outside the game, your predicament was in-game, and thus not metagaming. It would only be metagimg if England and Germany had agreed upon an unbreakable alliance before the game. But so long as all the diplomacy has occurred in-game then it is legit.

Aren't draws considered outside the game, though? I'm a little confused about the definitions of 'in game' and 'outside of game.'

I think all 7 in that game are fools since France was out of SCs and the draw would have been *better after the fall season. I would have kept playing until It was clear Germany and England made good on their threat AND I couldn't counter it with an ally of my own.

It could be metagaming if their reasons for wanting a 7 way draw were due to outside the game influences. What was their reasoning? From reading the global messages it seems they wanted the game drawn/cancelled due to France missing the first two moves, which seems reasonable. But why 7 way draw when you can 7 way cancel?

well i mean you could have just called their bluff. i doubt they would have all successfully teamed up on you

I don't actually know their reasoning. I'd love to know it. I drew the game to get away from them, though. They were frustrating me, and I didn't want to have to deal with something that childish(in my opinion).

and there's no way they could have knocked you out before one or two of those guys died of natural causes lol.

In-game verus meta-game (outside the game.

In-game examples:
Germany in Spring 1901: hey guys let's all gang up on France [Germany hopes other powers will agree]
Austria in Autumn 1909: hey guys if you let Russia take me out he is just going to solo. Let's all agree to draw. If Russia won't agree then we should all join together and take him out [Austria hopes the other powers will agree but he does not know for sure]

Metagame examples:
One friend to another friend before the game: okay remember know matter which power we draw, we have to work together. I'll take the win in this game, and you take the win in the next game. Agreed? Good.
Germany to Russia: hey if you agree to switch your attack from me to England, then in our other game we are playing at the moment, I will stop attacking you. Sound fair? Good [using the "other game" as a bargaining chip is outside the game and thus metagaming]

Typo... Remember *no matter which power we draw...

Seven-way draw???

No, that's not metagaming...

But who the hell calls for a 7-way? Why even bother playing the game then?

@obiwan: that's the main reason I was opposed to it. I was fine with cancelling, but I got fed up with them(especially germany).

Yep. Cancel would have made more sense in that game.

Anyone here up for a REAL live game, no 7-way draws?

You should have held out until France died at least, since he would have been eliminated before they could make good on their promise.

But just wow. They seriously protected two powers with a combined SC count of ONE. I think I understand why you drew, idiots are frustrating.

I feel a bit more vindicated now. Anyone up for a real game?

I kinda filled my quota...

I am, if we can get enough (dependable) players

I may be in, if we get enough quality players

hmm, I may be in if there is sufficient time to play it out

How about a WTA live anon gunboat 26 pts buy in and I'll set it up with a password, which you can PM me to take?

This is what I hate about brute force Diplomacy. I find it to be completely without tact.

But anyway, I might play. It all depends on how long the phases are, points commitment, and if we can get some actual good players on board.

I don't do live games and I've only ever been in one legit seven way draw, but I must say that threatening to gang up and take out another player is not only *not* metagaming, it is also a perfectly legitimate tactic.

I think the real issue here for the op was the pointlessness of this game. I can see why he was annoyed. But yes, metagaming was the wrong word for it.

But the OP also insisted that, of not metagaming or formal cheating, he considered the threat as underhanded. I argue it is a perfectly valid tactic and no more underhanded than a stab.

Stabbing shouldn't be allowed, its too underhanded in my opinion.


Is this thread serious? Metagaming? What the hell?