Finished: 09 AM Sun 25 Dec 16 UTC
Orion Bridge
1 day /phase
Pot: 350 D - Autumn, 1918, Finished
Classic, Anonymous players, Draw-Size Scoring
1 excused missed turn
Game won by nickste89 (1816 D)
15 Dec 16 UTC Spring, 1913: I do not agree
When negotiating, the threath of throwing the game to someone else is valid to me.
And sometimes you need to show you are willing to really do that.
It is metagaming, but for me a valid strategy
15 Dec 16 UTC Spring, 1913: If you aren't working in your own best interest, whether it be playing for a draw or trying to solo, it's a travesty of the game.
15 Dec 16 UTC Spring, 1913: It is a viable strategy Italy. It causes the person who may stab you to re-think. I have had it happen to me multiple times where I have lost because of it. It sucks but I just deal with it and move on. No point in complaining over spilled milk. As y'all can see by my moves Germany has not really thrown the game now has he?
15 Dec 16 UTC Spring, 1913: Its not illegal, but it lacks any sense of honour or gamesmanship
15 Dec 16 UTC Spring, 1913: that is your opinion and you are entitled to that. but not everyone believes that
15 Dec 16 UTC Spring, 1913: It strikes me as similar to fantasy sports. The guy in last place decides that since hes not going to win, he will just trade whatever elite players he has to another individual with complete lopsided trades essentially handing the win to another. Its a slap in the face to everyone else who entered in expecting a fair contest and above board play.
15 Dec 16 UTC Spring, 1913: I think that it is a completely valid strategy and players are allowed to use it, hence England to me and Germany to England.

But personally I don't use that strategy as it puts a dampen on the spirit of the game as Italy points out. It feels unsportsmanlike and it does frustrate the players who were hoping for a straight game.
15 Dec 16 UTC Spring, 1913: I do not think that the fantasy sport analogy is valid here.
This is a game of diplomacy, hence of negotiation.
If you throw the game because you are bored or just because you are not winning, I agree it is a slap in the face.
If it is following through on a threath leveled in a negotiation, it can be a valid strategy.
15 Dec 16 UTC Spring, 1913: And it can be working in your best interest, just not in this game.
Someone that has thrown a game before, following through on a threat, is very believable if he or she makes that threath again in another game.
15 Dec 16 UTC Spring, 1913: I suggest that there is a huge difference between *threatening* to throw a game (which is a diplomatic technique), and actually *carrying out* the throwing of a game (which is lame and pathetic). Doing so as Russia describes -- "I'm going to actually throw this game, so that next time my allies will know that I mean business and I'll actually do it" -- is meta-gaming (as Russia stated), which is entirely against the spirit of sportsmanlike Diplomacy play. Meta-gaming is, in fact, considered a form of Diplomacy cheating.

Is Germany throwing this game to Turkey for meta-gaming reasons? I don't think so. Germany is throwing this game to Turkey simply because they had their solo chance taken away from them. So I consider what Germany is doing to be within the rules, just not worthy of respect.

Thanks for the opinions, guys.
15 Dec 16 UTC Spring, 1913: Why is metagaming unsportsman like?
If you play a lot of face to face Diplomacy, you will get a reputation. People will know how you play and take that into consideration. Why would it be different here?
I have been national Diplomacy champion twice and have runner up at the only WDC I participated in. Most people I play against face to face will know my playstyle and will assess my offers during negotiations in that light (and I will do so with them based on prior experiences).
15 Dec 16 UTC Spring, 1913: For example, in this game, two players blatantly lied to me on the first turn. I have rarely seen that online.
Of course I will identify when this game is done, who these players were and if I meet them again in a non-anonymous game, I will remember.
That is also metagaming, but I fail to see what is un-sportsmanlike in that.
15 Dec 16 UTC Spring, 1913: I don't see an issue with meta gaming in the sense of gauging trustworthiness from previous games, but throwing a game because you didn't get your way is pathetic. If you cant see why that is unsportsmanlike you clearly didn't play too many sports.

If you are acting not in the best interest of the country you are playing in your current game, that is wrong. Not against the rules, but certainly something to frown upon.

If someone issued that threat and followed through just so I would believe them the next time we play, I simply would try to avoid playing any game with that person in the future.

There is a big difference between negotiating, lying, stabbing and forming partnerships which is what diplomacy is all about and what I would call collusion.
15 Dec 16 UTC Spring, 1913: I would just like to say that this has been a very interesting game from the beginning, and have not seen a game on this map play out this way before. Would like to commend all of you for a great game and hope to play with y'all going forward :)
15 Dec 16 UTC Spring, 1913: I agree with Turkey that this game has turned out to be extremely interesting and I've rarely seen a great discussion "post-mortem".

I think England was correct in what he previously stated. Diplomatically threatening an enemy with a thrown game is a valid strategy and it works quite often. I agree with Italy in the sense that it feels like a unsportsmanlike strategy in the eyes of my play-style. But, again, England is right in saying if you are using it to advance your position rather than actually throwing the game there really isn't any problem with that strategy.

It is hard to analyze those situations as the only player who truly knows their original intentions with a "throwing threat" is the player who made the threat themselves. Meaning, if they end up gaining a lot of centers in a great stab like England did in this game it is always debatable whether the threat was in the spirit of the game or, as Italy says, unsportsmanlike.
15 Dec 16 UTC Spring, 1913: Agreed. There's been some immense smoke and mirrors . Once the game is over I'll share my opinions of play etc . I think it's poor form to do so while still involved in move making .
15 Dec 16 UTC Spring, 1913: Totally understandable Germany. I look forward to hearing your side.
16 Dec 16 UTC Spring, 1913: It's not poor form -- sharing opinions of play while the game is ongoing is one of the most fun aspects of the game (especially for our independent observers who are no longer entering moves themselves). So I've got another discussion point for everybody to debate over ... What do you think the likelihood is that:
A) Germany is throwing the game to a Turkish solo, due to their emotional state from having lost a chance at their own solo earlier.
B) Germany *thinks* that Turkey will adhere to a 17-17 split agreement. However, after Turkey gets enough unguarded German SCs behind Turkish front-lines, such that a Turkish solo is a guarantee, Turkey will make that final stab for the win.
C) Germany *thinks* that Turkey will adhere to a 17-17 split agreement, and Turkey will actually honor such an agreement in the end. This means Turkey giving up their own guaranteed solo (out of generosity, another form of meta-gaming, or some other reason).

If I were wagering my Diplomacy-bucks, my money would be on:
80% for A,
15% for B,
5% for C
16 Dec 16 UTC Autumn, 1913: Anyone who doesn't think that ongoing commentary while still making moves is bad form please say aye .....
16 Dec 16 UTC Autumn, 1913: The Global chatbox exists for that very reason, Germany
16 Dec 16 UTC Autumn, 1913: According to England everything is meta-gaming apparently
16 Dec 16 UTC Autumn, 1913: I think that it is okay to discuss strategy during the game, if you wouldn't like to that's fine! But it is interesting to hear player's opinions on the current game.

I think I will give Germany some slack and say that I think it is most likely B. I think Turkey is a smart enough player to realize that the solo is easily in his grasp if he stabs Germany. But it's possible that Germany is just hoping for Turkey to let him live.

Germany is faced with an impossible decision when it comes to having England covering his entire north and turkey covering his entire south. It will be impossible for him to face both so he is forced to hope that the player he deems more trustworthy will let him live while he fights of the other.

Only he really knows his intentions but that's my bit.
16 Dec 16 UTC Autumn, 1913: Well you certainly couldn't have a less trustworthy ally than England and I do believe that Turkey is good for his word . And as you can see I certainly have not thrown the game either .
16 Dec 16 UTC Autumn, 1913: Exactly what I am saying.
16 Dec 16 UTC Autumn, 1913: I agree with what France is saying and would be more inclined to agree with England if he just was not so bitter
16 Dec 16 UTC Autumn, 1913: It might just be a side affect of an emotional game. The chaos and cunning that England had to get through the do so well was pretty legitimately tough!

I think all players in this game deserve some approval for their play, especially the players that made it this far!

So even though England is getting a bit frustrated with Germany we have to understand that it is reasonable. I got pissed at him for betraying me, and Germany got pissed at me for my supposed 'lecturing style', but its just a symptom of a tough fought and chaotic game!
17 Dec 16 UTC Spring, 1914: Thanks for the compliment and cool-headedness, France. Germany's actions are indeed understandable, just not respectable. As I still believe
(85% A - Germany's intentionally throwing due to emotions, 15% B - they're unintentionally handing Turkey a solo by incorrectly believing Turkey, 5% C - Turkey will actually give up a solo and split 17-17). France believes 100%B, which is also understandable if Germany's a novice player, and maybe a bit more respectable perhaps.

I wonder which A/B/C Russia and Italy think are likely? Oh, and Germany ... this public discussion is as much for your benefit as for anything. These other 3 players certainly aren't in love with me any more than you are. So, you know that you're hearing honest unbiased opinions, which maybe can help you better consider your actions (if your emotions aren't so blinded as to be stuck on "A")

I do disagree with one portion of France's statement: that "Germany is faced with an impossible decision". I certainly don't wish for a Turkish solo. It happens all the time in this game (between less emotional players) that someone you hate because of prior action is nonetheless somebody you form a working stalemate line with.
17 Dec 16 UTC Spring, 1914: In that case, would you have thought it a "respectable" decision if Germany threw the game to you and just focused Turkey?

It is a hard decision because he is stuck between to walls that are closing in on him and he has to try and use all his strength to push back against one because if he doesn't or he tries to stop both at once he will be crushed.
17 Dec 16 UTC Spring, 1914: England. I do not think Germany is trying to throw the game. your "percentages" are very off base and very biased. France, I am pretty sure, has the reasoning down and solid.
18 Dec 16 UTC Autumn, 1914: J/s that if France had helped me into Italy, we wouldn't be having this situation right now
18 Dec 16 UTC Autumn, 1914: Russia: I lied to you because this is my first time actually playing Austria after actually learning the rules of Diplo. I betrayed you on the first turn because I thought a stronger Turkey was better than a strong Russia. I was wrong.
18 Dec 16 UTC Autumn, 1914: I think you migh have a point Austria, it really slowed my advance down. What ultimately changed my mind from assisting you is you asking me to support you first, I was eager to get into Munich that turn. I wonder whether it would've been more benificial to assist you in the end.
18 Dec 16 UTC Autumn, 1914: The Internet is terrible for conveying facetious sarcasm, and I was joking about that. I'm not bitter about it. But I think though that having a disconnected army in Vienna did you in since you badly needed it to work with your other armies in France to defend yourself from Germany.

In any case, I think it's best if this game ends up as a 3 way draw
20 Dec 16 UTC Spring, 1916: England. Why are you so hypocritical? You bash Germany for attempting to "throw the game" when you are literally doing the same thing
20 Dec 16 UTC Spring, 1916: I attacked Germany earlier in this game to prevent them from getting a solo. Since then, I've been doing everything in my power (what little power I've had) to prevent you from getting yours. And I will continue to do so.
20 Dec 16 UTC Spring, 1916: As far as I'm concerned, you are still a solo-threat, Turkey.
20 Dec 16 UTC Spring, 1916: Plus, there's the whole German/English alliance in this game. It may have fallen apart when Germany their sanity in reaction to my German-solo-protection ... but I'm still going to keep up my half of that agreement.
20 Dec 16 UTC Spring, 1916: Plus, there's the whole German/English alliance in this game. It may have fallen apart when Germany lost their sanity in reaction to my German-solo-prevention ... but I'm still going to keep up my half of that agreement.
20 Dec 16 UTC Spring, 1916: One final point, Turkey: I have my draw vote up. People who are trying to throw a game usually don't vote for a draw.
23 Dec 16 UTC Thank you all for a very interesting game . Merry Christmas to you all .
23 Dec 16 UTC Merry Christmas thanks for an interesting game
23 Dec 16 UTC ...and the throwing of the game is now complete. In the end, I guess it had more to do with "option B" (Germany(HangMan) being an idiot) and perhaps only partially to do with "option A" (Germany(HangMan) giving up due to inability to control their emotions).
23 Dec 16 UTC Congratulations Turkey
24 Dec 16 UTC Congrats Turkey, and well played everyone.

As for England, just as a passive thought, I think you should change your outlook on other players in games of diplomacy. I feel like Germany but up an amazing fight.
24 Dec 16 UTC So amazing that he lost the game for himself. Germany(HangMan) has to be dumbest player I've ever seen.
24 Dec 16 UTC After eliminating his ability to solo, I honestly was going to work with Germany(HangMan) to get to a 17-17 finish. Instead, he destroyed both of our chances. Germany went on and on and on to me in private chat about how much he thought Turkey(nickste) would *never* take an 18th SC, how much he was certain that Turkey(nickste) would *never* try to solo against him. Ha! Fool! Even my pet goldfish is smarter than Germany(HangMan).
24 Dec 16 UTC So you lost the game England. No reason o call someone dumb.
He made an incorrect assessment of Turkey even after being warned. It happens
24 Dec 16 UTC @Russia(ksako): You are correct.
Germany(HangMan) did indeed make an incorrect assessment of Turkey's(nickste's) intentions. He did so even after being warned by many people. He did so even though a five-year-old could have recognized that he was being played by Turkey.
Yes, it happens ... to idiots
24 Dec 16 UTC I'm still waiting to see those super-skillful "smoke and mirrors" that Germany(HangMan) promised were going to be revealed at the end of the game.
24 Dec 16 UTC Of course I have to say that Germany could've done better if he had worked with England instead of pushing against him, however he survivied to the end with the second most centers and being pretty damn close to a solo. I think he did well, better than a lot of us.

Start Backward Open large map Forward End

nickste89 (1816 D)
Won. Bet: 50 D, won: 350 D
18 supply-centers, 17 units
HangMan (762 D)
Survived. Bet: 50 D
15 supply-centers, 15 units
wpfieps (442 D)
Survived. Bet: 50 D
1 supply-centers, 1 units
BurntAlmond (100 D)
Defeated. Bet: 50 D
MarkDalton (763 D)
Defeated. Bet: 50 D
Defeated. Bet: 50 D
ksako8 (1433 D)
Defeated. Bet: 50 D
Archive: Orders - Maps - Messages