Idiots Guide to Diplomacy: Anatomy of a Top Ranked Player

[VillageIdiot]

I’ve been fortunate to get the opportunity to lock horns with many a top ranked player, so I’d like to highlight some of my observations of some attributes that make the successful so successful. Please note that there's not really one special sauce to as there are many different types of players and personalities most with their own formula to success, however this list outlines many of the skill sets and philosophies i seem to see most often in top ranked players. 

1) Communicate, Communicate, Communicate
As has been outlined so many times in Diplomacy advice, communication is a given if you want to be successful in this game. You're not going to win very many classic games using a gunboat mentality. You need to be in constant communication building alliances, negotiating treaties, gathering information, influencing people to do what you want them to do, and when necessary spreading propaganda. There's a relationship building aspect to the game and the better players understand this.

2) Be Likeable
Many people completely miss this, but personality and likability will get you very far in a game. A lot of players try to influence players simply through fear-mongering of other players, deceit, and misdirection - don’t get me wrong, these are tools you can have in your toolbox, but they shouldn’t be your go-to. It’s like the saying goes, ‘you catch more flies with honey then vinegar’. Put the effort in to bond with the other players on the board so they enjoy talking to you and ‘like’ to work with you. Create a relationship where you’re a person they feel comfortable with venting about others to or bouncing around gossip. Some players have a very hard time stabbing somebody they really like and respect and sometimes you win the game because the players who have no shot at winning decide to throw their support behind you because they like and respect you best.  Balki Bartokomous and Octavious are both masters at crafting relationships across the board.

3) All About the Moves
This is the chess aspect of the game. You need to know the board very well and have a sense for what your opponents are planning to do. You also need to have the sense to look a move or two ahead. Smart players realize that it's not about where you are in the spring its about where you are in the fall. Best way I've found to sharpen this skill is two-player or gunboat games where you can remove the diplomacy aspect of the game and focus only on perfecting moves. I find it helps to try to first figure out what moves you would do if you were in your enemy and then basing your moves around those. xorxes is not just exceptional at knowing how the board works, he seems to have an amazing ability to predict how players are going to move.

4) "Spidey Senses"
Good players can sense when a stab is coming. They know because of a shift in mood, a change in communications, suspicious actions, or sometimes just as simple as seeing you would stab too if they were in their opponents shoes. Many players can feel the stab coming, but for some reason many players don't act on this suspicion. They decide to wait until after the stab comes to react, although by that point it's usually nothing more then name calling because the damage is done. If you feel a stab coming then call the person out, prepare for it, or beat them to the punch. I'd much rather be called paranoid then a sucker. Often say his first sign of an impending stab is a sudden drop off in communications. If they stop talking, prepare for the worst.

5) Protect Your Interests
As ties in to #4’, good players take precautions always. You can be extremely trusting to your allies in the beginning but don't leave your throat exposed too long and never ever in the end game. Constantly keep allies and neighbouring treaties in check and call them out on any concerns. Diplomatically set an expectation of your allies to always ask permission if they are going to cut too close to any of your centers and always try to have a good understanding of what their plans are so you're never caught off guard. Playing with players like MadMarx and SocratesDissatisfied as allies i found our alliance was in a perpetual state of negotiations and renegotiations, it was just baked into our daily discussions. It can take a thick skin to be able to endure some of the occasional heatedness of the talks without it becoming personal.

6) Appreciate the Value of Trust
Most games will require some degree of lying sooner or later, however trust is currency in this game so don't give it away haphazardly. Once a bridge is burned its often gone for the remainder of the game so be very sparing with lies that will catch up with you or blatant betrayals that leave a bruise of resentment. I've seen way too often players playing too hard too fast only to have painted themselves into a corner by mid-game when nobody is willing to work with them. Likewise, same applies for your competitors - any opportunity to discredit them is extremely useful. TheHangedMan had mastered the commodity of trustworthiness which gets him extremely far in his games most to the time. People know he rarely lies which makes everybody want to align with him and often feel very guilty about ever wanting to betray him (I was an exception). I recall a time when THM had broken his relationship with me and attacked me, yet was hard to feel betrayed about it because he was relatively upfront about it and made the effort to explain the logical reasoning for it. PeterWiggins on the other hand was highly skilled at subtly and believably spreading mistrust and dissension amongst players through whispers and half-truths.

7) Adapt and Evolve
The best players are the ones who know how to adapt as the game goes on. Follow the opportunity. Regardless of how ugly a stab is, you may still have use for that person later on so try not to slam the door shut on that person. Your bitter enemy today might be a mutually ideal ally later in the game. Would be a shame to let hard feelings stand in he way of a terrific opportunity. For the wildly entertaining finals of the 2016 World Cup Finals Public Press had many of our best players come together trying to out diplomacize each other out in the open. These players were exceptional at adapting to ever changing circumstances leading to a roller coaster of ever changing alliances and worst enemies swapping to (reluctant) best friends. Weaker players would have written off players they had earlier butted heads with and their game would have suffered for it.

8) A Happy Wife is a Happy Life
Best alliances are when both sides are equally satisfied. Nobody is growing faster then the other, nobody is trying to steer an advantage in their favour, nobody is more vulnerable then the other, nobody is assuming more risk. This is a bit idealistic, but you get the idea. Occasionally offering to take a bigger bite of risk or suggesting for your ally to take a center is an investment in a strong alliance, and a strong alliance can get you incredible far. Be conscious of potential causes of frustration for an ally (like getting boxed in or taking the majority of the heat) could save you from a stab. If it makes strategic sense for your team, don't be afraid to gift over a center.

9) Other Ways to Skin a Cat
Not every gain needs to come through brute force, it's called "diplomacy" for a reason. Many people don't even consider this aspect of the game. Sometimes rather then spending 3 years trying to force your way into the one space that is going to open up a tonne of growth opportunity for you maybe a "trade" with your neighbour is the better and quicker way to resolve thing, or support against an enemy that's been threatening him, or any number of other incentives you can offer. I see games lost as players fight over hard to get "small potato" claims while they're enemies run around grabbing all the "low hanging fruit". Keep the big picture in mind and consider all options of how to get there.

Again, there are many different philosophies to how to succeed in this game and different things work for different people. Some succeed well with "shock and awe", some confuse and play wild card, and some are very good at laying low but knowing when to strike at the critical point.

Don't worry, this doesn't really scratch the surface of all my trade secrets but hopefully enough to get a dialogue going. Love to hear some debate on this from all you Top 100 players out there.

[Durga]

Love this! Thanks VI

[Octavious]

The ability to rally others is an incredibly useful skill to have albeit a very challenging one to master. It's one thing to seek out and recruit a like minded ally and maintain a relationship on a one-on-one basis but the biggest challenge (and headache) I ever come across in these games is when you are forced into the task to unify players to collaborate towards the common goal of halting somebody on the path to achieving a solo. I find less successful players don't even think about this need, they get so wrapped up in their immediate conflicts that they ignore the all too important big picture.

The great players are capable of uniting a coalition and acting as General for it. No easy task as it often involves working with very different personalities, a lot of times with those you've been fighting with throughout the game. Once formed, you need to take on the exhausting task of maintaining it. This requires facilitating communication, soliciting input and laying out plans, and ensuring everything is set to execute well. To make things worse this often is burdened with personality clashes, ego stroking, differing needs for security or ambition, time zones, and sometimes heated debates on how to proceed. It can drain the best of them.

To do well in this situation it takes immense diplomacy skills and helps to be generally regarded as a strong strategist. You need to be able to sell people on the idea that the good of the many needs to take priority over the good of the individual, very often not an easy sell. In these situations your coalition is often only as strong as it's weakest link, players that are poor communicators, unreliable, or high risk for straying for personal greed are the biggest threats to success and require special attention when they are identified. Occasionally this may even require cutting the throat of a weak link if an opportunity presents itself for the greater good.

It's a tough gig, but it's certainly helped me survive many a certain loss to a solo. No matter how big a game leader is until he gets to 17 he's still in the minority, all it typically takes is the ability to work together to be able to be able to stop them.

[Octavious]

Gosh, the creative juices are flowing today. Sometimes I don't know where it all comes from

[VillageIdiot]

Holy crap is that deep and wise! Hey, wait a minute....

Thanks, I was going to save that for a seperate discussion. *shakes fist*

[Octavious]

Holy crap is that deep and wise! Hey, wait a minute....

Thanks, I was going to save that for a seperate discussion. *shakes fist*

Feel free to use it in any future threads, sir. Just make sure you credit me with the quotation :).

[Octavious]

Fun and games aside, it is one of the best observations of the game I've come across. There is one aspect I tend to disagree with though...

Smart players realize that it's not about where you are in the spring its about where you are in the fall. Best way I've found to sharpen this skill is two-player or gunboat games where you can remove the diplomacy aspect of the game and focus only on perfecting moves.

I don't like this at all. I think taking traditional communication out of the game changes it at a very fundamental level. A host of moves that are possible in diplomacy are simply unfeasible in gunboat, and whilst you may be able to improve the small set of moves akin to both games, the more complex moves in diplomacy will be neglected.

I may have just been unlucky, but when I encounter players who are primarily gunboaters more often than not they seem almost blinkered. They don't easily see all the options available to them, and heavily favour tried and tested gunboat strategy over joint operations that need a bit of back and forth with an ally to formulate.

[CommanderByron]

Excellent, very in-depth.

[VillageIdiot]

I don't like this at all. I think taking traditional communication out of the game changes it at a very fundamental level. A host of moves that are possible in diplomacy are simply unfeasible in gunboat, and whilst you may be able to improve the small set of moves akin to both games, the more complex moves in diplomacy will be neglected.

I may have just been unlucky, but when I encounter players who are primarily gunboaters more often than not they seem almost blinkered. They don't easily see all the options available to them, and heavily favour tried and tested gunboat strategy over joint operations that need a bit of back and forth with an ally to formulate.

I get what you mean but it’s all about how you approach. Don’t start as a gunboater and transition into Press games, start in press and pepper in some 1 vs 1 games or gunboat on the side to sharpen that skill. I tend to prefer the 1v1 approach as gunboat games you’re way to at the mercy of a bad player overly slanting the board which in a press game you could work to resolve. My sharpening came mostly from PlayDip where in 1v1 games you have each player controlling three countries with Italy in civil disorder. It’s a full enough board you can relate to a regular game but it’s more chess then seven player checkers which i tend to find gunboat to be. Still, I’ve thrown some gunboat games in there to see how players think/work based on intuition alone.

[Octavious]

That's an interesting variation of the 1v1 idea. Yeah, I can see value in that. Out of curiosity what's the victory condition on those?

[VillageIdiot]

First to 24 as I recall (been a while since I played). Actually rarely results in a definitive winner, but fun nevertheless.

[dancing queen]

Smart players realize that it's not about where you are in the spring its about where you are in the fall. Best way I've found to sharpen this skill is two-player or gunboat games where you can remove the diplomacy aspect of the game and focus only on perfecting moves.

I don't like this at all. I think taking traditional communication out of the game changes it at a very fundamental level. A host of moves that are possible in diplomacy are simply unfeasible in gunboat, and whilst you may be able to improve the small set of moves akin to both games, the more complex moves in diplomacy will be neglected.
[/quote]

(Great OP! Much agree!)

For my $.02, the value of gunboat is in sharpening your fundamental tactics. True, you won't be able to figure out multi-party convoys, but they are esoteric, edge cases. Knowing how to take StP from the north, how to take (or hold) Munich or Warsaw or Tunis against equal force - get those things right, and a lot of the rest of the game is easier, because you know what target you are aiming at.

[CommanderByron]

Gunboat was great when I was first starring to get the feel for how the pieces move and how to use them for strategic purposes; however I think that the potential for a player to ignore press in press-diplomacy games is not an absolute zero and worth warning against.

[Octavious]

For my $.02, the value of gunboat is in sharpening your fundamental tactics. True, you won't be able to figure out multi-party convoys, but they are esoteric, edge cases. Knowing how to take StP from the north, how to take (or hold) Munich or Warsaw or Tunis against equal force - get those things right, and a lot of the rest of the game is easier, because you know what target you are aiming at.

There's the thing. I don't see how gunboat makes it any easier to learn how to take St Petersburg or hold Munich than diplomacy. In fact, I'd argue that it was considerably harder. As a new player by far the best way of picking up this kind of information was by asking more experienced players on the board who have an interest in you succeeding in those tasks. Using gunboat as a sandbox can never hope to match that kind of instruction. Indeed using a sandbox as a sandbox will probably work better. I've got nothing against people playing and enjoying gunboat if that's their thing, but as an educational tool it's a bit like riding a bike to teach yourself to drive a car.

[President Eden]

GREAT post VI. Thanks a lot for taking the time.


Now that 1v1 is over here on webdip, I would recommend people use 1v1 over gunboat Classic as a means of sharpening their tactics and strategy.

The use of these two modes of play for this purpose doesn't come from full-press games somehow lacking these important focuses. By reducing alliance options from "any option which can be communicated through moves and/or words" to "any option which can be communicated only through moves," a gunboat or 1v1 player has more time to 'go deep' on particular movement trees and "50/50" sequences which frequently prove to be anything but.
In Classic FP Diplomacy, you not only can, but should, be negotiating with six other people all the time. Dozens of half-baked plans can easily take shape over the first 48 hours of the game, and the diplomatic framework not only takes longer to settle in, but is more prone to change, due to the greater number of options available to all players.
In gunboat, you're more "locked in" and thus have no real choice, if you spend the same amount of time on a given GB game as you do a FP game, but to 'go deeper.'

This isn't to say gunboaters per se have a deeper understanding of tactical and strategic situations, of course. Just that for aspiring players who want to develop themselves in these areas, non-press games give them a chance to cut out the diplomatic noise and focus on those areas.

I think Classic gunboat has a bit too much "player variance," as VI touched on, and 1v1 in particular is the "purest form" of this model of playing IMO. captainmeme and other 1v1 vets have also done a great job of streamlining best-practice openings and delving into the components of 1v1 that matter, so there's more info than ever for people who want to test the waters.

Full-press is still inarguably Diplomacy as it was meant to be played.

[CommanderByron]

I’m not sure I agree that 1v1 is good practice after learning the absolute basics. It’s entirely uncharacteristic of the actual game. In this vein I respect gb as it has every feature of diplomacy except the press. You can coordinate if your coy enough, you have to think about all your neighbors needs and how to communicate (even non-verbally) that you aren’t going to be an easy target. It’s still very much the game of diplomacy, and so for training purposes is way more useful than 1v1. Not to discount good 1v1 players, it’s just almost an entirely different game; and using it to teach diplomacy is flawed.

On that note; I recommend new players jump into some gb, with the understand that Full Press will hVe it’s own nuances and likely be more difficult at first. Try new moves and if you are an apprentice in the mentor program feel free to ask your mentor if a move set would work and what the potential drawbacks are. :)

[Hamilton Brian]

A very thoughtful and important post. It should be required reading for all School of War participants.

[Peregrine Falcon]

A few thoughts:

A host of moves that are possible in diplomacy are simply unfeasible in gunboat, and whilst you may be able to improve the small set of moves akin to both games, the more complex moves in diplomacy will be neglected.

Very true. I would agree that playing a lot of FP, high-quality diplomacy games is the best way to get better. However, FP, high-quality diplomacy games are really time consuming. Not everyone can be like CAPT Brad and play 40 at once.

That's where I think GB and 1v1 games come in. It's always possible to become better at strategy and tactics. GB and 1v1 are generally shorter than press games. Without the press, they also take considerably less time per phase. As such, one can play a much higher volume of those games. On the whole, it's a lot easier to get the practice needed to excel at basic strategy and tactics from GB and 1v1 than press games.