Has Diplomacy Regressed to Just Lying?

[Yigg]

I'd agree with Yonni in the sense that I hope you have some more positive experiences with games soon.

But I also heartily agree with swordsman3003. The Art of War man; know thy self, know thy enemy. For what my nickel-dime advice is worth, take an objective look over your old press and see what stands out to you in both what you say and how you say it. The possibility exists that you could be inviting early attacks. My opinion is that a sound strategist looks at themselves for failure before they look externally. Most of what I consider my defeats came by my own doing. It's why I play gunboat when I know I don't do well with it. My mistakes will make me better. And then know your opponents. If you're playing in low point buy-ins, the typical quality of your opponents might not be the caliber you're expecting.

Let's look at lies, while we're at it. Deceit is one of the tools at your disposal in the game. It can be a powerful tool, if used convincingly at the correct time and in moderation. To go all Depeche Mode, you deny yourself that tool. I would accept that you can find some measure of success in a policy of truth. But purposefully removing one of your tools on moral grounds means you value those morals more than total victory. This puts you at a disadvantage against someone who doesn't. This is not to say that you have to be a total liar. In fact, I believe that being mostly honest in general is a solid way to go. It helps to flush out other another player's lie, and it makes your own lie that much more believable when the time is right. But ultimately it's still just a tool in the toolbox. Just like honesty, deal-making, and the often horribly misused Chainsaw. Right tool for the right job, you know?

[Jeff Kuta]

After playing Fall of the American Empire:

Never again is what you swore the time before.

[Condescension]

If you solo from time to time you're doing it right. If you never solo you're doing it wrong. It's that simple. Those who see the game as an exercise in forming a game long alliance have misunderstood the concept and are robbing their fellow players of an enjoyable experience.

+1

[CarsonCole]

I usually try to establish favorable terms with everyone, then see who seems most open to an alliance. Once the alliance is formed, I don't usually stab, unless it becomes clear they are going to turn on me. I try to have few enemies, preferably only one at a time.

Sometimes this involves lying, as a few of my agreements aren't honored, simply because I found a better ally at the end of the first turn. By 1902, I am usually locked in to one "true alliance" that I stick to.

[Carol]

I'd just like to point out that 4 games is not a very big sample space.

[VillageIdiot]

I'm sorry but when I played back 70's and 80's, seems the game was played with more honor. You didn't have to lie to win. The game was more like chess and you had to think about moves not simply lie. Has the ability of the average gamer dropped so low, that lying to gain the advantage has become the norm?

I struggle to think what that would even look like. This game just isn't well designed to function well without some amount of, we'll call it bluffing. Decent players should be poking and prodding you all the time to ask what you're up to and half the strategies won't succeed very well if you're completely honest with "sorry, I like Russia more so i'm going to be coming for you" - especially when they may still have a day or two left in the phase to use that honest insight to then build a counter-plan or negotiate against you.

Successful players probably learned a long time ago that they probably will benefit better if you use bluffs sparingly. You need to build up your credibility if you want to be able to continue to make deals and maintain relationships/alliances that can help you get far. I'm sure in the FTF world, especially in smaller circles, the importance of protecting your reputation is even more important as its more likely to carry over from game to game. This is less of a burden in online games with larger communities and anonymous features. Even then i'm sure a reasonable amount of bluffing in the FTF world is still understandable and forgivable.

Now I have known a very small handful of players who managed to get to high levels despite being consistently chronic liars, but they were exceptionally good at it and were able to build their overall strategy around it. Compared to the FTF world you'll not just find more capable liars but probably also experience some much more intricate levels of long cons. Side effect of having more time and no indication who players are spending the majority of their time talking to.

[Silverblaze]

Is it lying if you change your mind about a move and stab your ally? I have done this in a few games. I didn't lie exactly. More likely the circumstances changed and I change my planned move. Is this a lie? Is there an Etiquette to lying?

[mhsmith0]

...
I struggle to think what that would even look like. This game just isn't well designed to function well without some amount of, we'll call it bluffing. Decent players should be poking and prodding you all the time to ask what you're up to and half the strategies won't succeed very well if you're completely honest with "sorry, I like Russia more so i'm going to be coming for you" - especially when they may still have a day or two left in the phase to use that honest insight to then build a counter-plan or negotiate against you.
...

two of my easiest games boiled down largely to this

1) As Italy, throughout 1901 Russia communicated that he liked both me and Turkey. Guess what? I allied Austria hard, presented Turkey's death as basically a fait accompli, and THEN allied Russia.

2) As Russia, late in spring 1901 England communicated that he was gonna vacate the channel but that we were totes gonna be friends and stuff. Guess who got Sealioned while Russia opened north, receiving Norway and a hassle free northern border for his trouble

Amusingly, both games ended up in easy FIR 3 ways, something I think I probably fall into *TOO* easily as any of those three powers...

[David E. Cohen]

I'm sorry but when I played back 70's and 80's, seems the game was played with more honor. You didn't have to lie to win. The game was more like chess and you had to think about moves not simply lie. Has the ability of the average gamer dropped so low, that lying to gain the advantage has become the norm?

I have no idea where you played, but I played my first game of Dip in September, 1980, so 39 years ago, and lying doesn't seem any more commonplace now than it did then. Ubiquitous then as now.

[Tugster]

David Cohen, how are you? I have played since 1979, we lied our asses off...

[Tugster]

David, my real name is Doug Burgoyne.

[WyattS14]

I think someone was upset about a bad backstab

[ssorenn]

It is my opinion that integrity gets you further than lying in a general sense. I do believe that there are players who view this game as a lying contest. See what sticks and what doesn’t. Those people will never escalate their game to a higher level, unless they change.
This game is built upon possible deceit, But early integrity will win out over time.

[PRINCE WILLIAM]

Some lies are needed, after all, you cannot have all six of your co-players (or 9 or even 16 in other versions) happy otherwise. But if I come to an alliance, I will not betray my ally. The opposite is a bitter cup to swallow, and this makes me sometimes to stay away from playing.

[KalelChase]

I will betray and ally who 'deserves' it. If we're rolling over the board and all of their pieces are fleets locked up in the Med, and they did nothing to protect their flank with a single army I'll invade. But only if I can cripple them and I'm sure it'll lead to my solo. As previously mentioned sometimes I'll discuss the possibility ahead of time, and if we've developed a common enemy or I've saved their ass a couple of times they'll just let me do it.

[mhsmith0]

Some lies are needed, after all, you cannot have all six of your co-players (or 9 or even 16 in other versions) happy otherwise. But if I come to an alliance, I will not betray my ally. The opposite is a bitter cup to swallow, and this makes me sometimes to stay away from playing.

I generally won't betray an ally w/o good reason, but sometimes there's good reason. Grabbing a single dot, maybe even two dots, isn't really a good reason.

"I need to kill this guy to solo" is a great reason (especially if you're NOT in an easy 2wd situation otherwise)
"Our alliance is stalling or very clearly is about to stall, and without a stab we're going towards a 5wd, and if I stab he can't stop me, and if I stab someone on the OTHER side will also stab and we're looking at whittling to 2wd or 3wd" is a decent reason
etc
I think going overboard on always being loyal to an ally is kinda carebear territory and I don't think that's my playstyle at least

[David E. Cohen]

David, my real name is Doug Burgoyne.

Doug, old buddy! How the hell are you? Always nice to see another Cat23/ACD veteran with his hand still in it!

[Wusti]

If you solo from time to time you're doing it right. If you never solo you're doing it wrong. It's that simple. Those who see the game as an exercise in forming a game long alliance have misunderstood the concept and are robbing their fellow players of an enjoyable experience.

I hate having to agree with Octavious. I'll simply remember who owns the Ashes and console myself with that.

[mhsmith0]

Addendum: if we're playing gunboat I'll sell your soul to satan for a corn chip

[Claesar]

Addendum: if we're playing gunboat I'll sell your soul to satan for a corn chip

Interesting, because I'm roughly as trustworthy in GB as Press. I think.