8 Diplomacy Archetypes. Which type are you?

[flashthompson]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdP3nC2UOWs

This video examines the 8 different Archetypal Diplomacy players. It identifies they main types of players you'll face and assesses the relative strengths and weaknesses of each. This is an ongoing game called Media Wars where various Diplomacy content providers are battling it out.

[MadMarx]

I find this sort of thing pretty fascinating, probably because I can’t quite wrap my head around it... I’m an architect in real life, thiugh I don’t think I’m an architect archetype, but who knows, this is a bit too subjective for my brain...

Curious to hear if people I’ve played can self-diagnose themselves...

[Octavious]

It's a curious video. How does one underestimate the error prone, strategically unaware and tactically dense rookie?

It's a fun distraction, but at the end of the day it doesn't feel like anything more than that.

[flashthompson]

I find this sort of thing pretty fascinating, probably because I can’t quite wrap my head around it... I’m an architect in real life, though I don’t think I’m an architect archetype, but who knows, this is a bit too subjective for my brain...

Curious to hear if people I’ve played can self-diagnose themselves...

Your last sentence makes me think maybe you're the Equivocator.

[flashthompson]

It's a curious video. How does one underestimate the error prone, strategically unaware and tactically dense rookie?

It's a fun distraction, but at the end of the day it doesn't feel like anything more than that.

I underestimated one badly. He played on my feelings about knocking the rookie out in his first game. Then he crushed me. Turns out he was just feigning idiocy.

[MadMarx]

Curious to hear if people I’ve played can self-diagnose themselves...

Your last sentence makes me think maybe you're the Equivocator.

That’s good, right?

[Yigg]

It's a curious video. How does one underestimate the error prone, strategically unaware and tactically dense rookie?

From my perspective, there are those of us who've played this game enough to know what the "right moves" are. And for the most part, we play with the basic assumption that our opponents are most likely going to enter those kinds of moves. The uninitiated rookie doesn't necessarily know what those right moves are. Therefore their moves are going to be far less predictable. I grant that most of the time that's usually going to work out in the favor of a veteran player. But if we base winning game theory on being able to predict your opponent's moves, the rookie's unpredictable moves introduces variables vets can't account for.

[Peregrine Falcon]

Yeah, it's pretty common in people's first games of diplomacy to see people doing things any vet would consider suspect. But a new Austria just doesn't realise attacking Germany or Italy right off the bat isn't the best idea, or which spaces are actually important to maintain control over.

For instance, in my first ever game, as England, I recall convincing France to let me into the English Channel off the bat because it was called the "English" channel.

[Octavious]

It's a curious video. How does one underestimate the error prone, strategically unaware and tactically dense rookie?

From my perspective, there are those of us who've played this game enough to know what the "right moves" are. And for the most part, we play with the basic assumption that our opponents are most likely going to enter those kinds of moves. The uninitiated rookie doesn't necessarily know what those right moves are. Therefore their moves are going to be far less predictable. I grant that most of the time that's usually going to work out in the favor of a veteran player. But if we base winning game theory on being able to predict your opponent's moves, the rookie's unpredictable moves introduces variables vets can't account for.

Yeah, but that has nothing to do with underestimating them. Inexperienced players tend to be less predictable than those who know just enough to be mindless slaves to diplomatic orthodoxy, but that doesn't make them good. It just means they haven't learned how to be laughably bad yet.

[flashthompson]

Yeah, it's pretty common in people's first games of diplomacy to see people doing things any vet would consider suspect. But a new Austria just doesn't realise attacking Germany or Italy right off the bat isn't the best idea, or which spaces are actually important to maintain control over.

For instance, in my first ever game, as England, I recall convincing France to let me into the English Channel off the bat because it was called the "English" channel.

That's awesome. Well done.

[VillageIdiot]

It's a curious video. How does one underestimate the error prone, strategically unaware and tactically dense rookie?

It's a fun distraction, but at the end of the day it doesn't feel like anything more than that.

I’ve lost just as many games due to a shoddy player as I have an excellent one. It’s less about beating them as it is about managing them. Inexperienced players are highly highly unpredictable which can make for a giant monkey wrench in even the most architects of plans. Depending on the temperament you get the makings of a kamikaze player or the ideal pawn of another skilled player or sometimes even the most pristine social game player for others to throw to once you get to the king-making stage. They’re great if you control them or if you’re bulldozing them for centers, but ignores snd mismanaged they can be a tremendous thorn. A rookie with an ego and delusions of grandeur, now that’s a ticking time bong that requires the softest of kids gloves if you wish to work with them.

[Octavious]

I’ve lost just as many games due to a shoddy player as I have an excellent one

Very few, you mean?

I agree they can be a pain in the proverbial, but that's not a matter of underestimating. A random throw of the dice can occasionally produce a double six, and if the new chap has been smoking his ticking time bong (I confess I must have lost track of what the cool kids are doing... that's a new one to me) then they're all the more likely to proceed with great enthusiasm. But again, being jumped by a noob has nothing to do with underestimating them.

[Matticus13]

a ticking time bong

Never heard of this type of bong before, but it sounds wonderful.

Is there an archetype for a player who makes a decision, then enters an entirely different set of orders hours later while under the influence of recreational *substances*? Asking for a friend.

[VillageIdiot]

a ticking time bong

Never heard of this type of bong before, but it sounds wonderful.

Is there an archetype for a player who makes a decision, then enters an entirely different set of orders hours later while under the influence of recreational *substances*? Asking for a friend.

My spell check is a bit of a pot head.

I find this sort of thing pretty fascinating, probably because I can’t quite wrap my head around it... I’m an architect in real life, thiugh I don’t think I’m an architect archetype, but who knows, this is a bit too subjective for my brain...

Curious to hear if people I’ve played can self-diagnose themselves...

It's been a while since we played, but from memory i seem to feel you were a mix between an Architect with your broad and calculated communications and an Equivocator in the sense of playing cards close to the chest and ability to misdirect. As for self-diagnosis I'd say i'm a mutt between Diplomat and Architect. I try to play a Loyalist approach for much of the early game as well, but my stats probably would make it difficult to truly label myself as one.