Yeah... Jacob would know too!

err... was that out loud? =P j/k

DBH - glad you are not giving up - keep up that attitude and keep talking... dialogue is the salve that heals all wounds in Diplomacy. and let us know on the forum if things are going better ;)

In "Me Win" you left yourself too open, whenever someone you are allied with builds up on your borders start being suspicious. Normally I wouldn't do this and I will most likely take heat for it but in your current game "For Whom the Bell Tolls" you need to make sure you do not leave Saint Petersburg open because England can and most likely will move from Norway into StP at some point. I am not sure if you knew that move was possible as a new player. Anyway in your game as England you left yourself too open again. What you want to do is find a balance between trusting your allies, protecting your borders, and choosing when to stab your allies. In your game as Russia where you are leading make sure even though you are ahead you never stop trying to get other countries to help you. Unless you have over 15 supply centers you should always make sure you have an ally. Finally try to remember that ally does NOT equal friend. Hope this helps. and try not to get frustrated.

I agree with the original poster, there are way too many absurd stabs that only end up in both players being swallowed by a bigger opponent they could've defended from together.
I wish you could create games where you could set the "minimum number of games played for players that want to join" or "minimum number of game messages" to avoid as much as possible dumb newbies and metagamers

@ Babak

HA! You're one to talk!! :P

wait me?? c'mon now... i NEVER stab. its just not my style man =P

boy am I glad we have anonymous games now heheheh.

@gallando - you can. just post on the forum. i bet you'll get people.

Dude. Stabbing is not personal. It's part of the game.
If you
don't like it then you should try
a game like monopoly or game of life.

lol

I personally admire good stabbers.

agreed. when someone does a good stab, i applaud it. like MadMarx or Babak. you have to handle those types with care!

If I'm stupid and leave myself open to a stab, I deserve it. If it was a particularly brilliant one, I like to congratulate the person. I'm a raving loon here, but in game I appreciate a good stab, even when I'm the victim.

I get really pissed of with myself, not with the stabber, when I get stabbed and was a well done stab, because I should not get into a postion to be stabbed.
One mistake some players do (and I did on my first games too) is stop talking just before a stab. And you don´t have to be a genious to see that if an ally don´t send a message in a entire turn he probably isn't your ally anymore.

Yeah, well talk can be decieving, I have found.

A stab, well executed, is a thing of beauty. In my experiences here as well in face to face games, is that if it is a artful treachery, I mostly am impressed by the one who did it, and I make sure to continue to talk to all players, but especially the one that has a knife to your throat. You never know when you may be able to assist them and stay in the game.

Also, when I'm the one doing the stabbing, I have little patience or mercy for those I stab who then go into silent mode. Yes it sucks, but get over it. It is a major part of the game. On the other hands those who take it well, I respect.

You don't like it when people cut diplomatic relations with you?

apparently not! but it's true, cutting off diplomatic relations in this game really doesn't help you accomplish your goals most times. though sometimes it can serve a purpose, depending on how you deploy it.

"For a great show of trust, see gameID=12231."

It was good working with you that game, JECE. A pleasure!

Here's a good example of trust too:

gameID=12944#

We started a triple-alliance, and we ended in a triple alliance.

And another one! =]

gameID=12723#

Those are all PPSC games... thats not called turst - its really meta-gaming (though allowed in these instances)... thats when you establish an alliance so that you guys can all stay to the end and get maximum points... thats not really a 'trust-based' alliance, and personally, it does not impress me nor do I think should it really impress any of the players involved. after all, ganging up on the other players is pretty easy and does not require all that much skill.

sorry to rain on your parade.

@Babak, what outside influence or cross game influence made it metagaming? Oh wait, there wasn't any. I game long alliance is NOT necessarily metagaming. Please find a better temr like maybe game long alliance. They didn't enter into the game in advance planning to ally and they didn't use another game or anything else outside the game to forcibly keep the alliance in place.

you are right... meta-gaming is not the right term... but the effect is the same. "game-long alliances" are a blight on the entire idea and premise of the game of Diplomacy... if you're going to use "game-long alliances" then go play axis and allies and leave Diplomacy to the people who actually want to play the game of Diplomacy.

thats my point. and PPSC encourages "game-long-alliances"... so its not the players' fault... its the entire PPSC variant that is ridiculous IMHO...

anyways, we've had this discussion many a time on these pages... it is what it is... but that is also why you find so many top players who refuse to play WTA games.

Come on, Babak, when 65% of your games are mid-game joins, who cares about statistics. If it was really about points, then we would of stabbed each other at the end.

talk to your assailant... see what you can do just to survive. If you look at my record, you'll see I don't win a lot, but I don't die hardly at all. A victim who has just a few SC's left is ALWAYS a great ally. Why? Because they'll do anything just to survive.
So never get anger and shout at a stabber. Explain that you understand why (even if you don't), and always give them other options. When you get your sales pitch down, you'll be able to sway them before it's too late more often than not...

Babak, don't you think your approach here is a bit too dogmatic. Yes, in an ideal environment every game can be played for itself, but in here this is not possible.

The way I see it, a player here carries a 'reputation' one way or another, based on past games. So, effectively, you can consider each player as a country, and each game as an individual war. Any country will act somewhat different in different wars, but there will be some similarities and common trends.

So, if you have the image of North Korea, chances are any game (war) you take part in will be a tough experience. While, if your foreign policy is Swiss-like, chances are people will be willing to give you their money (support).

Game-long alliances are part of one's reputation in this game, and actually it's the same in real life (USA-Israel, ENG-POR to name a few). As long as you don't take it to the extreme, and don't do it with the same people across games, it is ok.

Additionally, about PPSC, there are also some benefits from this variant, and there are some negatives to WTA also. Not everything is black and white. Unless you're role-playing the Vatican :)

I very rarely stab someone in the back in any game-- not because I find it a reprehensible character flaw, but because I have found that the art of making friends and alliances helps infinitely more in the long run.

Of course a liar admires other good liars. And I suppose I can respect a bold-face lie that is well told, but ultimately those lies leave a trail. I always remember the players who stabbed me in previous games. Trust is hard-earned. Earn a reputation as a stalwart player and you will create powerful alliances and friendships.

Talking about the swiss :)

But you won't do well in this game with this approach. Stabbing and lying are part of the game. Overdoing it is bad, but not doing it at all is probably worse.

Ivo hit the nail on the head. It's all about finding a balance. Even the way you react in game (and I'm learning just how much in the forums as well) has an effect. It's OK to blow up on occassion, if it is a measured response that gets what you desire out of the other player.

I went balistic on a player not too long ago who stabbed, not because of the stab, but because of the timing. But my verbal nuking caused her to come back around and realize the timing was so bad. (England did a Fall stab that forced Germany (me) to disband several front line units against a juggernaut and cost us the game in the long run).

She did it to prove she could. Had she done it in the Spring, I would have congratulated her as I was in no position to kick her out, then could have shown her that I would have to disband units that would cripple the stalemate line we had been building.

So lies, stabs, and your reactions to them are part of the game and need to be measured as to their real effectiveness and your goals. Lying, if done with good reason, stabbing at an appropriate time, and over-reacting when done with a goal in mind should all be considered part of your arsenal in this game.

If you hate stabbers then you are not playing to win the game. I mean hating stabbers is like saying I hate rich people but still wanting to be a rich person. If you plan on ever having a solo victory you need to know now that you are going to have to stab someone along the way. Having an allie the entire game and both being at 14 centers there are only really two options you stab him or he stabs you. Just try and make sure you are first to the knife.