Yes on both accounts. This game is meant to be played until one is the winner. In the end game a stab should not be considered a betrayal but a tacticle move. Diplomacy is like Highlander, there can be only one (until someone gets greasy and make a bunch of sequels and a TV serries).

It should be obvious, but if you told your ally you would only solo with his permission, and then you take the solo without his permission, that is indeed a stab.

yes, I get that but my question was slightly different.
But 1) I would be taking other available SCs, not Turkish ones.
And 2) The question is not whether it would be a stab, but whether it is right for Turkey to acknowledge that Russia deserves the chance to be allowed to take a victory i.e should he give permission?

The site has rules against discussing ongoing games like this.

Do what you think is best and let us tell you what we think of it once you do.

I was under the impression that the latest line of thought was the site has no rules against discussing such things?

Po

Pretty sure it's still not allowed unless all the participants agreed beforehand, even if it's full press/non-anon.

That said, I'm not a mod. I think it's unfair to the players in the game to discuss it here, but I hold no authority over any of you, so do what y'all want.

On point one, I don't see how which centres you take makes any difference.

On point two, it is Turkey's privilege to think whatever he wishes. As a general rule of thumb, losing the game is often accompanied by feelings of annoyance.

@ ghug

Unfair to discuss movements and strategy, perhaps, but this is game philosophy. The same discussion could be taking place without the game being mentioned. And you could argue that every player in the game with the ability to decide the outcome have indeed given consent

Sorry. But yes, it was with the consent of players. Anyway, won't do it if its against the rules. I need to read these rules in detail.

If you have 18 centers then you deserve to win.

Take the win. Wins are really hard to achieve, so when the opportunity presents itself you should grab it with both hands.

It is a PPSC game. Position yourself so you have 17 well held and can take the 18th certainly. Then let Turkey have a couple of years to get a few more. It won't exactly be a draw, but they'll get almost as much points as you.

^ Anything but that. Forcing the poor sods you're fighting to play on another couple of pointless years for the sake of giving someone a point or two is pretty poor from.

@sh@dow

"And 2) The question is not whether it would be a stab, but whether it is right for Turkey to acknowledge that Russia deserves the chance to be allowed to take a victory i.e should he give permission? "

The issue here is you used the word DESERVE. Diplomacy isnt about getting what you deserve. right/wrong, loyal/disloyal, honor/dishonor have no place in the game. Those are words that winners use to keep losers in line. They are also words that losers use to feel good about themselves when they lose.

Its about understanding balance. Understanding a situation and reacting accordingly. Turkey should have stabbed you when you grew too strong. You should have been expecting a stab from Turkey.

Using words like "deserve", "loyal" and "friends" is why you are conflicted. Diplomacy isnt about good guys and bad guys.

You make the game sound so bleak, dyager!

There is plenty of space for honour and friendship in the game. Sure, trying to win is important, but it is not the only consideration when playing. The ultimate goal is to enjoy ourselves, after all.

We don't have any rules prohibiting discussion of ongoing, non-anon, full press games, its really more of an unwritten rule.

That being said, there is only one statistic that counts in Diplomacy - wins.

Well, update - I took the win in the end - Turkey asked me to post this question here actually - but I think my continuously pressing him for the victory irritated him and it became hostile, so I took the win - not the best ending to the alliance that I was trying to be loyal to :P
Thanks for all the replies. Its fascinating that many of the comments could as easily be a conversation about real world international relations :)

The real lesson is that Turkey is always the loser in a Juggernaut.

What dyager said. If you try to be loyal to the end every time, you're doing it wrong.

Play to win, every time.

Part of being in an alliance is making sure that you position and use your units to ensure that someone else cannot win the game. Turkey had several chances to do that in the 07 year and passed on them. It is your responsibility as a player to ensure that you do not blindly trust another player to the point where you had them a solo. That is what happened here and you took advantage of it. Well done. On that note some advise for you. You left Budapest and Vienna wide open in Spring and Fall of 07. Turkey could and should have taken one of both of them to give him the dominate position in the south given your gains in the north. I would make sure to guard against that in future games. Leaving centers wide open, even in a game where you trust your ally, is an invitation to be stabbed.

Good win, and 2ndWhiteLine is correct. There has never been a rule on this site preventing people from discussing full press, non anonymous games on the forum. Some members, like ghug, do consider it bad form though.

I understand that it can be bad form. But in this particular game, it was done with mutual consent - so it can't be bad form in any way!
Yes you're right jmo - I did leave myself badly exposed in 1907. But if I hadn't, I wouldn't have had the extra units to make headway in Germany right? I guess the trust was high - but yes, that can be very stupid - thanks for the advice :)

Every time a diplomacy player forms an alliance or thinks of somebody else on the board as an ally, somewhere in the world a unicorn dies.

JeffKuta - not always. I think that in a Juggernaut, Turkey has to try and ensure that Germany doesn't fall early to a Russian invasion. Thats the most important part. So work diplomatically to ensure that Germany stays alive and help Germany through info leaks as much as possible.
If that happens i.e Russia's early gains are stymied and Turkey uses her fleets wisely - then Turkey can be easily the dominant partner.

@Sh@dow:

There are a variety of views on playing this game. One view is that players form game-long alliances and that an alliance shouldn't break up. Players of this type feel guilt over betraying someone they have been working with and see it as dishonorable. The other type of player is the type that plays for self. Whether or not they maintain an alliance is dependent on whether that alliance still benefits them in one facet or another. For these players, alliances are merely tools. You use a tool for a necessary task. When the task is done, you put the tool away. In these cases, it's frequent that necessity dictates that a player switch from one alliance to another (changing tools to compete a task--after all, you can't build a house with only a hammer).


What I believe you'll find when you look at the top players on this site is that they are the latter type of player. It is my opinion, like that of many others that have posted in this thread, that your point about "does Russia deserve the win" is an arbitrary one. A player deserves a win only when they have achieved it. If you work hard and get stopped at 17 centers, then you didn't deserve the win--you didn't achieve it. For many of us, HOW the win is accomplished is of little consequence.

This game is a very cut-throat mentality of game. If you play for life-long alliances, you'll find that you achieve very very few wins.