Maybe they are all going other directions. Italy attacking Austria, France going for Spain and Portugal and Germany attacking Russia.
Or they are all plotting against you :)

I have to agree with this point:

"Fair enough I suppose, but its reflective on a trend of very shallow gaming that I see increasingly"

It seems many people on here (at least the games I've been involved with) are unwilling to forge an alliance for more than 2 years tops without turning and stabbing you.

The best games I've been involved in have been ones where an alliance has been forged from an almost unsavable position, to then go on and one of you conquer the game.

Sometimes a long-term plan is the one that will win the game, but few are interested in taking it and thinking anything but short-term...

Or f) they entered they default moves before entering into negotiations.

Well you can't blame them. I mean, when your offensive stalls, your "ally's" supply centers begin to look very tempting, a feeling that's hard to resist. And then you think about it, and the conclusion is that these SCs could win you the game. So you stab.

Isbian - that situation is fair enough and I too have been guilty of that act if the possibility of winning is available.

However, I was implying in the early days where swapping alliegances and backstabbing sometimes draws no benefit to anyone barring a short term gain for 1 year. I've been on the receiving end of this a few times and it has always puzzled me that people would rather backstab and gain 1 SC this year and none the next, than working together and claiming 2-3 next year.

The question at hand is whether you sent any messages, lardboy? You can't expect them to initiate diplomacy, you have to start it. I always start my diplomacy with a friendly hi

Fastspawn - I agree completely with you - the game had been open for about 10 minutes and they had all already nade their moves. That what amazes me. There was no chance for me to talk to them at all and if they had talked to each other then they must have done it very quickly.

I must admit I'm a bit lazy with initiating messages at the start of games - I wait to see who approaches me and what moves my neighbours make before determining a strategy. Sometimes keeping quiet and hoping no-one notices you can leave you in a strong position while everyone else is knocking seven bells out of each other!

well, saying hi initially hasn't done any harm to my winning ratio.

I am not sure if the people who don't see the stab coming deserve to survive anyway.

Stabbing is a legitimate strategy. Only in the end-game can one see if it was really worth it.

As to your problem, even if someone has finalized their orders, I believe they can be unfinalized, so go ahead and initiate Diplomacy anyways. At the very least, try to get them to tell you what their orders and plans are so that you can act accordingly. Otherwise, that is very suspicious behaviour indeed.

lardboy, I think you can win that game! The likely scenario is that they're all making the "default" moves for their countries (don't think there are a lot of situations of one person controlling 3 powers in one game) so make your moves based on that info and determine whether you would rather be senior partner to France or Germany - you should be able to put yourself in a position of strength in preparation for the diplomacy that will inevitably take place.

It would be great if this site could recognize allied victories. If that's not possible, at least a sliding scale of points.

Sometimes it's just fun to try survive alone :)

The Mahatma:
about people controlling 3 countries in one game... i know one person who created 7 acounts to play with himself and just use the site as a GM tool, lol. but he doesn't play anymore since he found better software on Sourceforge.net.

Wasn't he doing research or something.

And my relatively uninteresting 2 (Canadian) cents (= 2 US cents!) on Austria's fate. We played a game in which I was Germany and proposed full alliance with Austria and Italy. Italy played France like a fiddle and took Piedmont in Spring 01 and the invasion was fully on. Italy built fleets and taking/holding Ionian was crucial to contain Turkey. Austria moved to Greece rather than support Italy's hold on Ionian so Italy let Austria sink. The player was mad.

If I had been Austria I would have found the game to be rewarding even if Germany or Italy had wound up with 18 SCs and not me, as a victory for one of my allies would have been a victory for me. I guess people just worry too much about the label the site assigns them? And it costs them - Italy stabs Austria and takes Trieste but then Austria can use his last 3 units to make Italy's life hell and they both die early.

No that's often not the case. Italy grabs Trieste in Autumn, and then uses that to build up units. Austria can't counterattack because Italy has support armies in Venice and Tyrolia, and he's too busy fighting the Turks. So Italy advances, and Austria collapses. If Austria could actually "make Italy's life hell" after a stab, then nobody would ever win with Italy.

There are three situations in the game I find awkward and for which I have not yet found a failsafe solution.

If you are Italy or Austria you are depending on the other not to attack Trieste or Venice to make any headway in the game. If you lose your home SC early, surrounding countries are on you like vultures.

If you are France or Germany, you can get stuck in a quagmire by fighting each other (usually over Burgundy) however much you explain to the other player it's benefitting neither of you in the long term.

And I'm sort of starting to get a grip on the perennial Black Sea problem, though this does seem to be the issue over which I have exchanged more diplomacy than any other!

The annoying thing is even if you think you reach an understanding with your opponent/ally, 2 turns later he can turn around and stab you. I don't think you can afford to be complacent in any of the situations, continuing diplomacy is one means of protecting yourself but keeping units back for defence is also absolutely vital (even though I often feel like I'm wasting them, and it doesn't send a great message of trust).

One of the tips that I have heard is to always have time limits to your NAPs/Alliances. For example 3 years or 5 years. This will make it less desirable for the opponent to backstab you, as he knows he will have an opportunity in that time frame without coming out as a bad guy,.

Saying things like "Black Sea is a DMZ", or "Let's ally against France" does not count as diplomacy. There isn't much incentive for anyone to follow proposals like that, so you can't blame them if they don't follow. You have to name some terms. Stuff like I'll get this, you get that, and then we do this, so the other person sees more benefit following the proposal than backstabbing.

Isbian,
If italy takes trieste in fall but moves rome-apulia instead of venice, then there is NO army in tyrolia for italy to utilise against an austrian counter attack.
I have seen this and its usually a case of the italy attempting an army in greece or tunis.
In any event, Italy always has very few choice but to stab Italy, and having said that i played a great game as italy and allied to Austria, went on to conquer england and france. Austria russia and turkey. obviously, i lost in the end, with far too few armies and too many fleets:)

lardboy, now I do not think you can win. good luck!