@President Eden: yeah.... so there's my standing policy of starting every game by seeking a three-way draw, and semi-honestly promising every person on the board a slice of it.

if i can deliver that third, it usually gets served up nice and hot, according to Mafia specifications.

If not....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atlFy2kM7ms

I'm on the opposite spectrum of that idea. I try to not suggest or seek a draw. I used to, but I feel that you eventually get pigeon-holed into it later on. I prefer to let players make up their own assumptions. I personally go for the solo.

The reason I try to avoid making draw suggestions is that I feel that I'm selling an idea to someone and once they buy that suggestion, the expect certain things out of me in order to prove my intent. Those expectations are usually things I wouldn't do because I'm trying to move to a solo position, so I'm faced with the unnecessary choice of pleasing someone to maintain an alliance that I need to continue for another few rounds longer, or not going along with their wish to move how I want.

Truthfully, when I get into a solo position, I don't want people to discuss the option of drawing. I want everyone on the board to hold the idea that they still have a chance to solo or to get the impression that someone else is a threat.

"Misleading lies where you imply X and then do not-X, I also don't mind per se, but I find people have a tendency not to own up to the lie after the fact, and THAT bothers the hell out of me."

This. ^

""I expect to never be lied to during a game"

I was wondering where all your points went."

My point is this: I believe that if I play perfectly that I should never be lied to, as I should be able to position myself /talk my way into having everyone having no incentive to lie to me. If I am lied to, I don't think "oh, that's just how diplomacy is sometimes" I think "What did I do wrong?"

I also like Eden's point above and I think it reflects at least how I think about the game: lying cheating, stealing, whatever is fine, but there needs to be a baseline of respect there or else I not only don't want to work with you, I don't want to play with you.

I always end up saying the wrong thing, even when I'm telling the truth.

@jmo: sure, I'll expound on my "intuition" that I use to determine who is lying or telling the truth. When I talk to people, each person gets an individualized message. I try to ask their thoughts and determine what is going on around the board. I want everyone to get the feeling from me that I want to ally with them, because it's true. In 1901, I want an ally, and it doesn't matter who, in particular. From those I'm not neighbored to, I try to form a positive relationship. Talk about the game, talk about fluff, share information that is vital to my success. Anything I can talk about that is productive in establishing a positive relationship counts.

Once I start hearing back from others, I compare notes. A common example is when I get press from one of my neighbors that is gung-ho about being an ally. They map out detailed plans and want to start out aggressive against another player. I'm fine with that, but I want to see what others around me are getting from that same player.
--Are they also receiving similar press? If so, that means that his offer to me is not a genuine thing, merely a macro he uses with all players.
--Is his press with others different, and more cordial? If so, then it means that their press to me is genuine and more believable.

I also compare what he is saying to me with others around the map. Does my information from other sources back up what I'm hearing from him or does it conflict?

I don't usually use one single source as a way of defining whether a player is telling me the truth or not because that one player may be deceptive. If, however, I'm hearing similar things from multiple players, it lends more credibility to the truth of the statements.

@Tru: I've always believed that opening presses should be fairly detailed (aggressive or not, there should be specific ideas for both short and long-term cooperation). As you say, I want an ally, and who it is isn't that important, and I think I've been fairly successful with this approach at getting allies. Obviously, I'd be sending out similarly-styled (but not identical!) messages to most, if not all, of the other players, depending on which power I'm playing, because the alternative is to limit my choice of allies right at the beginning. Are you saying here that you would be put off by hearing that other players got just as detailed of a press in spring 1901?

What I saying is that it simply doesn't lend credibility to a players comments. For example, if I'm Russia and Turkey sends me solid press suggesting opening up with a RT, he spends volumes if press about how we joules be allied and that we should DMZ the BLA so he can get his fleet out early, it sounds that he's dedicated to us being allied. If I talk to Austria and he is telling me that Turkey has been sending him strong alliance messages with solid details for 1901, then all if a sudden, Turkey's press doesn't sound sincere. It sounds a lot like te macro I'm talking about.

It's better to macro comments like "I'm interested in trying to work with you, what ideas do you have in mind?" Or something more neutral.

The thing is that eventually, two players have to begin to lay out something solid, and if you're dedicated to allying, then your press should reflect that.

Now I'm not saying it's a bad way to play, merely something I look into. I don't take a player's press at face value. I weigh it with other things in hearing from around the board. I also want to see that my ally is on regularly, sending quality press, and showing a desire to be a solid entity with me.

Anyone who didn't read The Hanged Man's link to an article by Edi Birsan should go read it: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/article/ah20080710

One of the things that I try to do is to tell players honestly when I have decided to attack them, and why. They aren't happy about it, but they appreciate my honesty, and don't resent me stabbing them. Later, when game situations change, it allows me to have a productive relationship with that player who might otherwise be bitter towards me.

I mean, I have also said one thing and done another, but I think that the deceit costs a lot of diplomatic capital. Goodwill counts for a lot, in real life as well as in Diplomacy.

I agree to this after the stab has occurred. I'm not about to let someone know ahead of time.

If you tell someone you are going to stab them, sometimes you can get them to become your vassal that turn, which is basically the ultimate coup in diplomacy