You should get some new friends :)

I somewhat agree with Denzel :) But what they are doing spoils all the fun in the game. Say it so in the general chat of that game, and ask for support to eliminate both of them. And hope for it to work...

I agree. It is better to start a game where nobody is your RL friend... If you make friends with someone DURING a game, and your alliance wins, than Diplomacy had some meaning.

I think what you're asking is "is metagaming illegal" and the answer is yes.

On a separate note, I disagree about playing with friends. As long as they know its a game of diplomacy and play properly then it's fine.

Another aspect to look at is what happens when two powers make an unbreakable emotional based alliance regardless of whether they are friends or not outside.

The way this has been dealt with in the game is to form Grand Alliances to stop the Great Pair with a large number of people in the draw. Eventually the Great Pair gets the idea that maybe flexibility is a better approach.

"I think what you're asking is "is metagaming illegal" and the answer is yes"

If the answer is yes, why is it allowed to continue? According to president pericles, it's also been going on for some time.

If two people cooperate every step of the way and there is no
indication they will ever turn on each other, you may as well say that it's a multi-account due to it being played exactly like one. On the other hand, having looked at their profiles, it doesn't seem as though they are cleaning up by employing that strategy.

Here's another variation of the same problem, which leads to a question. A person enters a game and discovers through messages that they have the same likes and dislikes, share the same philosophy concerning the game etc, with their neighboring country. They ally, and having the advantage of trust, win the game. They conclude that it worked so well they ought to join another game and do it again.

But since they do not know each other in the real world, is it considered meta-gaming?

Denzel73 said: If you make friends with someone DURING a game, and your alliance wins, than Diplomacy had some meaning.

So the two players could argue that they are merely bringing some meaning to every game they play :)

As for me, If I see those two had signed up for a game, I wouldn't play in it.

Nobody is going to ally with a compulsive stabber, and a good ally will reap rewards later down the line, that is inevitable, however to join a game with the intent to ally with a certain player, is wrong, and to join games with a certain player over and over is equally wrong.

That was one of my reasons for pointing it out to everyone, so that they are held to account for meta-gaming.

I didn't realse they were friends until very recently, and they are now in an almost insurmountable position, otherwise I'm sure their advance could have been countered.

I find that even when I do with my friends on here, they are willing to backstab me for some points.

I have only played a few games (less than 20) on this site, and am relatively new to Diplomacy. But I have found that I do good, when I am able to make a long term agreement with another player and it usually ends up going all the way to the end. Even though we are allies and we carefully work out moves out togerher things still happen usually on my side, where I move to wrong location like Ven or Vie. So even though are are allied and intend to sweep the board together, things can still happen. But I tend to do better if I can get a long tern alliance.

Trueheart, you tend to do better or you tend to win? Because if you aren't a winner, you are a loser. That is a mentality that needs to be kept up in diplomacy, it makes for more interesting fluid games.

As for the topic, friends can play with eachother just as long as it doesn't change their gameplay. I don't understand this whole complete trust thing, it is pointless. Beating a friend is much more satisfying.

We need to be careful in this discussion to make sure that we are understanding what is going on and what the response is.

1. People should not enter a game where they and another party are specifically going to ally because of reasons outside of that game.
this violates the FIRST rule of Diplomacy Gaming:
It is a game and the purpose of play is to have fun and make it fun for OTHERS.

2, If on entering a game you find another set heading off in a long term alliance then the response to that should be in the game by the other players, When I see this I try to form the largest Grand Alliance I can to oppose them and if that does not break the alliance then I am content to force the mass draw on the Pair as a way of giving them a negative result so that they will think again before going into a Locked Alliance.

3. If you are one of those that is in the Locked Pair then you should look at the goals you set for yourself and will you accept the consequences of that? This goes in with the Second Rule of Diplomacy:
We play the game to achieve recognition from our peers.
For example I have a game going now where there is a Locked Pair and they have stated that as they are friends and many times fight they wanted to have this game where they would ally from the beginning. So my response is to allow them to achieve that goal of working together and they can have a 5 way draw with me and two single center powers to celebrate their achievement. They are discussing now whether their goal of working together for the game is worth the same as a 5 way draw.

Will on average Locked Pairs work against players, in this environment maybe on average if what you are playing for is the over all points but that will soon become boring and destructive of your own enjoyment so you will leave the hobby and its wake will be dissatisfied victims who will attribute their own failure not to their poor response to the Locked Pair but to the unfairness of it all.
So if you enjoy the game of Diplomacy, and you enjoy the hobby, then you will refrain from making a Locked Pair as a reflex default style and will use it only occasionally and then normally as it is forced upon you by the chaos of those around you.

It is the responsibilty of the other players to sniff out and stop alliances like these. If there is a blatant 2-player alliance in the game in addition to a history of those two players allying together then I really don't feel bad for the other people in the game if they let the alliance win.

WOW, this is really interesting. Since I am new, I have never even considered some of the aspects of the game that you guys are bringing out. I really appreciate this insight into this game. Thanks alot

Myself (as England) and France. Please view the game "All In-2"

Ah... this old debate. Edi already said what I would have said as the old anti-metagaming bulldog on the site, but I'll just throw my weight in here anyway because maybe if people understand that most people considering metagaming to be illegal and terrible sportsmanship they'll stop. It's not effective, and it's not fun. Believe me, you can have so much fun if you're paranoid of your friend and more so if they're paranoid of you!