I appreciate your post Fasces. I am not going to be able to match your length, but I will respond briefly:

First, definitely, diplomacy is much more complicated than chess. That is clear. I didn't understand what you were saying you doubted of what I said. I even agree with you that chess is not an apples to apples comparison; in general, I hate two player games because there is no diplomatic element which is my favorite aspect of all games, not just diplomacy. This is really the complaint you lodged against chess as well. The point I was making, though, and I stand by it, is this: In well-designed games, the more one know about strategy and tactics, the more rich the strategy and tactics get, not vice versa.

As far as variants, I agree that a semi-decent strategist could come up with a good strategy on any variant. I, personally, have had a lot of success on variants. In the most recent world game I was playing, I was leading the board as India before I had to pass the game off for personal reasons. The only chaos game I have ever played I got a three way draw. Even further, I think good diplomacy strategy applies to almost all games. For example, I can't remember the last time I lost a game of Settlers of Catan. But that isn't the point. The point is what I said above- The more people know, the more interesting the game. That's why I like classic.

Well I guess we disagree, because I prefer the variable element. The strategy is still similar since all units move the same way, but being unfamiliar with the map, and coming up with good strategies is real strategy, its why I prefer variants and was one of the points I made.

As for the post as a whole, it was mostly just a tangent about all my thoughts about chess, so there wasn't an overall point.

Diplomacy is rather lacking in the games I play. 90% face to face games we play is 2-4 players, normally 3.

In 3 player games its normally first person to betray someone loses, since the other 2 gang up on him.

My personal favourite board game, which isn't well known but I think most people here would enjoy, since its got a huge diplomacy element in it, and has no luck (its got less luck then diplomacy because the countries aren't determined randomly, but there is a bidding system to determine which country is played by who), is Imperial. Sadly I haven't found an online site where you can play it, so I rarely do.

Its been a good 2 years since I've played it though, since lack of people who are willing too.

The middle of that post disappeared. The "Diplomacy is rather lacking in the games I play. 90% face to face games we play is 2-4 players, normally 3. "

was referring to Settlers of Catan. Since the post no longer mentions settlers at all, its probably very confusing.

You only need three for the diplomatic element to take hold

not when the 3 of you are really immature, or at least act immature during a board game. Then its not enough.

I'm in! I'm not top 40, but if they aren't interested, let's expand to those who are.

I would assume that the games would all be individually played, and the results would be tallied at the end, then scored by team, rather than having teams while playing.

Achilles also expressed interest.

"I chose alliances based on past experience."

Fasces, I think that this is the fundamental difference between people like you and people like me and uclabb. You still see the game as a tactical one: you try to make the alliances that are most tactically advantageous and that you know you can play well. Uclabb and I realize that you can do well with any alliance as long as you play things right and thus make our alliances based on people and our relationships with them. Variants give you a means to try out tactics on unfamiliar and unproven ground and try to be creative with your strategy, but we see the game board as merely as a tool on which to conduct diplomacy, meaning that unfamiliarity with the board does nothing but make us less proficient at using that tool and forces us to spend more time on sloppy tactical things.

So now you guys are talking about Chess. I happen to be a Chess champion in my area, so let me speak about chess on the behalf of so many gentlemen out there. Chess is a gentleman game. There is no back stabbing, no grudge. I rather be known as a Chess champion than a Diplomacy champion which involve plotting and scheming.

Don't forget your humanity. It's not about winning the game. It's about having a good time, exercise your mind, have some good witty smack talk. If anyone is obsessed about backstabbing others, the person is turning evil. If anyone is obsessed with a grudge, the person is cursed.

If you play any enough games, you will reach enlightment if you relax and enjoy the games.

Meep, the game was designed with an intellectual ruthlessness in mind. It differs from others in that you form alliances in the first place, not in that you break them. Backstabbing is often essential to win, and anyone who thinks that that is a sign of lack of humanity is clearly taking the game too seriously.

I do take things very seriously. I am the mentor for many families' kids. And I always advised the parents to ban the kids from playing games with shooting, killing other human beings. And I also advice against all games with blood and gores. Kids will become insensitive if they play such brutal games.

I promote Chess a lot to the kids instead. Unfortunately most kids were drawn to jazzy graphics and quick turn around. They don't want to sit in a game long. In one chess match game I played, it lasted 3 hours. That's my style.

Meep, why are you even here if you dislike diplomacy? It seems like all you do is complain about the website and insult those who play the game as it should be played.

I do like the negotiation part, chess does not have that. But I dislike the back-stabbing. You need to make a clear notion. You tend to have a lopsided view about people. I am here to practice negotiation. So, can I negotiate with you to not replying to my post or I will ask you to stop using the F-word? LoL, that's another thing I mentor the kids in my area: NO F-WORD.

Back stabbing doesn't have to be part of the game, I'd much rather draw with a faithful honourable ally, then betray him at the last turn for a win, and believe it or not there are plenty of people out there, on both webdiplomacy and vdiplomacy who are like me.

@Fasces349,

Yay, now you find another one like you. I am like you. LoL. I do believe: I'd much rather draw with a faithful honourable ally. But I will back-stab my ally if the guy has been acting like a jerk along away just for some good LoL.

"You need to make a clear notion. You tend to have a lopsided view about people. I am here to practice negotiation. So, can I negotiate with you to not replying to my post or I will ask you to stop using the F-word?"
I'm not quite sure what you mean by any of this, especially since I only used that word once in this thread and it was several posts ago and not directed at you.

If the game is about negotiation but stabbing doesn't play a part, it becomes entirely about talking to people first so that they'll be your ally and then ending the game in a four-way draw. I really don't see the fun in that.

@Fasces, I really don't understand that. The game was created to be about winning. There wasn't even mention of draws in the original rules; they were only added out of necessity when people realized how prominent the stalemate lines were. What's the benefit of not winning when you can win?

To me, when I draw but get more points from the pot, that's a win for me. I am willing to share the spoil of war.

We have different definitions of victory. I feel a lot better when I win with an ally, working together all game (or most game) and ending it in a draw with the party that actively helped me get where I was.

There have been a few times in the past when I had a solo in reach, a few times were I had 17 scs and my ally had 14 and I just had to wait for him to eliminate our last enemy, in those cases I could have stabbed, and a younger me use too, but it never felt as enjoyable as waiting for him to get to 17 and drawing.

I like to reward loyalty and honour, and someone who helps you get the win should be rewarded for their efforts, not brutally betrayed at the last second.

You don't have to play the way I do, not many people do, but I find it to be more enjoyable and so this is the way I will play.

Ah hah, Fasces349 has reached enlightment. I learn this, "Some time you win, but you actually lose. Sometime you lose, but you actually win."

"You play the game to win!" - Coach Herm Edwards, New York Jets

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W42iiCcFbxE

@Jimgov

My slogan is, "Play for nothing, or fight for something, your call." It's an adaptation from a quote "Live for nothing, or die for something, your call" in the movie Rambo 4.

I never say anything about winning in my slogan. My next slogan, "You fight well, you will gain victory. You die well, you will gain honor."

@MeepMeep - If, as you said earlier, you would rather draw with a good ally than stab him in the back to get the win, then you are playing the wrong game. Now if you stab an ally and give the game to someone else, then you should rot in hell. But every good player on this site, without exception, will stab at the end to get the solo. Unless they are just playing for funsies. But that is like playing poker without money on the line. Useless.

@Jimgov,

Perhaps I am playing a wrong way, but for sure, I am playing the right game. I only want to practice my negotiation skill. I am not into back-stabbing, but I WILL back-stab an annoying, demanding ally for fun. LoL.

@Meep - I never said that you were playing the wrong way. You can play however you want. In non-anon games, people will go in knowing that you have the potential to be a great ally. Trust me, there are some people here that would lie about the time of day if they thought it would help them. But, and this is important, they also know that you will not stab them for the win. Which sets them up to do that to you. As long as you know that going in, you will be fine.

But you can't judge others for playing that way. It is, ultimately, a game. And no one's mortal soul is on the line if they stab an ally for a win.