Join or create a team of excellent players and try your luck in the 2021 World Cup! Sign ups close at the end of November.

Registration for the virtual World Diplomacy Championship played on Backstabbr can be found here.

Finished: 01 AM Tue 17 Sep 13 UTC
Turkey Sucks
16 hours /phase
Pot: 175 D - Spring, 1913, Finished
Classic, Anonymous players, Survivors-Win Scoring
1 excused missed turn
Game drawn
20 Aug 13 UTC Spring, 1901: I suck a lot!!! ;-)
20 Aug 13 UTC Spring, 1901: Good luck everybody
20 Aug 13 UTC Spring, 1901: I joined this game to assure my Turkish neighbor that he definetly does NOT suck. Turkey has always been a wonderful neighbor to Austria. Never invades, never stabs, always moves north and west, but never north-west. Turkey is GREAT!
21 Aug 13 UTC Autumn, 1901: Sorry about that overslept and missed the phase
21 Aug 13 UTC Autumn, 1901: I was just about to recommend we cancel, but welcome back.
22 Aug 13 UTC Autumn, 1901: I vote we cancel with France NMR.
22 Aug 13 UTC Autumn, 1901: I also think playing this out is idiotic, but we would need his vote to cancel the game.
22 Aug 13 UTC Autumn, 1901: Not if he left. I believe if all active players vote cancel its over
04 Sep 13 UTC Spring, 1909: Turkey Sucks. I suggest we eliminate Turkey and declare a draw.
05 Sep 13 UTC Autumn, 1909: I agree we should wipe turkey off of the face of the map... and by that I mean we should destroy the team currently occupying turkey...
05 Sep 13 UTC Autumn, 1909: ^ What he said.
05 Sep 13 UTC Autumn, 1909: Funny.
08 Sep 13 UTC Autumn, 1910: So why is everyone helping England win?
08 Sep 13 UTC Autumn, 1910: Theyre eliminating you and we three will draw.
08 Sep 13 UTC Autumn, 1910: Let's see you obliterated Turkey, you betrayed me, but who knows why we would team up to bring you down...

But I suppose I will elaborate more on my motives; Frankly it is because I am a purist of playing this game in real life. England and I have been working together since turn 3, if this were a real life game, you would have conceded and the game would be over and it would be understood that England and I had won. I admit, because something like that isn't possible online and England is in a position to get a solo, that probably isn't going to happen. I honestly don't care how this game "officially" ends, in my book England and I won this game because we worked together and that is the name of the game. We probably got screwed over the most from the start of the game, but we won, because we had a cohesive plan and were willing to help each other out. Seriously diplomacy online is kind of crappy in comparison to a real life game. Like France moved twice this whole game. What the heck was that? Germany pissed away the best opening possible for him and it is just preposterous how screwed up games online can be. Even if someone isn't controlling two teams*, a game online will never truly be like a game in real life simply because people tune out after a couple turns or just never play from the get go. I don't know how many games I have played (either here or on the official online diplomacy website) but the majority of them are just not satisfying, because the team that wins is usually the team that is a neighbor to the team that never even tried to play (this game is going to be an exception because as I noted Germany had a dead france and instead of plundering france he decided to kill himself [but my hat is off to him for fighting to the end instead of dropping out]).**

I am sorry Austria that all you care about are your statistics, that really should have nothing to do with a game of diplomacy.

*I have played in about 12 games, and in 10 of them at least one team has been officially banned, so if you are wondering why I think playing online is lame you have your answer.

**I am assuming England is going to eventually just naturally get to 18 SC and win the game (although hopefully not by attacking me)
08 Sep 13 UTC Autumn, 1910: Good speech.
08 Sep 13 UTC Autumn, 1910: thank you germany (hope that isn't sarcasm), sorry for sounding so harsh to you.
08 Sep 13 UTC Autumn, 1910: I'm serious so you're welcome. Sounding harsh isn't a problem especially because I agree with you.
08 Sep 13 UTC Autumn, 1910: "Let's see you obliterated Turkey, you betrayed me," Sounds like a classic Diplomacy game to me. I disagree with your assertion that working together is the name of the game. Lying, deception, and stabbing are specifically described as elements of the game in "The Gamers guide to Diplomacy" Quite frankly, the game would be boring without that element. Alliances change to fit the circumstances. And the current leader should always become the next target.

And too many people do care about stats (I don't) and they are satisfied with a draw.
08 Sep 13 UTC Autumn, 1910: I took my shot against an overextended Turkey. It worked, but didn't lead to the position I wanted. I missed an opportunity by letting him slip by and kill my defense. Stupid on my part. But I would do that in every game. And expect even a strong ally to do it to me.
08 Sep 13 UTC Autumn, 1910: I dont bpame you for betraying me... just like you shouldnt blame me for continuing to work with my ally...

I agree betrayal is part of the game but so is working with people.

And I call bs on your statement that you dont care about stats since you insisted I help you get a solo after you a screwed me. Since if you dnt care about stats you shouldnt care about getting a solo...
08 Sep 13 UTC Autumn, 1910: I play to win. I think that is fundamental.
08 Sep 13 UTC Autumn, 1910: Well, if this is any measure, you suck at that.
08 Sep 13 UTC Autumn, 1910: Good comeback England.
08 Sep 13 UTC Autumn, 1910: You guys take this game much too personal!
08 Sep 13 UTC Autumn, 1910: But that was a great comeback!
09 Sep 13 UTC Spring, 1911: To the human controlling Austria: Why do you feel the need to elevate the country Austria to the level of a conscience being (or are you a sentient AI Construct?) because you don't seem to understand what taking something personally actually means. In order for me to take something personally I would actually have to know who you are in real life. You seem to have some fixation on why, because we are going to crush you, we dislike you (not you as in Austria. "you" as a person*). As Austria, you have shown that you are willing to lie, extort and steal in order to win/survive and then you wonder why we won't work with Austria. If I were to play another game with you I wouldn't hold your actions in this game against you (or at least not enough to not work with you if that made any sense, although I would be more on my guard for sure).

And if I were to somehow find out you were my neighbor, I would treat you as decently as I treat anyone I meet. So no I do not take your actions personally.** But as Austria, I do hold Austria accountable to its actions and it will face our wrath in its (probable) pending extermination.

*based off of the fact you have accused of us taking this personally.

**As opposed to: if I were to find out you were my neighbor and I treated you like dirt, because of your actions in this game. This would be an example of me taking your actions in this game personally...
09 Sep 13 UTC Spring, 1911: I also play to win and as I have said before if/when England gets an "official" "solo" win, I will consider this an example of me having won this game (with England). I don't care about stats or points (both of which are meaningless outside this website, especially considering that when you get low enough on points you automatically get more...) and if this was a real life game here is what would happen. There are 2 cases, either England wants a shared victory with me or he doesn't.

Case 1: England is honest about a shared victory with me and this is what would happen:

All 4 remaining teams get together over the board and England and I say, "Do you want to keep playing or do you admit defeat?"
Maybe we play out a few more turns, but eventually Austria would say, "I concede there is no point in continuing."
At this point we would clean up the board and it would be understood that England and I had won the game. End of story.

Case 2: England is not honest when he says that he wants to share victory with me:
The same thing happens, we 4 gather at the board, except I (only me) says "Do you want to keep playing or do you admit defeat?"
Maybe we play out a few more turns, but eventually Austria would say, "I concede there is no point in continuing."

AND then England says something like, "why don't we just keep playing for the fun of it."

At this point it would be very clear that England wants to go for a solo win, then (probably) Austria, Turkey and I join forces to put him in his place, because (as you pointed out Austria) he is the most powerful team and should be kept in check. And we have a different ending to the story...

As I have said before sadly online is not like a real life game, we do not have this kind of option, and so if I have to settle for a "survival" instead of a "win/draw" really what does it matter (outside of the STATS that this game keeps)? In the end this game was fun because England and I worked together to bring about the destruction of the other super powers, and all that is left is mopping up (this isn't very fun at this point, but it is something that needs to be done to "finish" the game.)*

*Note to Turkey: as far as I know (based off of my conversations with England), England, you and me are going to have a shared victory, but I am just going to assume England gets a "solo" win, not by killing either of us, but by carving out enough SC from Austria to win. Please do not hold England accountable for anything I say here since these are my beliefs, and are independent from him
09 Sep 13 UTC Spring, 1911: Addendum: the sentence: "*based off of the fact you have accused of us taking this personally. " should be

"*based off of the fact you have accused us of taking this personally. " had the of and the us backwards.
09 Sep 13 UTC Spring, 1911: Also Austria you said: ". I disagree with your assertion that working together is the name of the game. "

the Merriam-Webster definition of the word "Diplomacy" means (and I looked this up just a few seconds ago):

"The art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations"

So yes I still stand by my assertion that "in my book England and I won this game because we worked together and that is the name of the game." because we were nations and we worked negotiated (up till now at least).

Austria if you respond to any of the things I say you will have proven yourself to be better then 99.9999% of all Magic The Gathering Online players (Another game I am addicted to). Most of whom would just cancel out of the conversation at this point.
09 Sep 13 UTC Spring, 1911: A few things -
1. I was not referring to the dictionary definition of dip;omacy, but to the game we both enjoy. In the Avalon Hill "Gamer's Guide to Diplomacy" they talk about the elements of the the game that include lying, spreading false rumors, backstabbing and cheating. (Cheating is OK in a live game, but not on-line) So I stand by my assertion that two players who blindly hold to an alliance are missing out on some of the elements of the game.
2. When people call me names and take this game too seriously, they are making it personal
3. If England is going for a solo, it is in everyone's best interest to defeat him, or weaken him so he can't. This is also taking it personal - the game is fluid and should always work against the leader. There is a personal element that is preventing that from happening. Your love/sympathy for the Turk is clouding your judgment
09 Sep 13 UTC Spring, 1911: My response:
1) Is just a semantic difference. I have not read the gamer's guide and never will, since I am too busy, but my statement is still true, and your statement can be true, but it is just a different shade of meaning.
2)Yes I agree: if you verbally act inappropriately (and this is a fluid definition based off of a person's preference) online, then I have the right to judge you personally based off of what you say. For example if you expect me to work with you after betraying me, and then try to extort me into working with you, I do have the right to judge you on how you behave. (Note I am not judging you for betraying me or Turkey because this is part of the game. I AM judging you for your statements after betraying me though,* which are not necessarily part of the game [although you will undoubtedly disagree with this because of personal preference]). I don't know about taking this game seriously, I am playing it as the game is meant to be played
3)Sorry this may be a symptom of playing this game online, but as I continue to say I play this as if it was a real life game and if this were a real life game things would be different (note I have no real love for the Turks, but I don't dislike them either even though they really screwed me over. I SIMPLY DON'T HOLD IT AGAINST THEM PERSONALLY) I really have no problem sharing a victory with them.

*Just like if a US senator were to make an anonymous twitter account, say something very offensive, then somehow his identity was found out, there would be political backlash against that senator. This is just the facts of life brought into context of this game...
09 Sep 13 UTC Spring, 1911: As an objective side note Austria, I do not disagree with most of your statements. I just find that you have a certain (narrow) point of view...
09 Sep 13 UTC Spring, 1911: Actually I misspoke I do not believe your point of view is narrow I just think it is different.
14 Sep 13 UTC Autumn, 1912: So Turkey - You could have survived if you worked with me. It would have been better than being eliminated. I screwed up letting you retreat to my back door. My Bad. But you would have been better working with me
14 Sep 13 UTC Autumn, 1912: You too. You problably have won if you don't tray me
14 Sep 13 UTC Autumn, 1912: Hooray, Austria's gonna lose!
14 Sep 13 UTC Autumn, 1912: We tried to work with you Austria so please dont complain that no one worked with you. You should note Austriq that instead of getting a survival like you said I am now getting a draw...
14 Sep 13 UTC Autumn, 1912: Maybe not. Austria is cunningly running out the clock. A shrewd strategic move. Armageddon might come before the game officially ends. I tip my hat to his incredible foresight.
14 Sep 13 UTC Autumn, 1912: Austria is very clever even in death...
14 Sep 13 UTC Autumn, 1912: Although aince Gideon (?) Hasnt blown his horn we should be good...
14 Sep 13 UTC Autumn, 1912: I lost this game in fall 1907. I allowed the Turk to slip behind my defense after driving him from Italy. I screwed up the retreat. The victory was mine if I didn't mess up.

But good game all.
15 Sep 13 UTC Autumn, 1912: Good game. You actually never had a chance when England and I decided to have a rock solid alliance...
15 Sep 13 UTC Autumn, 1912: I disagree. I screwed up and let the Turk break my defense. It was actually a nice move, but I missed the retreat
15 Sep 13 UTC Autumn, 1912: If we could replay from that position I had a sure solo
15 Sep 13 UTC Thanks all for an enjoyable game!

Start Backward Open large map Forward End

England
binkman (416 D)
Drawn. Bet: 25 D, won: 88 D
17 supply-centers, 17 units
Russia
jpschool (135 D)
Drawn. Bet: 25 D, won: 88 D
17 supply-centers, 16 units
France
Camronus01 (100 D)
Defeated. Bet: 25 D
Italy
melvinlieven (100 D)
Defeated. Bet: 25 D
Germany
akton (725 D)
Defeated. Bet: 25 D
Austria
Starside (10 D X)
Defeated. Bet: 25 D
Turkey
andre72 (100 D)
Defeated. Bet: 25 D
Civil Disorders
Camronus01 (100 D)France (Autumn, 1907) with 0 centres.
Archive: Orders - Maps - Messages