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: 04 PM Tue 25 Nov 14 UTC
1 day /phase
Pot: 49 D - Spring, 1906, Finished
Classic, Public messaging only, Anonymous players, Draw-Size Scoring
1 excused missed turn
Game drawn
20 Nov 14 UTC Autumn, 1904: So France I have a question. Do I have to push you out or are you going out by yourself?
20 Nov 14 UTC Autumn, 1904: I will gladly retreat.
20 Nov 14 UTC Autumn, 1904: Once again, I'm putting my build up for vote to show that I actually do care about European peace.
20 Nov 14 UTC Autumn, 1904: I'm thinking A War/Mos or F Sev.
21 Nov 14 UTC Autumn, 1904: Army Moscow, but Russia you have lived up to your promises and have kept the peace. I have no quarrel with you.
21 Nov 14 UTC Spring, 1905: After Germany, I predict Italy will fall, Then possibly me. I expect a Russia-France duel in the endgame
21 Nov 14 UTC Spring, 1905: One thing is for sure however, Germany will be gone by the end of the year
21 Nov 14 UTC Spring, 1905: England, expect whatever you wish. From my view, there's no forseeable end to peace between us.
21 Nov 14 UTC Spring, 1905: England we have not talked that much. What do you think we should do together?
21 Nov 14 UTC Spring, 1905: Russia I will be passing through Con to get to to Smyra.
21 Nov 14 UTC Spring, 1905: Agreed France, any ambitious moves against would only result in my demise
21 Nov 14 UTC Spring, 1905: That is a drawback of Public Chat Only diplomacy - hidden conspiracies are almost impossible and they are required to break defenses. This game might get long and awkward.
21 Nov 14 UTC Spring, 1905: Basically, the secrecy aspect of the game is completely gone. It's difficult for two nations to ally and communicate because the enemy nation will know their moves
21 Nov 14 UTC Spring, 1905: I must admit it's more like the tabletop game this way. Thought a true implementation of tabletop Diplomacy would allow group conventions.
21 Nov 14 UTC Spring, 1905: I agree with your comments on the issue with public chat, but I think after certain weaker countries have been eliminated it could turn into a 4-way draw. Also, it adds a whole new challenge to the game.
21 Nov 14 UTC Spring, 1905: The potential for draws in standard cases (such as this match, one in which all players are constantly available) is universally a result of missteps in game design, so any ruleset that need be justified by one is a bad ruleset. I'm not against players electing to draw in Diplomacy or Chess where draws are guaranteed to occur, but I think a failure to produce a victor should result in an equal refund for all seven players, instead of merely those who remain. Otherwise draws are functionally the same thing as allied victories, which are for many good reasons frowned upon.
21 Nov 14 UTC Spring, 1905: I see your point, but draws were invented when enemies or allies could not defeat each other and it would be a stalemate.
21 Nov 14 UTC Spring, 1905: Stalemates as a final result make some sense in long series (particularly in grand strategy and war simulations) in which a stalemate actually gives the advantage to whoever gained most from a stagnant situation, but games such as Diplomacy are meant to produce winners and losers. I think we're far enough removed from the real-life history of decisive action for playing a fixed-scale game such as this.
21 Nov 14 UTC Spring, 1905: So based on your assumption, we should turn into a massive backstabbing event, which we would be chaotic for everyone and destroy everyone's chance to win.
21 Nov 14 UTC Spring, 1905: I feared you would misunderstand. I condemn poor design of competitive games and of ruleset variants, not the way the players themselves act skillfully and discretely. Players are meant to strive towards favorable outcomes, which, depending on the context, can include draws.
21 Nov 14 UTC Spring, 1905: I understand your point now, it is about the general game, not the current state of our game.
21 Nov 14 UTC Spring, 1905: So I'm taking Berlin unconditionally?
21 Nov 14 UTC Spring, 1905: Yes, please take it. Do be aware that the larger you get, the riskier it is for us to keep Italy alive.
21 Nov 14 UTC Spring, 1905: Y'all I am just sitting here. Don't worry about me.
22 Nov 14 UTC Autumn, 1905: Russia, anything going on other than moving troops towards me?
22 Nov 14 UTC Autumn, 1905: No, not really.

How am I moving troops to you, BTW? I'm trying to protect my German SCs because I could be easily stabbed by E/F right now.
22 Nov 14 UTC Autumn, 1905: Just wanting to confirm that is what A Warsaw and A Sevastopol is doing.
22 Nov 14 UTC Autumn, 1905: Hey France do you want me to support you into Belgium?
22 Nov 14 UTC Autumn, 1905: I'm trying to ignore that move into the midatlantic and the withdrawal from Italy
22 Nov 14 UTC Autumn, 1905: I would indeed. And the withdrawal from Italy was requested by a majority.
22 Nov 14 UTC Autumn, 1905: Alright, you'll get your support into Belgium, use Picardy
23 Nov 14 UTC Autumn, 1905: could have told me before you decided to NMR, Austria, then you could have had Smyrna.
23 Nov 14 UTC Autumn, 1905: I said I was moving through Con. To get to Smyrna.
23 Nov 14 UTC Autumn, 1905: But You Didn't Turn IN Your moves, Otherwise That should have worked.
23 Nov 14 UTC Autumn, 1905: Your right, but I was busy and could not.
23 Nov 14 UTC Autumn, 1905: There are five countries left, but there is still no coalition smaller than three that could potentially sweep the board. I say to England and Austria, to ensure that we, who have not gained too much power over the course of this game, are all part of that three-player coalition, I suggest we move to reduce Italy and Russia as soon as possible, for the sake of progress.

To Italy and Russia, as well as Austria and England, unless we can find a common, threatening enemy, I'm willing to draw now. Given the chat rules, it will be very difficult for anyone to play achieve progress and we'll be at this for another month before it stagnates again.
23 Nov 14 UTC Austria, I hope you will not listen to France and choose to stay with our alliance.

Italy, should said alliance proposed by France coalesce, I would like to hear what your proposed moves for countering it are.
23 Nov 14 UTC France I have supported you throughout this game, and I too feel the game is stagnant, and a draw would be far too boring. Even if I don't win, I would still like to see a winner. I'm on board if Austria is, It would make things fairly interesting.
23 Nov 14 UTC Alternatively, if that's your only reason, you could always head south.
23 Nov 14 UTC Ironic how Austria has become such a key component after recovering from the brink of destruction.
23 Nov 14 UTC Notice that in the above statement Russia latched on to my aggressive idea and discarded my passive idea without a mention. He certainly wishes to eliminate another player as much as anyone else, but the difference is that he would benefit more from any conflict than the rest of us, being closer to a solo and having forces on both sides of the NSL. Therefore, regrettably, I must press for a draw as an alternative to an unkillable three-way alliance, and since a CD is unlikely from any of us, I also insist against allying with Russia.

Austria: do not trust Russia when he is larger and Italy borders on viability. You have many reasons to stay with your three-way alliance, but being as vulnerable as you are, you are in a position to demand more from him than he has given for your own security. If the deadly three-way alliance is kept between you three and I should fall first, England, no matter whose side he's on, will be neither able nor inclined to prevent them from taking you down right after, so you must demand more security from your neighbors or agree to eliminate one. If you refuse, I implore you again to vote for a draw.
23 Nov 14 UTC England, I am pleased you are more interested in a winner than a draw, and I feel we can trust each other in case we are required to ally. Nevertheless, whether or not any alliance comes to fruition, I think you have ample reason to clear the channel.
23 Nov 14 UTC France, I responded to the more threatening position as I was short on time when I wrote that press.

A five-way draw would be intriguing and if you got four other flags up I'd certain vote for it, but I'm not sure if the game will go that way.
24 Nov 14 UTC I would support a draw.
24 Nov 14 UTC Oh yes sorry France, I was planning to move out once you took Belgium
24 Nov 14 UTC I agree with England that a 5-way draw is too large and boring, but any discussion of invasions will tip off other players and seem very aggressive.
24 Nov 14 UTC Well Austria, everyone is waiting on you...
24 Nov 14 UTC I really did give it my best shot with that proposal of a three-man victory alliance, but now I think nothing will kick this machine into motion.
24 Nov 14 UTC No one wants to draw but no one wants to put themselves at risk. And obviously I'm at a moral disadvantage asking for it, being in the safest position myself.
24 Nov 14 UTC Okay, I will draw.

Start Backward Open large map Forward End

DeathLlama8 (524 D)
Drawn. Bet: 7 D, won: 10 D
10 supply-centers, 10 units
Xaxis8 (100 D)
Drawn. Bet: 7 D, won: 10 D
7 supply-centers, 7 units
StraT^ (350 D)
Drawn. Bet: 7 D, won: 10 D
7 supply-centers, 7 units
b12 (205 D)
Drawn. Bet: 7 D, won: 10 D
6 supply-centers, 6 units
Bodinator (143 D)
Drawn. Bet: 7 D, won: 10 D
4 supply-centers, 4 units
beerdoggles (100 D)
Defeated. Bet: 7 D
Olek (515 D)
Defeated. Bet: 7 D
Archive: Orders - Maps - Messages