Honest vs. Lying - Opening

[counterblitz]

Hello, I am a new player of diplomacy and have come to what I believe to be my first conundrum and I was hoping you could help me out a little. Specifically, how to interact with the others in the very first stages of the game, before the board assumes a shape.

What do you think it's the best way to approach the other players during the pre-game/first year? Should you lie through your teeths, claiming agreements that you don't intend to honour, or should you be honest, avoiding false statements and fake agreements? And if it's something in the middle, where do you find the balance?

Personally, I am finding all the lying and backstabbing a bit weird. Especially early, in the first year, year and a half, isn't it counter productive to lie and stab? I thought diplomacy was about establishing good relationship and develop on that (and *maybe* when it's too late for your allay to do somwthing, at the last stage of the game, try to dash for win if you see the opportunity, I can concede you that). But how can you succeed in the game if you lie and it shows or if you open up your press to someone telling them you're about to stab X or Y. Wouldn't a bad reputation hinder you towards success?

Thank you for your help in advance. And as I said, I am new around here, so please forgive if I misunderstood something.

[ssorenn]

IMO, and it’s just mine. Integrity gets you rather than lying. Just like in life. While I’m not saying bending the truth or outright lying isn’t a part of this game in general. You will go further the more you are honest.
The game is fluid and ever changing, and it’s easier to repair relationships, if you are more honest.

[mhsmith0]

Some of it depends on the situational details.
If you and an ally can obliterate a 3rd power by getting them to incorrectly trust at the wrong time, then it's often worth the effort. But you have to have that relationship whereby you'll have a friend to absorb the hate and blowback from an early betrayal, because there's no power that can go it alone, even with a great spring 1901 set of results.

Easy example: if you're Italy and are on great terms with Russia, you can get Austria to trust you and open south, then open with a full attack to Trieste (Venice-Trieste, Rome-Venice) and kill him off fast. OTOH, if you don't have that relationship, Austria will fight you to the death and Turkey (or Russia) will come out on top instead.

Another: if you're France and can run a Sealion to destroy England early, you're well on your way. But if instead England is able to ally with Germany for an aggressive E/G, you could find yourself in some real trouble, ESPECIALLY if Italy becomes a threat as well.

[swordsman3003]

At the start of the match (let's say, Spring 1901 to Winter 1902) err on the side of honesty. I think this advice holds for any player, but is especially true if you are still learning the ropes.

As I've written about recently on my blog, being an unlikeable player is a great way to get your @$$ kicked, and lying early (or frequently) paints a target sign on your back:
The Top 5 Reasons You Got Backstabbed, #1: Annoyance
Diplomacy Games are Like Onions, Layer 1: Politics

I usually teach this heuristic to newer Diplomacy players: if you are going to lie to someone, you better be about to destroy them. To put it another way, if you are going to stab someone, your stab better kill them dead. A stabbed ally who you cannot finish off is like dealing with a wounded, or even a rabid animal.

In high-level games of Diplomacy, there are little lies and manipulations flying around all over the place like a swarm of gnats. However, when you are a newer player it is hard to know how to get away with small lies...better to err on the side of honesty and maintain good rapport with your rivals.

With that advice in mind, there are times when it is strategic to destroy a player right away. I wrote an article that's more about how to not get tricked and destroyed in the first couple of years, but I'm sure you can infer a bit the opposite lesson too (how to get away with early stabs).
The Top 5 Reasons You Got Backstabbed, #2: The Trojan Horse

I advise against manufacturing a Trojan Horse alliance until you have some idea of what you're trying to accomplish by doing it:
Diplomacy Games are Like Onions, Layer 3: Strategy

[David E. Cohen]

Specific, in-game considerations trump any general advice, but in general, lie only when the lie is necessary to materially advance your interests. The less you lie, the more surprising, and therefore the more effective your lies are likely to be.

And as to the quality of the lies, the communications you have and the plans you make with your intended victim should be as well thought out, detailed and reasonable as those with your closest and most faithful ally. In addition to being more believable, there is the added benefit of being able to put those plans into action should your alliance turn out to not be as rock solid as you thought it was.

[Octavious]

Ultimately it's about finding a balance, and key to that balance is how comfortable you are with lying. As profound today as when they were carved on the Temple of Delphi are the words "know thyself". If you are bad at lying, or if you simply find it highly disagreeable, then you will want to keep it to a minimum regardless of anything else. You will probably have to push yourself to lie at some stage, but there's no need to lie often. If you rather enjoy spinning little webs of deception then by all means indulge yourself, but try not to get too carried away as overdoing it will harm your game. At the end of the day we play for the fun of it, so play in a style that maximises the fun.

[GalahadIII]

When I approach the lying versus Honesty problem. I am typically associated with seeing the three spheres of influence: Tactical (Short-Term Board Moves) Strategic (Long term Board Moves) and Social (Talking based Moves.) Specific lies, I plan to go to Tus, when one goes to Piedmont instead, often serve a tactical purpose. Long term Lies, Strategic, Like telling Austria that Russia and Turkey have an alliance when they do not. Social lies, both short term and long term, can be difficult to maintain however; i.e. that you are a new player in an anonymous setting. Both Social and Strategic Lies may prove the basis for short term (Tactical) lies at a future point.
Ultimately, I try to establish a message with everyone. Some people are willing to build up the lie for their dual benefit. Sometimes speculating can be as useful as lying. I think Russia and Turkey have an alliance, here is the evidence.

[counterblitz]

Thank you all for your replies so far, they've all been of great insight.

It looks to me like there is consensus that lying, or rather be caught lying or being dishonest, has a negative effect on your reputation which in turn can be detrimental to the support you get in the game.

The way that I understood it is that there are many degrees, depth levels, and little nuisances of dishonesty, which vary from case to case on the board and from person to person. Even though some statements are objectively deceiving or false, there are always (little edge) cases which can be interpreted differently by different people, morality is not absolute. The game itself seems to hinge on the fact itself that you need support from others to progress, but at the same time progress is what brings you to conflict with the other players, possibly including the same with whom you are in a supporting relationship with. How everybody deals with this dynamic is basically their way of playing. On top of that, since there are many ending conditions, different people can have different interpretation of victory goals and therefore very different styles of play.

Another thing that I understood is that some sort of bending of the truth is basically always there. How much it depends on the player and many different factors. But, for more skilful players, they are able to use this as a tool. The more you can push without affecting your reputation can and does make a difference in game. Then how much someone is willing (or able) to do it for personal moral reasons, or other factors, can also affect this aspect of the game.

Again, thank you all for your great insight, I am amazed about the level of discussion. I will keep reading eagerly.

[Hamilton Brian]

I think you've asked a pretty powerful question and some strong players have stepped up to offer their opinion. In my opinion your time is best spent over the opening couple of years cultivating the relationships you most want to access over the course of the game. The better players will create a situation where another power moves in a way that they think was their own idea to begin with. That happens through fairly strong and direct communication but with a dash of manipulation tossed in. Is manipulation honest communication?

With the first year setting up the stages for 1902 and beyond, honesty is probably the best policy. It does get tricky when you're one of three players setting up France for an early fall. How do you communicate with France to get them to move so that their collapse happens quickly? Omitting details? You'll have to agree to a DMZ of English Channel that you know you're not going to adhere to. In that case, it probably becomes a case of, "Sorry pal, but I received stronger plan and offer of work from Germany so I took them up on it."

[Bark]

It's about manipulation, and every opponent is different. There are many different kinds of lies. I believe the OP is referring to outright lies, and I agree they are detrimental early in the game, but other lies are not.

Lies of omission should be used constantly from the beginning. For example, if you are England, you want to ally with either France or Germany. The problem is in 1901, you don't have enough information to make a good claim. So Germany asks you if you want to form an alliance against France. You agree, but keep it cool. France messages to ask for an ENG DMZ. You agree, because you don't want to commit to anyone yet. Is anyone offering you Belgium? You're waiting...So you move as one would expect England to move. You're interactions are cordial, but you don't let them know that. Eventually, one of them will do something to make you pick a side. Did France build a fleet in Brest? Did Germany build a fleet in Kiel? Something strategic will have happened by 1902 to make your decision easier. If you are outright lying, you might be the odd one out!

But my favorite lies are lies of fabrication. You see something on the board that looks interesting, and you make up a story about why it happened. Did France build a fleet in Marseilles? Maybe Italy needs to know about that Austria-Franco alliance that you just made up. The best part is by claiming these lies from the source of, "that's what they told me," you have plausible deniability if your planned lie goes awry. However, when the chips fall perfectly into place, you are a prognosticator and will be heavily trusted.

[Octavious]

Lies of omission should be used constantly from the beginning. For example, if you are England, you want to ally with either France or Germany. The problem is in 1901, you don't have enough information to make a good claim. So Germany asks you if you want to form an alliance against France. You agree, but keep it cool. France messages to ask for an ENG DMZ. You agree, because you don't want to commit to anyone yet. Is anyone offering you Belgium? You're waiting...So you move as one would expect England to move. You're interactions are cordial, but you don't let them know that. Eventually, one of them will do something to make you pick a side. Did France build a fleet in Brest? Did Germany build a fleet in Kiel? Something strategic will have happened by 1902 to make your decision easier.

That’s certainly one way of playing. The reactionary approach can be quite successful and is certainly one of the easier ways of running a campaign, but it's not the only way. In the great diplomatic game of rock paper scissors it will fail abysmally if your neighbours are both men of action. If everyone takes the same approach, of course, you can end up with the most tedious and soul destroying games imaginable.

you are a prognosticator and will be heavily trusted.

No one is ever heavily trusted. Dismiss this idea from your mind immediately. The best you can hope for us to be less distrusted than the other guys.

Good thoughts, though

[SirThursday]

Without having read through the rest of the thread, I'll say you should keep in mind here that this is WEB-Diplomacy, and not in-person-at-the-table. As such, unless you find a few players to continuously play with by name, you're not likely to play with any player more than once in your life. As such, the social consequence of "lying, cheating, backstabbing", etc, is significantly reduced, and even encouraged if it will help you to win.

If you dislike the dishonest play, then be an honest broker. If you are the sneaky sort, then sneak away. As no game will permanently remove you from play, and you'll reset to 100 points when you lose all your money, you have nothing to lose from playing as many games as you want in as many styles as you can.

Me personally, I begin by sending notes to everyone on the board, proposing ways in which we may exchange information or possibly team up, asking what their plan is for the game, and seeing what they respond with. Then, the crucial step is to do the first turn. You immediately see who was lying and who was cooperative, and from there the prisoner's dilemma is updated by the moves. I tend to stay loyal to an alliance until 1) I can't help betraying it for a victory, 2) I can basically cripple my neighbor in a single move, or 3) they attack first and it's my sworn duty to seek merciless revenge, even to the point of throwing the game to a previous rival power.

In so doing, I've won a few, lost many, and had a grand ol' time! But generally, I'd recommend not being the sort of player people would want to betray later on, and I know that I have less reservations about attacking a player after they've lied to me, so if you stay on good terms with as many people as possible, I think you'll find yourself on the surviving side of more draws than losses