webdiplomacy.net

I had multiple games that were completely changed when a country that was doing reasonably well was taken over through civil disorder by another’s player. I mostly play gunboat, and I imagine that my proposal would be more feasible with accessibility to press, but shouldn’t the player taking over a civil disorder be responsible for studying the players alliances and habits? Obviously this shouldn’t be a rule, but I feel that players should take more responsibility in following up on the alliances that were formed by the previous player, for the sake of other countries on the board. It’s more than disheartening when you’ve worked for a strong alliance with a neighboring country and suddenly, following a civil disorder, the same country begins supporting the country you were fighting against.

So this leaves us with a question of motive. Perhaps they believe it is just a better move, or perhaps they just didn’t like the way the previous player opened, should these things justify straying from the route paved by the previous player?

It happens without civil disorders too.

I don't think any player at any time is "responsible" to follow their alliances.

Your alliance was with the old player. You have no alliance with the new player. And he does not have an alliance with you.

They should play to win. What if the previous player's approach was not a winning strategy? Or was a strategy that the replacement player would not be able to replicate or successfully execute?

If you're playing a game and someone takes over for one of your allies, but you know the new player is totally untrustworthy or erratic or whatever, are you beholden to the alliance for the sake of the the old player?

Ideally, every player would play the whole game through. Replacements are not ideal, but are a lot better than a country CD'ing, which totally unbalances the game as it was intended to be played. So as far as gradations go, I think a player that follows through on their predecessor's alliances/strategy is more desirable than one who switches (since it preserves continuity of play), but I don't think replacement players can or should be held to that.

The answer is provided by real life - see Boris Johnson and the entire Brexit idea.

Replacement players should just do whatever they feel like. It's not like we hold the original players accountable either.

Maybe we should though. If you mess up a locked draw, you're fired from work. And that's just step 1.

No.

Not least because the previous player's strategy might not have been working.

In RL a new leader would not automatically follow their predecessor's approach.

Thanks for the solid answers, I was playing a little bit of devil’s advocate when asking this just because I thought it was a question/discussion that could raise a lot of other topics and questions for the future.

For example
Is a focus on country over player or vice versa important?
—————
How much can a player depend upon patterns (leaving borders open, not expecting backstabs) and to what degree should shifts in behavior/strategy be expected, and how do these things vary from gunboat to press?

So on

History teaches us that a revolution or a coup d' etat can change everything, Russia after the Octombrian Revolution or Russia after the death of empress Elisabeth. It is fit this fact to be a part of the diplomacy game.

Is a focus on country over player or vice versa important?

Geography should be incorporated into all of your decisions, but players generally dictate what the correct course of action is over the course of the game. For example: As Turkey, you need Austrian centers to solo. Geography forces your hand. When to actually move for those centers depends on your relationship with Italy, Austria, Turkey, and to some extent, the three western Powers. An alliance with Austria often makes sense, even when conflict is eventually inevitable.

How much can a player depend upon patterns (leaving borders open, not expecting backstabs) and to what degree should shifts in behavior/strategy be expected, and how do these things vary from gunboat to press?

All players react differently to opportunities presented when an ally is vulnerable. Some will almost never stab; others will swing back and forth on a seemingly seasonal basis. Whether or not a player is a novice or an experienced player can be a major factor.

In gunboat, I would say the more open a player leaves themselves open to a stab, the greater the chance for a stab to occur. Other reasons include holding a key center(s) for a solo push (so geography), disputes over centers within reach of both parties, the perceived value of an ally moving forward, pre-emptive stab attempts, and probably many other reasons.

For press: the former paragraph, plus all of the information (and misinformation) players are gathering from around the board. Allies can become enemies with a few hurtful or misinterpreted sentences. Strategies being discussed do not always makes sense for both parties. Often greed can ruin an alliance in both gunboat and press formats.

*This turned more into "Why might someone stab me?" but are necessary factors to consider along with a player's perceived pattern of behavior.*

No, new players are under no obligation to emulate the reign of their predecessors.

(With the caveat that no players leaving is preferable), Civil Disorders represent extreme incompetence of a regime, the populace's immense dissatisfaction with said government, or the death of a vital figure.

As such, the new or provisional government often brings in significant changes, sometimes even complete reversals, of foreign and domestic policy. Speaking from a press game perspective, it is logical (and occasionally fun) to have a new administration shake up the board.