Solo victories should not be allowed

[goldenruler]

In my opinion, the rules should be changed so that solo victories can never occur. They are totally unrealistic. When Napoleon won a solo victory in the early 1800s, the rest of Europe united against the French empire, most of his former allies turned against him, and France was defeated decisively. The possibility of winning a solo victory brings out the worst in people. They start (or continue) lying and scheming who to stab next.
A simple solution would be to institute a new rule that whenever one power gets 14 or more supply centers, half of their empire immediately becomes neutral and half of their units must be disbanded. The colonies that become neutral are the ones that are farthest from the player's original capital, and the player gets to choose which units to disband. If it's an odd number, round upward, so if a player ends a turn with 15 SCs, 8 of them would go neutral and the player would be left with only 7 units.

[dargorygel]

I appreciate your thoughts. But this is a boardgame, not an historical re-enactment. The results of a player approaching 18 are exactly what is intended in the game.

[Pengwinja]

I don’t mean to be rude, but how would this be fair? It would make it so the game NEVER ends. At all. Also, people can choose to ally against someone before they take over the entire world, which would be like the European victory over France.

[Pengwinja]

However, there are many diplomacy variants available on vDiplomacy, and many of them push for more realism, so if you want a fully realistic game experience, one of those may suit you nicely. Or, perchance, another game? I heard that “The Campaign for North Africa” is realistic, albeit I have no experience with it.

[Klaus klauts]

But there was not some law of nature to stop Napoleon, but a law of diplomacy, was there not? And your view on why Napoleons allies betrayed him is also a little bit too narrow, in my opinion.

If there is such a law of diplomacy, that everyone will band together to counter a common threat, must it not be the players, the "diplomats" in this game, who follow this law? Therefore, I do not see in any case a need for such measures, as the rules only are there to lay out a battleground, and there is no "law of battleground" that there can never be a solo victory.

[Jamiet99uk]

In my opinion, the rules should be changed so that solo victories can never occur. They are totally unrealistic. When Napoleon won a solo victory in the early 1800s, the rest of Europe united against the French empire, most of his former allies turned against him, and France was defeated decisively. The possibility of winning a solo victory brings out the worst in people. They start (or continue) lying and scheming who to stab next.

A simple solution would be...

1. Diplomacy is a somewhat abstract boardgame. It was never designed to be an authentic historical simulation.

2. Lying and stabbing is an intentional and integral part of the game. If you don't like it, then I'm afraid this isn't the game for you.

3. No "solution" is required because, with respect to you, the thing you are talking about is not a problem but an integral part of the game.

[CaptainFritz28]

In my opinion, the rules should be changed so that solo victories can never occur. They are totally unrealistic. When Napoleon won a solo victory in the early 1800s, the rest of Europe united against the French empire, most of his former allies turned against him, and France was defeated decisively. The possibility of winning a solo victory brings out the worst in people. They start (or continue) lying and scheming who to stab next.
A simple solution would be to institute a new rule that whenever one power gets 14 or more supply centers, half of their empire immediately becomes neutral and half of their units must be disbanded. The colonies that become neutral are the ones that are farthest from the player's original capital, and the player gets to choose which units to disband. If it's an odd number, round upward, so if a player ends a turn with 15 SCs, 8 of them would go neutral and the player would be left with only 7 units.

The thing which I like perhaps most about Diplomacy is its natural flow. It seems to be a very "raw," if you will, sort of board game. It is not encumbered by many rules, it holds no element of "luck," and every action occurs at once, leaving strategic and tactical decisions entirely to the players and their judgement of one another.

The only reason that solos occur is because one player out-negotiates all the others, and the others misjudge their relative strength/position. It is not an unfair thing to lose to someone who has soloed, because your loss is based on you and your fellow players' failure to properly judge the intentions and actions of the winning player.

Napoleon failed to take over all of Europe because the powers that be at the time properly judged that he was a threat to them (although he notably never declared wars against the coalitions), and thus put aside (most of) their petty disputes for the sake of addressing the larger threat. If Napoleon had succeeded in keeping them all disunited, he may well have stood a good chance to take over all of continental Europe. (There's also the blunder that was the march into Russia, but that's another matter.)

Point is, solos are a natural result of the game. To ban them and only allow draws, or worse follow the plan which you propose, would make the game contrived and remove agency from the players. Making the game easy for the players who have fallen behind because they can't keep up with one player is the sort of thing you do for children. Diplomacy, by leaving the game in the hands of the players, forces you to think deeply about every action and every message. If I knew that my failure to stop an opponent from getting more centers would just weaken them by making them disband half of their units, I wouldn't put nearly as much thought into the game. Instead, I would just turtle up into a defensive position and wait for the inevitable boring large draw, because no one can gain too large of an advantage and no one is willing to risk anything because if they get too big they get destroyed.

I apologize, as a member of the Diplomacy community, that you have had players lie and scheme against you... but not for the sake of the lying and scheming so much as because Diplomacy isn't for you, which I think is unfortunate because I think it's a great game.

[DiplomacyandWarfare]

"No solos" would definitely be an interesting variant

[dargorygel]

Alsothe number that would cause panic would simply be lowered to the "high" number allowed... and would cause the player nearing the cut off point to plsy... oddly.

[Trigfea63]

There is a "no solos" variant, it's called tic-tac-toe. An even more balanced game, one with no possibility of winners or losers, is where all the players sit around in a circle and sing kumbaya together.

[dargorygel]

There is a "no solos" variant, it's called tic-tac-toe. An even more balanced game, one with no possibility of winners or losers, is where all the players sit around in a circle and sing kumbaya together.

I often lie when playing tic tac toe.

[miminena]

There is a "no solos" variant, it's called tic-tac-toe. An even more balanced game, one with no possibility of winners or losers, is where all the players sit around in a circle and sing kumbaya together.

or, more balanced in the sense of a game, would be hangman

ofc there is winning or losing, but both parties win or lose together despite it not necessarily being a cooperative game

and also lying while attempting a 'solo' as the person choosing the word would generally be considered cheating

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Not that Diplomacy is/needs to be historically accurate, but it seems to me "solos" really do happen in real life.

Nazi Germany basically controlled all of continental Europe for a time.

Napoleon didn't quite get there, but maybe could have had history played out a little differently.

Rome at one point would have controlled the whole Ancient Med variant map.

There's nothing to say that competing factions will always competently unite to prevent an emerging hegemon from getting ahead. Indeed, at the national level we see that "solos" are quite common — Russia, China, the US, etc. were all just a collection of warring factions at some point in their history before one group won a "solo".

In some ways, Diplomacy models this reality quite well.

[Pengwinja]

Not that Diplomacy is/needs to be historically accurate, but it seems to me "solos" really do happen in real life.

Nazi Germany basically controlled all of continental Europe for a time.

Napoleon didn't quite get there, but maybe could have had history played out a little differently.

Rome at one point would have controlled the whole Ancient Med variant map.

There's nothing to say that competing factions will always competently unite to prevent an emerging hegemon from getting ahead. Indeed, at the national level we see that "solos" are quite common — Russia, China, the US, etc. were all just a collection of warring factions at some point in their history before one group won a "solo".

In some ways, Diplomacy models this reality quite well.

Germany should have seen the convoy to Brest imo. Also, they should have gone for an Anglo-German alliance.

[Yigg]

"No solos" would definitely be an interesting variant

So like, this would be the Mirror Universe equivalent of a Lusthog game? Like, a game must continue to be played in order to reach a draw of a pre-determined size? Call it a Gohtsul 3, where the game can only end in a 3WD?

I'd play that.

[Jamiet99uk]

There is a "no solos" variant, it's called tic-tac-toe.

Uh... well... technically most games of tic-tac-toe end in a solo win for either X or O, don't they?

[miminena]

There is a "no solos" variant, it's called tic-tac-toe.

Uh... well... technically most games of tic-tac-toe end in a solo win for either X or O, don't they?

probably depends on who you're playing with, since it's fairly easy to learn how to always win or draw. maybe because after that point people stop playing tic tac toe because it gets boring it might skew the average towards a solo?

[Jamiet99uk]

"No solos" would definitely be an interesting variant

So like, this would be the Mirror Universe equivalent of a Lusthog game? Like, a game must continue to be played in order to reach a draw of a pre-determined size? Call it a Gohtsul 3, where the game can only end in a 3WD?

I'd play that.

I propose the "perfect equality" variant:

The game must be played until the following target state is achieved:

1. All 7 powers are still alive;
2. All 7 powers control exactly three Supply Centres each.

[damo666]

There is a "no solos" variant, it's called tic-tac-toe.

Uh... well... technically most games of tic-tac-toe end in a solo win for either X or O, don't they?

It's a solved zero sum game which if played optimally will always result in a draw.

[CaptainFritz28]

Not that Diplomacy is/needs to be historically accurate, but it seems to me "solos" really do happen in real life.

Nazi Germany basically controlled all of continental Europe for a time.

Napoleon didn't quite get there, but maybe could have had history played out a little differently.

Rome at one point would have controlled the whole Ancient Med variant map.

There's nothing to say that competing factions will always competently unite to prevent an emerging hegemon from getting ahead. Indeed, at the national level we see that "solos" are quite common — Russia, China, the US, etc. were all just a collection of warring factions at some point in their history before one group won a "solo".

In some ways, Diplomacy models this reality quite well.

Germany should have seen the convoy to Brest imo. Also, they should have gone for an Anglo-German alliance.

I think Britain pulled a flying dutchman (which they justified by something called "America") which Germany wasn't expecting.