And in so many ways, a win that way where there are multiple winners can most often translate into effective winning partnerships in future games that result in points for all. I do not take it as an insult that i have not won any games by myself. Rather i take it as a great compliment that i know how to win with others and insure that my allies also receive some points.

Who doesn't like to win? But after a certain point of every game it becomes blaringly apparent who is going to win and at that point the game becomes boring and without merit save to beat the hell out of those who are weaker. I'm not wasting my breath for theose who are beaten, i am merely saying.... beat your enemies and then reward your allies by sharing the spoils.

I know where you are coming from, Turiel, I just don't think it makes a strong player. The number one focus for you should be winning. Solo. Burn, rape, and pillage on the way, but win. Next, if you can't win, is try to force a draw. Thirdly, try to screw over the player who is most responsible for your downfall. I don't thin there is really a place for looking out for your allies. I think that everyone should understand this to be a strong player. And if my ally screws me over at the end and guts me to get to 18...I SCREWED UP. I don't blame him. I blame me.

I totally understand that philosophy. I just don't agree (all the time) with it. I feel that every time i place in a draw that i have won (something, anyway) and I have no problem at all in continuing with that frame of mind. I may lose. I may lose alot. But when i do win with my allies at my side i feel euphoric as if i have just won all by myself.

Oh I agree. Many times, a draw is the only way to get part of a win. I had a game here a month ago that I participated in a 4 way draw with a 2 SC Russia. I was almost as excited to get those points as if I had won all by myself. Almost.

I'm not really sure a draw is a win. A win is a win (right?) Also, in my experience, it isn't always blaringly apparent who (if anyone) is going to win unless that player has breached the stalemate lines of the opposition. Otherwise you find the remaining players uniting to defend said stalemate lines.

A win is a win if you consider more than two possible endings. If people are going to force a binary solution set, a draw is more of a 'win' than a 'lose'.

yes, dunecat, i've noticed myself playing like a "girl in his sweet sixteenth brithday" :(
just cannot deny that. and the game i'm playing now is the proof. :(

Interesting point, I once (having played maybe 20FTF games in my life) got other friends interested and had a game where I was playing against 6 people who had never seen a diplomacy board before.

Straight away Russia and Turkey went to one corner, England and France to another. Following this they didn't bother with diplomacy and just tore across the board, eliminating me and the other two (not willing to help me out) and then stalemating for five years.

I guess what I'm trying to say is people that are entirely new to the game havn't yet learned that someone who was your enemy can always change to be your friend. Normally they don't even want to talk if you've been in conflict.

You just have to bear with them until they come around and realise that having friends is more important than having enemies.

@Deacon - ok, *they* didn't bother with Diplomacy - why didn't *you*? Just because there is an alliance against you doesn't preclude you from talking, and if you were unable to offer a reason for them not to work you over, whose real fault is that?

Turiel, doing anything but trying your level best to take victory is contrary to the spirit of the game. Getting pissed because your ally has told you how you can win, and you know he's right, but you don't do what he said just because you think he's being "elitist" is insane.

At worst, he made a huge mistake by telling you how you can win, and you should capitalize. And it is also insane to think that if you have BUILT an alliance with someone during the course of the game that it is somehow honorable to allow them to win, or to avoid stabbing them yourself, when you could win.

Nothing is more frustrating in diplomacy than the irrational and unbreakable alliance. And I mean that sincerely, NOTHING is more frustrating than that. Usually one person is the brains and the other is a complete tool.

Once there were three people in an alliance against me and another guy with me out of necessity.

The brains were Austria, but Austria had one SC. So when we had the chance, we took him out. Once he was eliminated, the rest fell like a house of cards. It was pathetic.

There are annoying things, true, like not talking, like being an ass who expects too much, like telling stupid lies, stabbing at the worst possible time, or engaging enemies on FAR too many fronts.

But those are manageable. Unbreakable alliances ruin games.

@Stratagos. I did. Many times. They weren't having a bar of it.

/agree with what Thucydides said... nothing is more frustrating than an unbreakable alliance.

Oh and after seeing this thread I'm interested to see how quite a few of the people here play. Feel free to join. gameID=21234

@Thucky - as a guy who tries to keep my alliances, I agree, but I think you need to make a distinction between an *unbreakable* alliance, and an alliance that you, personally, can't break - there is a difference....

Keep in mind people also can be risk averse. If I'm in a three way alliance and going for the solo has a, say, 20% chance of success, I'll usually stick with the agreement - the benefits of victory aren't enough to outweigh the risks of failure. I'm in a game right now where a player leading a three way went for the solo too soon, and is likely to be stuck with a *six* way draw as a direct consequence.

Thucydides made really good points.

I think the main reason that we are at odds (so to speak ) over this is that some are dealing in absolutes (in their reasoning) Right or wrong. Black or white. Loyalty or backstab. Of course i backstab sometimes. Of course i break alliances sometimes. Of course i take part in allainces where one person is the primary "brains" of the group. However i am mainly referring to alliances where the brains are mutual and respect is mutual. And yes, i know that those are more rare. And if an alliance is "unbreakable" (and i have encountered a good many of those) at least when i am part of one of these there is always a very good reason....not just blind loyalty or idiocy. Furthermore, it is most often my experience that in those alliances where there are less experienced players that those same players are usually eaten alive no matter how smart their counterpart is. I stand by my earlier statements. Just try to see them without applying absolutist reasoning to understand them.

I haven't read anything but the original post, but that's pretty hard. I would find it hard to negotiate with someone who threw a Diplomacy board at me mid-game. I'm being honest.

1. If it is your contention that a player has some ‘obligation’ to obtain a “win” or stab another player to do so then you don’t have the full appreciation of the numerous nuances and approaches to the game nor the full scope and the original concept and motivation behind Allan B. Calhamer's creation of the game in 1959; establishing the “unbreakable alliance” being one legitimate approach.

2. The only people\times one doesn’t like the “unbreakable alliance” is when they are the ultimate victims of one OR where\are unable to establish one themselves because of an inability to create them due to a lack of ‘diplomacy skills' or have created a reputation of not honoring alliances once they are established thereby creating the reputation of a habitual ‘stabber’.

3. Play WTA games to avoid the ‘disappointment’ of those whose approach to the game is establishing and maintaining alliances as they seldom play that variant.

4. The bottom line and beauty of the game is there is no right or wrong way to approach the actual ‘diplomacy’ aspect or general strategy behind the game. Those who don’t appreciate this fact are usually those who are frustrated because other player’s approaches to the game don’t mirror their own.

FYI, playing a number of late night games in the dorms at Berkeley in the 70’s and 80’s with football players as well as intellectuals (combined with the consumption of alcohol or the like) produced more than one broken nose, numerous cuts and stitches, and one instance of a broken arm . . . getting hit in the face with the board . . . please.

Thank u, Carpysmind. I feel vindicated.

Maybe I'm just a glutton for pain, but I've joined TheDeacon's low-stakes game gameID=21234. He's invited pretty much everyone in this thread to join. It would be great to see some serious players, high-rollers or otherwise, in this non-anonymous game.

@ Thucydides "doing anything but trying your level best to take victory is contrary to the spirit of the game." Sorry, you need to do your research regarding the history of the game and you are categorically, absolutely, 100% WRONG! The game was created as a Political Science experiment\exercise and ‘winning’ is only one approach and is in no way “the spirit of the game”. The “spirit of the game” is the game play itself; the diversity of approaches and the cultural background, morals and ethics, personal experiences, and the human condition which influences each of us as individuals and the decisions we make in the game and how, most likely, is a reflection of the decisions we make in life .

It is ‘just a game’ BUT how one plays it, especially FTF, is more often than not a reflection of the person themselves and their true character.

I've been internetting since before you were born so don't try to teach me about leet speak.....

> ‘winning’ is only one approach

From a normal game theoretic point of view, this statement assures you cannot even agree with Dunecat ever. Or me.

Normally, you expect a reasonable player to try to maximize his EV in the given rules set (yes, for PpSC that might mean that is logical to not win at times, but go for second best). So, I just define "playing for maximum EV given the rules" as "the spirit of the game" - for any game.

The purpose of a game with a winner is to create a winner.The fun is to strive for the win. If you do not agree to this basic assumptions, well, we hardly have a common ground to argue on.

Doing something, which you do not because you try to maximize your EV is out of the scope of the game. One can condemn it as meta gaming.

However, can you back up that "Political Science experiment\exercise" argument? I would be just curious and interested to see into the origins.

@SEcki though your statement "winning’ is only one approach" is technically true. But what is your definition of a ‘win’ with respect to Diplomacy? If ones approach is to establish a binding alliance with one or more players and a ‘draw’ is mutually submitted once all other players are eliminated then that is a ‘win’ because in doing so you have satisfied the “playing for maximum EV” position based on the initial approach. i.e. a 17-17 draw is a ‘win’ because both players have obtained maximum points base on the alliance and eliminated all others players in the process, right?

The purpose of a game with a winner is to create a winner."; again if YOUR initial approach is to obtain 18 then you are a ‘loser’ if you obtain anything short of that. If your approach to the game is first not to be defeated, then to survive, then draw, and in the process and course of the game a ‘win’ presents itself, depending on the value one places on established alliances, then you get a ‘win’. As an example, I have 1 win because despite an alliance, through diplomacy I was able to convince the other player that my contributions to the game warranted ‘the win’ and the other player agreed.

@Carpysmind - the purpose in any game is to have fun and be entertained. This game allows for draws and even Allan Calhammer has written articles on the fact that a perfectly played game of diplomacy will *always* result in a draw. So the master himself (arguably, the guy who invented the game is the master) says draws are not only part of the game, but inevitable between equally matched opponents.

Sorry, that should have been more directed to SEcki in support of Carpys' view that the win is in the mindset at the start of the game.

EV = expected value, that is, one should strive for maximizing their diplomacy points. If you win, you gain more points than for a draw, thus winning is more desirable (from that point of view), but a draw is better than loosing your bet altogether. Also, I see this goal as a single one for each player (based on the rules) - and this were we drift apart fast. Many people will stick to their allies to the death and cannot be turned, because of good alliances, alliances in the future, bla bla - you get the idea. I do not like that, because it contradicts the maximizing principle (unless it favors me, of course).

For having fun - I admit right from the start that I like winning, or maximizing my points (within the rules, though, because this is the idea). I feel more satisfied when I got a win than when I lose. I still enjoy playing, but I enjoy the battle rsp. the struggle of 7 players to maximize their points and do everything in the rules to achieve it. This isn't always the case, I sometimes also play against someone due to a grudge because he called me names in private chat etc pp (I am human, I fall illogical behavior all the time after all). But I like the games where I see that is most cutthroat.

If you convinced your opponent to give you the win, than you adhered to maximizing your points. The other failed at doing so. So you played a better game of diplomacy and the other played a worse one - for my standards, at least.

Maximizing EV and that a perfect diplomacy game will lend in a draw are no contradictions, quite to the contrary. A fair game should always result in a draw, or an EV=0 for all participating players, if all the players play a perfect game. This is the bone of a fair game. But neither do we know it (I doubt it with Austria and Italy in diplomacy anyway), nor do we play perfectly at any time.

I also would doubt to call the creator of the game the master of it - you can have a good idea, but then some people can create a bigger understanding of the game by also consuming what others know and go deeper and deeper. Compare with chess, go et al.

@SEcki - you put way too much emphasis on points. Points aren't part of the boardgame and are a real point of contention around here (pun intended). I play for GR which can go up with good draws that either beat or draw with other better players.

Basically, I start a game of WTA saying to myself "I draw and I win, I actually win and I win big time!" and I play accordingly. PPSC is a littledifferent as I enter some with the whole point being to build back up some points I may have lost in a few survives or defeats along the way, but others I play just as if they were WTA, it depends on my needs of the moment.