Lol Octavious... I like it :-)

@FirstApple I agree with the arguments put forward in the first one but don't think I share his conclusions.

a) nobody makes agreements about that as far as I know. b) depends. If you really stabbed someone when he didn't expect it, while it wasn't really necessary, you can hardly claim you didn't "betray" him. But in that case, try to explain why you did, so he understands it. Better than him thinking you're some idiot who enjoys stabbing whenever possible. Grr, my english's bad :(

@Octavious lol that's exactly what I mean.. Especially where you manoeuvre the other guy into apologizing to you for leaving no choice but to stab is really the way to go.

Just read spyman's post. So, you all make agreements on where to build what? I let my allies do what they think is best.

Does the point where they realize you let them do what they think is best often coincide with the point where they stab you EvW?

a) of course they do EvW. If Russia and Turkey are allied you can be assured that either party building a second fleet on the Black Sea (Ank for Turkey or Sev for Russia) is going to be a deal breaker. Another example: fleet nth coast StP will really piss England off if Russia is supposed to be his ally.

@EvW don't be shy about telling your ally what you want from him: ask and ye shall receive. But remember to sell the benefit to him.

@redhouse - I agree with the articles, they demonstrate that a stab is often a necessary part of the game thus taking it out is like holding a hand behind your back. While it is true that a person who stabs EVERY ally would get a horrible reputation, but a well-played stab is as good for the stabee as a learning experience as it was for the stabber who benefited. Personally, I have a game where I was stabbed twice by a former ally - that taught me a lot of things to keep in mind and I feel the experience has made me a better player overall.

On the other hand, if I stab, like you said, Octavious, it's always the other player's fault for <i>making</i> me stab them. It's society's fault.

@redhouse: If a unit is sent my way, I do ask for an explanation. But I don't bother asking if france makes a unit in marseille, while I (as Italy) have a dmz Piedmont with France. Of course I always remain suspicious, cause i always expect people to stab me at some point. So I'll be sure I can handle it if Marseille does move to Piedmont ;)

@Spyman, well, I do make agreements about who receives which region/country, and ask for support if needed. And who to attack of course. But i don't usually care how he's doing these things.

@FirstApple and SGrabowski the second article is very weird nonsense and it goes wrong ever from the sentence <<Basically it says, "I will never tell a lie," Thus, if you plan to attack, you announce it.>>
That seems an innocent logical error due to "Thus" but has huge consequences. The fact that you won't lie doesn't mean you announce your attacks. It could mean that you say nothing. It could mean that you vaguely "declare war" without announcing the specific attack. It could mean that when the target victim asks you your plan you say that "you don't know yet" or "that depends on what you offer me." (The thing you're asking as an "offer" can not be too large. For example, you can offer not to invade Italy in exchange for Tunisia. Then if Italy says no and he asks you again if that means you attack him you go back to the point where you say you don't know yet, which is technically true up until the point where you write orders, or you say it's a military secret, disclosing what you know about your ally's intention to help you attack Italy.)
The article lacks nuance and the person who wrote it belongs in prison.

I never stab and if stabbed I will gladly ruin my own game seeking revenge. I find being part of a well coordinated alliance to be more enjoyable than betraying a friend. Also, I never feel that the short term benefits of the stab outweigh the long term detriment.

When I am on my death bed playing my last games... I anticipate I will probably stab away heartlessly, though.

I notice that the bulk of the players who say they never stab / kamikaze attack somebody who stabs them have very poor or nonexistence records and low points.

swordsman3003 ladies and gentlemen.

Give him a warm welcome.

Haha, yeah, wow. That's what I get for trying to type this out on my android. Autocorrect sucks.

I meant to say:

I notice that the bulk of players who say they never stab and/or kamikaze attack (in revenge) other stabbers have bad records, or few games at all, and low points.

watch this game and give opinions on agreements pls... once it is over

im turkey and started 2 years late into game

gameID=67262

When I'm in a match and a player has either a reputation for kamikaze revenge, or outright states that they play that way, I feel that I have only two good options:
1. Form an alliance to get him eliminated right away.
2. Trick another player into allying and then stabbing him, then get all the spoils of the kamikaze for myself.

The problem with have a declared strategy that is followed dogmatically (such as refusing to ever stab, and/or to kamikaze other stabbers) is that it turns you into an automaton. The other players can predict every last move you will make, which means they can easily determine how best to counter your moves.

I completely agree with Swordsman (and not just because he has a much better win/loss ratio, LOL). I might use a particular strategy for the duration of a game, but it's not going to be declared and it's not going to be the same strategy as any other game that I'm in. It all depends on the situation.

You are all weasels!

We can't ALL be super like you, Steve!

"'Diplomacy is a game of negotiations, alliances, promises kept and promises broken... Knowing whom to trust, when to trust them, what to promise, and when to promise it is the heart of the game.'" - MadMarx's profile
I haven't found a better description of the game to date and I've been looking for a while. The trick with stabbing someone is doing it at the right time, and knowing how they will react to it.

They key is to not declare until you need to declare to influence the game. Every action and communication influences the game and is a tool in your arsenal. Threatening to suicide and being in a position to throw the game can be used to survive to the draw. I've done it twice recently to great effect.

Hi,
Interesting and thanks for all your comments on my thread. I'm surprised at how many people agree with my position up to some extent that stabs are not entirely necessary to play this game, but I wanna follow up on it. Congratulations to Cockney for going nuts in his game.
I want to learn you guys' opinions on claims: I believe maybe they can be added to the toolbox and the only person I know to use them is me (unsuccesfully, but I only just started playing =)).
Imagine you're England and you want Norway and you can't get an agreement with Russia about the faith of Norway, you tried every deal. How about at some point you simply say that you /claim/ it, implying you'll send regardless how many units necessary to take it. That avoids a lot of confusion and you may even get Russia to yield Norway in exchange for something else because you made a "claim" and not just a vague suggestion of interest.
Another option could be a declaration of war on the public board. How is that for a tool? Maybe people who don't trust you will take you more seriously if you announced a war on the public board and it increases your reputation for honesty (and dealmaking).
Of course none of that would change the rules of the game. Stab all you like. I'm just wondering if the above techniques could be interesting supplements to doing diplomacy.
There are more such techniques but I'm curious as to these two..

I did something like that to great effect in an Ancient Med game. I was Carthage and Rome wanted Sardinia. I tried to negotiate and then resorted to 'give it to me or we war which only benefits the other three'. Though he could have taken me up on the war, he backed down and we enjoyed a healthy alliance throughout the game. He still ended up backstabbing me and taking Sardinia which was the one he needed to win the game but I was still by far the largest survivor and the 'claim' did work as intended for the most part.

@redhouse, I think Sweden with Germany and Russia would be a far better example. What is stopping Germany from bouncing Russia and denying him the build? He has more to gain than to lose from doing the bounce, so as Germany, I tend to dictate terms to Russia, while promising england Belgium, so he won't be apt to side with an annoyed Russian player.

@FirstApple and Goldfinger0303 thanks. I think FirstApple you need to realize that when you do such a thing, you do leave some "residual pain" with the person you did it so you must always defend the position you conquered that way or the zone it lies in. And goldfinger I will probably keep your example stored somewhere. Actually what do you think about the given situation and as Germany, also promise Russia to pressure Austria in letting it take Rum in exchange for (??? declaring war on France with Italian aid or sth) or is that being too nice / too eager?

I have discovered a truly wonderful way to win diplomacy games without stabbing, but unfortunately this margin is too short to write it.