I'm always very wary of those high GR games. Egos get massive among certain players at the top.

I like you ghug.

@uclabb and HR, well put, especially the quality over quantity.

Success from communication has more to do then just being perceived as more trustworthy. It also has to do with being perceived as a more appealing ally by being readily available to discuss strategy and address concerns. A quality player has the ability to read subtext in their conversation and sense changes in tone to predict potential problems or stabs and pre-emptively nip the in the bud. Spending time to bond with players makes you more likeable, and likeable players get stabbed less and helped more then unlikable players. Talking to lots of players gets you more information from different angles and coming from multiple sources you're able to collaborate that information to validate them and get a sense for those who seem a little too close. And finally, bantering with players makes the game a lot more fun and that helps keep your spirits up during the rough patches in the game.

Ok, who's next?

Luv u 2 uclabb. You were pissed at me for not soloing though.

..and yes of course, quality of communcation makes a difference.

@ghug- I just want to see you succeed

get a fucking room

shhh, ghug needs all the help he can get to succeed. It seems that he just dies in every game I've watched him in lately.

misclicks op

I just need to learn to not play when I'm drunk.

Ghug, eat a Snickers. You're not you when you're Hungary.

Just gonna add my two penny bit:

Of course, quality is more important than quantity.
Ofcourse, there are situations when silence, muting etc may be beneficial
Ofcourse, sometimes pithy messages are far more reassuring than long winded and vague ramblings.
I don't think anyone denies all of the above. I don't think anyone thinks that continuous, frequent, non-stop press will win you games. I have engaged in over-excessive press at times, and while I usually manage to use it effectively; there are several times when excessive press has come back to bite me in the ass, making me acutely aware of its danger.

All that said; My point is that more people on this site (even people with Top 40-50 GR) do *not* utilise press effectively. I have played with fairly well ranked players who have just refused to engage in press with me for multiple turns (1901-1903 etc) just because I am a distant neighbour. I know of several players who refuse to entertain the idea that talking with far off neighbours is essential in order to influence events away from your immediate locus etc.

There is little doubt in my mind (and more detailed stats like what VI posted would prove this) that very high GR in FP games is very strongly correlated with number of messages sent. If someone can pull out the stats and put it on a graph, it would be an interesting visualisation.
The takeaway from the above is not that *send more messages = better player* (that would be stupid) but that the best players almost always send more messages than the middle rung or weaker players.

^ +1

Interesting thread.
Yes, I agree with ssorenn, Sh@dow, and most others. Communicative players tend to be more successful, in general. Contact every player individually in the first turn, not only your direct neighbours. Try to stay on friendly terms with everyone. Continue to talk after a stab. Propose to share information if you've nothing to offer, make suggestions, discuss the moves of others, ask questions, invite suggestions, be polite, congratulate players with successful moves, etc. Complete uncommunicativeness is an invitation to be attacked by everyone.
And not to be forgotten: reread your messages carefully before you send them.

Nevertheless, I can't fully agree with everything written here.
"Contact everyone every turn" - yes, in the first two or three years. I prefer to be talkative afterwards, but I believe that's a personal choice. I'm not convinced it is really necessary to talk to everyone after the first stage, when the game is more or less settled.
"win/draw/success rating is strongly correlated to number of messages per game" - certainly; however, a statistical correlation is not a guarantee. It is perfectly possible to have a solo-victory in a serious game (winner-takes-all, full press, no NMRs) with perhaps 42 messages, or fewer.

That being said, I strongly want to emphasize that your neighbour's neighbours are more important in the long run than your direct neighbours. Don't neglect them, try to cultivate links as early as possible. It can be proven that the two great powers which need each other most, are ... England and Austria (yes, really: http://diplom.org/Zine/F2007R/Burton/statistician3.htm ; table 4)

I think Sh@dow and VI make a good point on the this quality versus quantity.

My question is how to go about building a rapport with a player far away on the map in the early. I have found that my efforts at, say, talking to Turkey as England/France in the early game often falter and feel unnatural, and I worry they make me look a little greasy at the start too. Or they fall on deaf ears and don't elicit much of a reply.

Sharing information works when there is information to be shared, but that's not always the case. Chatting about the board and how things are going is always an option, but I don't always get a bite. And when I do, I find it's because my geographically distant rival just has a much higher GR than me.

i think that, the offer to share intel, is the early logical way to start the conversations with distant countries. I try not to get into the specifics of their micro climate in the early game, but as the game progresses, offer ideas of what the mid and later game could look like if you can find the same page together

Shadow, we did a small pole of messages/game vs GR a little while ago and, in general, your statement was correct. As you get closer to the top (top 10 or top 20) in rank the messages per game were competitively very high.

*poll

Hehe .. he said 'small pole'.

Does this remind you of yourself?

*insert witty comeback to redirect small weiner accusation onto ssorenn*

TruNinja did an analysis of messages/GR and he found that the correlation completely leveled off around (from memory) I think 150 messages/game. It's also worth mentioning that correlation does not imply causation. In particular, better players last longer in games and thus have more opportunities to send messages. I would guess that messages/year is very weakly correlated with GR, and probably not at all once you get to a reasonable number like 20 or so.

Another effect that I think is the biggest one, is that it's not that players who talk more then get better results, it's that better players have more to say.

the logic behind uclabb's assessment that better players last longer, therefore get the opportunity to send more messages is very sound +1^

All good points, and yes of course that stats don't really tell a full story. Well it's true high communication volume may not necessarily make you a winner I'd say it safe to conclude that low communication certainly handicaps you.

I've personally played more then a few extremely successful gunboat that simply couldn't translate well into full press games. These were players who knew the board extremely well but for whatever reason (socially awkward or introverted, language barrier, etc) weren't capable of communicating well with other players. Being a strong strategist can get you quite far, but it's just not going to be a fair fight if you're not able to adequately collaborate with others, negotiate, smooth things over, or any of the other tools in the diplomats toolbox.

I think we can put the quality is greater then quantity point to rest, i think we all agree there.

One doesn't need to talk to everybody ever round, although i do recommend talking to everybody that matters on a fairly routine basis. Relationships do go cold in this game if you don't maintain them. It's not uncommon in this game when choosing a target to prioritize the person you hadn't heard from in years over the person you've got an ongoing rapport with.

Yeah, good point by uclabb.
Another interesting analysis would be to see how much GR is correlated with talking to everyone. Where talking to everyone could be a variable measured by a simple function such as for example: Summation of i=1 to x (number of players messaged on turn i) / no of turns (x)

Also, re: stackleberg: "talking to Turkey as England/France in the early game often falter and feel unnatural, and I worry they make me look a little greasy at the start too."

I've actually spoken fairly extensively to Turkey as England and vice versa.
For example, as England my opening message might be along the lines of: "Hey, lets keep in touch, look forward to talking and working with you this game etc...blah blah niceties.
Then - we will need to cooperate extensively to keep the big bear under control. Do let me know when you feel such an opportunity or necessity might arise. I look forward to sharing a border with you around Moscow someday etc etc.."

Now, as England my first priority might be to ensure that R doesn't open North. I can request Turkey to ally with Russia against A - and promise T to help clean up Russia once Turkey gets a foothold in the Balkans. Meanwhile in order to kinda slow down the entire Balkan theatre, I might even warn AI of a Jugg (after creating it myself) so that that the area gets stalematey for a bit while I have an easy time working with either of F/G in peace. And I can do this while AI feel happy that I warned them and RT feel happy that I helped set up their alliance! (This is a perfect world hypotheticals - but you get the point)
Or maybe I can ask Turkey to deny Russia a build in Rum, get Germany to deny R a build in Swe and move into Ska in Autumn to launch a devastating WT type attack.
Or if Turkey is under attack and I think he is falling too fast - I need Turkey to trust me so that I can intervene on his behalf and help him out. I have actually done this in many games. As England, I will never allow Turkey to fall to a quick Russian attack and will always intervene diplomatically to prop Turkey up through interventions via Italy or Austria for example.

Similarly for Turkey. I remember once as Turkey, I saw England open to EC as part of a EGI 3-way against France. Germany was in Bur already in Spring 1901 and Italy threatened to Lepanto while also getting a 2nd build in Marseilles. The last thing I wanted was for France to fall so early and for Italy to get too strong. I immediately intervened with England and convinced him to take the easy option of Belgium instead of going for the Brest 50-50. It worked. France tapped Bur and saved Marseilles, getting 2 builds in the process. Italy didn't get a build which allowed the Jugg more space to succeed. Meanwhile, from Belgium - E has a lot options and England went on to shift focus towards Germany. E took Den, Swe, Nor soon after and helped control my big Russian partner. France felt indebted to me for saving him - he eventually helped me with Italy and I had a great game. All of this was thanks to diplomatic work I did in Spring 1901

I can give many more examples and situations. There are lots of immediate strategic reasons for ET to talk in 1901 itself - other than just the niceties required to start creating a relationship for later. And this is true for ANY two countries - not just ET.

This is a conversation worthy to add to a compendium of School of War commentary.