That's not odd or counterintuitive at all. If you bargain for an inferior position, you'll typically get what you bargained for.
Have you had real life negotiations where this is different?

I have experienced things that generally might be considered 'odd.' But that in actuality are True. For instance, people in Diplomacy (and in life) lie to obtain an immediate benefit... such as 'getting out of trouble.' And short term, it is often successful. But long term, honesty really is the best policy. In Diplomacy and in life. Of course, it gets complicated when people define 'honesty' differently...

Clownie, in the game you were talking about, Carthage won.

I think the reason why appeasement is generally a bad idea is because it often results in the player you try to appease to be in a strong position to stab you; and you don't want any other power in a strong position to stab you. This may explain the counterintuitive idea that trying to appease a person can increase the chances of him attacking you in the future.

That said, there are situations in which appeasement is a good idea - namely situations in which you can afford to give a supply center, but in which it is very important that other players will do what you want them to do. An example that I can think of would be in gameID=180969. In 2001, I (Brazil) offered to support USA into Colombia and I asked nothing specific in return. However, this helped me greatly diplomatically. It would have been very logical for the alliance of USA and Quebec to come after me shortly, but I managed to prevent that by framing myself as their 'third ally'. And when I later stabbed USA when his units were trying to attack people in other continents, he didn't see it coming from the guy that earlier gave him a supply center for free.

Another important aspect in appeasement, I think, is how you frame it. I don't think it is good to make it sound like a buy off deal, because then people will just think you are a bad dealmaker (and maybe become greedy and want to try what more they can get from you). If you however make it appear that you offer them a territory just because you like them and because you are a good guy, the other party is more likely to see you as a valuable ally.


Now about an other counterintuitive social mechanism that I have experienced. I am talking about world games here, since these are the only press games that I have played (here). When I am a small nation, I tend to be more honest and trustworthy than when I am dangerously big and can more easily handle wars with multiple people. That makes sense to me. But when I am big, people seem to be more prone to my suggestions than when I am small. When I am small, I am often wondering why people won't listen to my well-meant advice, and when I am big, I sometimes wonder how I manage to use other nations as puppets and why the other people don't realise I am solely using them for my own benefit.

Heh, you may just be playing with different types of players. If you open up in 1901 demanding things of me, you've immediately shown me that you're not someone I want to work with. I'll go for the guy who is appeasing me any day of the week as my ally of choice.

(That was at OP, not Mercy)

In Diplomacy, where the game is to win (i.e.: solo), all alliances are forged. The fraudulent definition. ;)

That being said, I have successfully made arrangements in games (against top opponents) whereby I deflected their attack on me by offering something of mine in exchange for help into two somethings from a third-party. We both gained a SC and were happy with the result. If you offer something of value and request something of similar value that doesn't hurt them directly, they see the benefits of working with you.

This may be before Clownie's time, but I've noticed that behavioral patterns change for the worse in WTA games over PPSC games. Maybe I'll write about it sometime . . .

SC WTA PPSC! WTF JECE!?!

AFAIK CAPT ❤ PPSC! GLONASS FTW!?!

❤❤❤ omg!! Red hearts!

Forge (verb):

1. create (something) strong, enduring, or successful.

2. produce a fraudulent copy or imitation of (something)

DemonOverlord: Interesting, they show up black to me as displayed on the webpage.

Red for me on mobile

Black on computer, red on mobile.

There is a line you want to walk between being hostile and servile.

If your demands are too high, if you are too stern and uncompromising in your negotiations, the players you are talking to will just look elsewhere for allies. At the beginning of any diplomacy game, if I read that a player is too greedy, I try to form an alliance against this player.

On the other hand, if you appear to be appeasing for no discernible reason (a credible reason would be that you are in a bad position and have become desperate), others will not respect you. I usually conclude that such a player is too trusty and should be set up for a stab later, or I conclude this this player is full of crap and probably is trying to trick me right at the start.

Hostile: as England, threaten to make an all-out attack against whoever blocks you from taking Belgium.
Servile: as England, immediately offer to support France into Belgium so that he can have 3 builds.
Reasonable: as England, offer to Germany that you will support his army into Belgium in 1902 if he would support your army into Sweden the same year.

I haven't noticed much of a difference in my behavioral patterns, but then again I had the necessary patterns for Diplomacy when I first joined. The only thing that changed is what I look for and how far I am willing to trust allies.