One of my neighboring countries was attacked today, and was left in a shambles, though was still capable of mounting some defense. I offered this country my assistance, in return for ceding a territory to me. In response, I was told: "Not here to win..I am giving my builds away". Meaning, I took it, that (s)he was actively giving away territories for the benefit of another without any benefit in return. Below I am putting the response I sent, verbatim. I do hope that some few others of you will respond to this, either to join my opinion on this practice, or to defend the person who sent me this message.
"I've heard a lot of stupid comments from a lot of different Diplomacy players, but I must say that this is the single most provocative statement I've had anyone type to me.
"If you're not here to win, why play? What is the point, other than to ruin the experience for other players? The only possible conclusion I can come to is that you are participating in meta-playing rather than actual playing of the game; you help others in games where you do not hope to win in order to build or influence alliances in separate games. If this is true, it is the most shocking and abhorrent admission I've heard another Diplomacy player make. Such behavior is banned from tournament play, and could easily get you kicked out. And as for casual play, it does nothing but ruin an otherwise perfectly enjoyable game.
"Of course, there is also the slight possibility that you are playing according to different diplomat personalities--role-playing, if you will. In which case you must be currently playing the insane diplomat who gives away the keys to his country for nothing in return. At least there, I may be able to understand the concept of you giving builds away, but only in that you are actively playing with a completely different goal in mind, which is completely against the spirit of the game.
"I have no desire to affect the outcome of games outside this one, so I will not be using your name in public, but I do plan to bring up this issue on the message board, to see who else agrees with me that this sort of play is unsportsmanlike. You may admit to it there if you like, but in the interests of not creating an undue meta-game effect, I suggest you do not."
So I ask everyone else: what do you think? Shouldn't meta-playing be frowned upon? Shouldn't every player play by the rules of the game, one of which being that the intent should be to win, or at least to do as well as possible in each given game? Keep in mind that I'm not talking about a situation where a country has a single SC left; I mean a situation where one actively engages in losing one's own SCs for another when they could easily mount an effective defense against invasion--in this circumstance, the country had 5 SCs left. I'm really curious as to others' opinions on this.
Giving away centers to a neighboring country could be a temporary survival strategy. It puts pressure on other countries, it can force them to rethink their alliances.
Example : Austria is at war with an russian/turkish alliance. The situation is dire, and requires extreme decisions.
Assuming Austria has Bul, Rum, Warsaw..It could defend Warsaw with every available unit, giving Rum and Bul to Turkey ( and advertising this fact to all ):
Austria could give a warning to Russia, that he will let Turkey take Bud, Vienna ... unless Russia breaks its alliance.
Should I be the russian leader, I would take this very seriously.
About friends playing together : I can stab a friend without remorse/fear, for I know that I will be able to explain...'it's just a game...'
If I stab a perfect stranger, then I know that he will always remember it : metagaming is unavoidable. Thinking otherwise is very naive.
For my part, I try to join games with players who have been courteous, who gives answers longer than "OK" "Agreed"..
even if they stabbed me.
@ Epaminondas: Do you really feel like stabbing a stranger is overly difficult? I don't, and perhaps I underappreciate the typecasting I get in response.
I've experimented with many different styles of play on this site so far--I played one game where _every_ factual statement I made about my intentions was a lie, and another where I was open about my moves to any who asked, even if I were moving against them. In another game, I tried acting like an asshole to anybody who messaged me, but gave up after 1902, because it meant even people I wanted to work with would shy away from me.
Epaminondas, giving away builds can certainly sometimes be strategic. On this, I certainly agree. But twice in an as many months so far I have been in a game where an opponent was literally giving away their territory to another country, seemingly just for the hell of it. Maybe they were the same person, or it was a quid pro quo between games, but whatever the reason, it really sapped some of the fun out of the game--there was literally no way for me to talk the one country out of helping the other. I offered my support, a joint attack on the aggressor, anything at all; but the country was steadfast on 'giving away his builds'. It was like taking diplomacy out of Diplomacy.
Personally, I keep all my games separate to the extreme. I try to judge based on in-game commentary and board position only. Maybe this is because FTF games for me always turned into knowing how best to influence other people, regardless of board position, and I'm compensating here at phpD. Whatever the reason, I heavily dislike metagaming in most of its forms.
@ AntoniusRex: I HATED when in FTF games, a player would stop caring. Coordinating moves is not so bad if both players intend to share a victory together, but having one player act as a mere puppet to their own disadvantage is WORSE than having that player go into civil disorder, and we all know how annoying that is. I don't mind it if the player is down to 1 or 2 SCs, of course, but to still be in a position to pull off a shared victory, and yet give up instead? Very frustrating.
@EricHerboso : you see : it can work !
Quote ://I offered my support, a joint attack on the aggressor, anything at all;//
Sot this can be a valid ploy.
// but the country was steadfast on 'giving away his builds'.//
Then you are not in the situation I described, and the only response should be to kill the offender as quickly as possible.
And yes, it ruins the game.
About stabbing : I am still, ( I hope ! ) on a learning curve. I've been often stabbed in my first games, by an ally I wanted to stab maybe the next turn.. I didn't have the guts to be the first.
Now, I learned that not stabbing can be more dangerous than stabbing...
A more general observation : perhaps I was unfortunate, but I have not played one single game here at PHP with players caring about balance of power. I was astonished, in every game I won ( not so many... ) that I could grow unchecked : for my part, when I see an 8 units strong Russia, even if I am the french President, I try to warn other players, to call to arms... It never worked.
About being a puppet :
I played once the puppet here : I had 1 turkish fleet left, I helped England win against Russia : my goal was to survive to the end. I did.
Medieval Total War Inviites You...
)
)
)
)