first, your just pissed because after you cut my throat as my ally, i made an alliance with Turkey, the goal of which had nothing to do with points, it was to ensure that i would survive, even with just one unit and you would not.. it was pure revenge.. not metagaming. I made a decision to screw you just a little harder than you screwed me.. and i succeded. along the way there is always hope of me regaining a home SC, not a likelyhood, but a hope.. If I do survive to the games close, that's just icing, my dish has already been served..

and the lesson is, allies are only a strong or as weak as their alliance.. your flip comment to me after you bashed over the head was that "had you remained strong..." but in truth your failure as an ally, and my strength as an ally are what put me in that situation.. i supported you to such an extreme that I was over stretched.. with little to no reciprocating support.

And then you want to go make a big public show of getting your ass kicked, had i simply faded away instead of striking the deal i did with Turkey you wouldn't have given it a moments thought about how weak and underhanded you are.

And that's all I am going to say on the subject.. I hope every player who is allied with you now reads this and realizes that YOU are looking for vassel states but you mask it as an alliance, and when the opportunity presents itself YOU will cash them in for one or two SCs.. weak weak weak.

Good day sir.

Without having looked at the board I have two comments.
1) Allying yourself with a strong power with the sole goal of not being eliminated while another player wins is despicable.
2) Ensuring that through your actions a backstabber gets their comeuppance is a sweet sweet reward.

i think anything within the rules is fine. is a vassal relationship disallowed by the rules? absolutely not. factors like vengeance will inevitably - and legitimately - influence particular games, depending on the circumstances.

DangerMouse so does one cancel the other out? IYHO

actually it doesn't matter, once he disband I'll gladly throw myself on my sword.. my goal was achieved, and I am much more satified than i would have been had i just laid down in died.. btw.. do look at the board.. the one sc that's been the lifeline.. is one of his home centers.. ;-)

or laid down AND died even..

> 1) Allying yourself with a strong power with the sole goal of
> not being eliminated while another player wins is despicable.

i don't agree... if you can't win or stop other player from winning then survival is your best option. at least that's how i play

i was a wassal of MarekP in one game and it felt really good

I think Nick Douglas is being a total whiner and sore loser.

REALLY good?! Haha.

I must say, my basic goals in every Diplomacy game have shifted since the introduction of points. I am no longer against vassal states, although if the opportunity arises to stab, and to profit, take it. There is no point uselessly antagonizing the winning player, unless by doing so you will actually do something meaningful to prevent their win.

I think in some instances becoming a vassal is a strategic maneuver to preserve your existence until you are strong enough to attack your lord and win the game.

It is demeaning to serve as a vassal, but it provides you with exactly what vassal states do in actual diplomacy, the chance to survive will totalitarian rule kills everyone else. Yeah you feel dirty about it, but hey, the crocodile will eat you last.

Frankly the goal should always be nothing less than total victory, and you'll need allies to do it. Optimally you manage to capture 18 centers without ever having to stab your ally in the back. (I'd keep my eye on him though)

Zxylon, your point is illustrated here http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=1545

england was about wiped out, agreed to be germany's errand boy, was hindered in growth and positioning, and when the opportunity arose to hit several SCs in an autumn turn England steals the win from Germany. Germany was eliminated before the end of the game.

I don't like taking a vassel, and i don't like being one. it is demeaning, and having one means you have to always be watching your back, I would rather have an ally and help them grow strong and have the same opportunity for a win or near split. my goal since the points were introduced is to be on either side of a 18/16 split. Two nation endgame scenarios.

in the game Nick Douglas is crying over, i do not feel I was ever anyone's vassal, i had a strategic goal, my goal was served by an alliance w/ Turkey.

@SamFlagg -
Interesting for you to say this after Russia served as your vassal in http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=1732... Why didn't you stab Russia and take his few SC's after he became useless to you if your only goal was to gain power?

am i looking at the same game? he did destroy russia.. and doesn't look like a vassal in that game.. more like a book mark.

Lets face it, the points system HAS changed the prioritories in diplomacy. Survival is now almost as important as winning and just as worthwhile, personally i would never have considered becoming a vassal state before..but thanks to the improvement of the points system i have adapted my play and now see survival as important as winning.

tell me about it, i am the french who lose out of this "relationship"...anyway..its in the game....i dont see any wrong...

> 1) Allying yourself with a strong power with the sole goal of
> not being eliminated while another player wins is despicable.
i don't agree... if you can't win or stop other player from winning then survival is your best option. at least that's how i play

Survival is your best option when playing phpDiplomacy BECAUSE of the point system. If the options were reduced to win or lose then there is no difference between surviving and not surviving - either way you lose.

@SamFlagg - well said!

@Berliner - Both options are based upon motive and could, in fact, result in the exact same moves. If your reasoning is based on revenge and as an added bonus you get to survive then I'm fine with it. If the goal is survival and the bonus revenge i'm less excited about that. With the point system though, I can't deny that it makes sense to try for survival.

Diplomacy is a game of psychology. What motivates a player in a losing situation is up to him alone. If you put someone in such a state, consider the consequences in advance. If he becomes the vassal of your rival, you probably were not nice enough while putting the knife in.

hi dangermouse! while we agree that this point system is bad, i think that survival should be awarded! not based on the number of units, of course, all survivers should have an equal prize. thus the priorities when playing a game should be, in my opinion, (1) winning the game, (2) being part of the draw, (3) survival

what is the technical difference between (2) and (3) ?

(3) is survival when someone else takes the solo victory

I think the term "vassal" is itself demeaning. There's no such thing as vassals, just imbalanced alliances. I like to ally with weaker powers if they seem sensible players, because even an extra one or two units can make a big difference. And if I was ever in a position where I was a weak country, I'd be a fool not to seek to ally with someone more powerful who could allow me to grow without damaging his immediate interests. Of course if there was a point where he looked like hitting 18 SCs, I'd turn on him in a flash...

It's true, I was pretty wrapped up in the frustration of this game and got whiny. After thinking it over, I'm not mad so much as bored by the idea of playing phpDiplomacy as one grand points game.

So I'd like to make a minimum-bid game for anyone who wants to play to win and not go CD. That way, the people who want to rack up points can keep doing so, and those of us who like to treat this like a succession of isolated board games can happily do so and ignore our point counts.

"Why didn't you stab Russia and take his few SC's after he became useless to you if your only goal was to gain power?"

I agreed to leave him with one center (and an internet loss at an inopportune time cost me a round)

I took the last center when he ignored my condition of disbanding units behind my lines and use them as a wall. I took him on as a vassal because his goal became to destroy you. I figured I would let you do the slugging and take as many centers as quickly as possible. Alas the Southern front could not be managed and that is why you sir were the victor.

My goal was still total victory but the distance that England had to move to engage in competent battle was prohibitive for wiping out Russia by force. Therefore I took the gamble Victory could be achieved by simply locking up the entire north and holding that until forces could be brought to bear in the south.

(And frankly if France could've pushed you I'd already started moving over for a possible French center attack that never materialized.)