Scenario: you put your time/efforts to play Diplomacy because you consider it rewarding and interesting. You disapprove metagaming, because in your opinion it comprimes the honesty/fun of the game (you believe everyone should start with same potential chances to win a game, then as game develops odds are going up or down).
In a particular game, you are playing Austria. You could have crashed Russia, but from previous games you learnt that, once Russia is gone, Turkey is a genie out of a box and the doom starts. So, instead of trying to destroy Russia, you let him stand as deterrent against Turkey.
Then Turkey accuses Russia and you of metagaming.
QUESTION: considering Turkey is an experienced player, at least according to his rank, what would YOU think?
a) Turkey is a smart, Machiavellian player. Using bogus complaints to move your focus away from the game. What a great player!
b) Turkey and Russia are up to something, and staging a fake disagreement. God saves me from allies, than I will take care of enemies :-)
c) Turkey is in immature player. He really believes what he says!
d) None of the above. Please enlighten me with your opinion!
In case this case falls in cluster "A", I will not add any additional message to the original ones. But I would love to know what you think about this.
Thanks to everyone for sharing your opinion on the matter!
So, accusation has been downgraded from "metagaming" to unusual playing, and from that to "whatever you do is metagaming unless plays in Turkey's favour" :-). Well, if I had to apply the same criteria, I would have accused France of metagaming (he turned against me instead of taking over territories of a Germany in civil disorder... moves likely orchestrated in bed with Turkey) and more or less every other player who did not side with me. Some for a current game where Italy and Turkey are siding together even if it is evident they are both too big to fit in the same alliance, and Italy previously complained in the forum that he always gets backstabbed (the wolf pretending to be a sheep, perfect camouflage! :-).
My personal verdict about this is: congratulations to Turkey for a nice Sun-Ya-Tzen styled attack (can we call it "super-gaming" or "ante-gaming": using elements external to the strict game's strategies/tactics to turn the situation at one's advantage?) and even more congratulations to Russia for being strong/smart not to get bullyed by this.
To all metagamers: please join Turkey's games en masse :-). So he can feel what metagaming really is. If you are a real metagamer, his strategic accusation has no effect on your decisione - because, well, they are true!
It is a pleasure to sit at the table with so smart players, hopefully I'll manage to win some (in a few years time :-)
)
Support Question
)
)
)