I do that anyway with non-friends......

I admit that it could be a strategy with strangers, but there is no way of guaranteeing cooperation. If you play with a friend you have a guarantee. Btw it won't win every game, but over time the odds should favour you.

If I was the friend there would still be no guarentee...

Good point. Therefore choose your friend carefully. If you can't find anyone you can trust, then create a bogus account and play both roles yourself. However this is more work and not as much fun.

And even worse in terms of cheating.

I agree the second strategy is worse than the first in terms of cheating. I would recommend keeping the second strategy for high point winner take all games.

I would recommend not persuing it at all...

or just not do it at all, the second stratergy

I think it's not fun to play just to win by allies made before. It's unfair for players who play independent. For me it's cheating. Every diplomacy game is new.

Life isn't fair. Remember it's not how you play the game that counts but whether you win or lose. Winners are grinners.

not if you win by multiying which your post suggest your very willing to do, its people with your atitude that ruins the game for the rest of us!

trimi101 I can see that you don't have the stomach for the second strategy. Not everyone has what it takes. For you I would recommend the first strategy. You won't win quite as many games but you should still do better than the average player.

I would find that strategy incredibly boring. The enjoyment of Diplomacy comes from actually negotiating with real people. If you've already got an unbreakable alliance before a game starts, where's the fun? Remind me not to sit at any of your games.

Negotiating with real people! Do you mean negotiating with other players who you don't even know? But then you wouldn't know what they were thinking. They might just pretend. Treefarn have you ever won a game? I doubt it.

treefarns win percentage 21 ( 33% ), and im guessing thats without multiying and metagaming.i dont have the stomach for the second stratergy because on this site and probably many others its cheating and i hope if you do it you get banned for it.

im not going to beat about the bush spyman your scum who ruin the gamefor everyone else who wants to play the game in the way it was designed to be played.

Troll!

trim101 but you admit the first strategy is ok right?

not i dont agree with the first strategy either it takes the skill and the tatics out of the game and to have an unbreakable alliance from the start is pointless to me, you might as well not even bother playing

Considering the first strategy, it might work ingame, as TheGhostmaker has described. However, pre-game alliances are considered metagaming; preferably not done. Given the fact that there a lot of beginners on the site who do not even reply to your messages I can understand that you like diplomacy less. It is central to the game though, convincing another player to do the things you want is all the more challenging.

I'm glad to hear that trim101. I don't agree with either strategy either. The whole idea is boring and pointless. I was going to post a whinge about meta-gaming, and decided to take a different tack. Anyway I think other people have put forward a better case against than I could have. I apologize for trolling.

That is not a legitimate strategy. You should always enter a game treating every player as evenly as you can. Starting with an alliance to a friend is not fair. Thus, that strategy is in my view, at least unfair on opponents, and at worst cheating.

It is cheating. Just as multi-accounting is cheating, so is meta-gaming. The game should be equal from the beginning.
Sorry, I shouldn't have started this thread. I was actually trying to argue against the concept by exposing how ridiculous the whole idea is. I didn't think anyone take me for real. Obviously I am preaching to the converted here. I just wish the meta-gamers wouldn't do it. I don't get it.

Hmmm.... when people see your name in a game, hope for your sake they read the whole thread, rather than just your first few posts. Otherwise they may think you are a dirtbag.

im not convinced by spymans sudden change in view!

Are you guys kidding? Spyman was clearly joking, making an attempt at satire. Its hard to convey over the monotone of text though. I think the clue might have been asking if Treefarn had ever won a game (I believe he is ranked 4th on this site)

i first thought that he was joking but seeing him only playing/played 3 games i wasnt so sure, and im still not conviced.

Actually I would say its a pretty lousy strategy anyway. The first game or three you will win, but as soon as someone checks your records and finds you ended with same alliance pairing in three winning games, he will immediately use the information to arrange a 5-on-2 alliance against you.

I've done it before and its remarkably easy to manage. Add to that the fair number of players who are willing to ally against you because they see you as a metagamer who probably has another metagame alliance up your sleeve even when your usual ally is not present and you will soon be unable to survive any game, much less win.

I just recently started playing diplomacy and my friend invited me to play in a game of his. For your first time joining a game with a friend is still considered metagaming right? To be completely honest thats kinda of silly to be called a cheater for learning the game through a friends alliance.

joining a game with a friend isnt metagaming joining a game with a friend who you will have an unbreakable alliance with is metagaming and to be honest i dont think its a very good way to learn,in my view trial and error and reading up on the dip stratergys is a better way

Yes, play with anyone, but make sure that you "play the board", i.e. do not enter in an alliance with somebody because they're a friend. By all means let them think thats what your doing, but always do what is best for you, and you alone, in that single game.

Lol ok, I pretty much keep my word with my first 2 allies. After that I make alliences just to break them. But my playing style wont change if theyre my friend because if I get a chance I'm invading them aswell.

There are several topics growing up here.

1. Joining a game with a pre conceived alliance structure even one that is to be delayed is unethical period/fullstop.

2. if you remove the concept of pre conceived alliance and simply look at the proposed plan there are several issues with it.
*(This by the way is called the Symmetrical Alliance approach. if anyone is interested)*

As a strategy it requires that the two parties are on opposite sides of the board most successful are England and Turkey with a corresponding alliance structure of EG and AT vs F I R.
The problem comes when the 3 outside parties are dead or dying. It is very difficult to time this so that the Pair (ET in this case) are both in an equal position to stab their ally and get to an exact stalemate line between them 17-17.
((It is extremely rare to get to a 17 17 split on a stalemate line, I have done it exactly twice in 4 decades of face to face play and it is a beautiful thing when it happens in a competitive effort).)
More likely what happens is that one power or the other is stronger and becomes more of a solo threat than the other.
Additional the powers in between may actually be able to turn the tables on the pair by the use of interior lines and better play. They also have the ultimate threat of tossing the game to one or the other of the pair as a spite move. AFter all the double double cross becomes a massive incentive for the betrayed to stay allied against the pair for the duration.
As a result the use of the symmetric alliance structure is generally employed when one of the pair feels he has a significant advantage over the other member of the pair in terms of end game play either tactically or diplomatically. This can be a major weakness in the plan as the minor party may become aware of is own weakening position and then alter the deal so that what they do is to try to keep the original alliance going and to snag out the one of the pair that stabs first so that the East or West rolls over the broken alliance.
So in effect what sometimes happens is that you get this situation where the pair does not trust that the other side will stab their ally so you wind up in a four way draw with the original two power blocks locked into a stalemate line around 1905.
This is one reason that the symmetrical approach is not favored by a lot of elite players.

trim101 some people don't think of meta-gaming as wrong. You could argue that Diplomacy is a game of alliances, so what's wrong with teaming with a friend (pre-arranged)? The point I was making is that is cheating because it changes the odds of the game from the outset. Its like being given a head start in running race. I was illustrating a point.
The FAQ states "Meta-gaming is usually frowned on, but is acceptable in some cases and not seen as being as bad as multi-accounting."
I think this line is too soft on meta-gaming. trim101 you yourself initially only objected to strategy #2.
I don't necessarily think that meta-gamers are necesssarily bad people, I think some of them think it is an acceptable strategy because they haven't thought it through - how it inconsiderate it is to other people. I thought that arguing for metagaming would be more likely expose the strategy's shortcomings that arguing against it. It is a debating strategy that can be effective sometimes. But it would appear that in this case I have just pissed people off. I am sorry.

Edi I love you posts. Actually I thought the strategy without out the metagaming was kind of interesting. Turns out it has a name. Thank you for that.

tree101, one more point I am only playing two games. I prefer to concentrate on a couple of games at time. Maybe when improve a little I might take on more. Btw I also play on Facebook - so I have two games going there. But four games simultaneously is my limit.

Metagaming is unfair. All plotting should be done in-game, with proper quantities of bastardry.

DOES NOBODY SEE THE ABSOLUTE WAY TO WIN???
Make seven identities. You play one game as all seven identities. You ally with 2 of your identities, until you are comfortable that you have successfully eliminated 3 of your identities. With enough STRATEGY, you can DO IT! This is the real trick...you must QUICKLY turn on 2 of your identities until the last 2 of you identities play to either a draw or one of you win. YOU WILL BECOME THE BEST DIPLOMACY PLAYER EVER!!!!!

Pleasezzz.....

Orz...
The easiest way is to hack the system and give you 2^32-1 points (I think that's the largest the system can store).

You could create seven accounts, make a winner take all game, and then pick an account to win it all. You'll be awash in points AND get a big win. It's just crazy enough to work, provided you only do it once and play the other accounts for at least a little while to keep suspicion down. It's a big investment of time but the reward would be spectacular.

Hm, es kann klappen.

Nah!

The real problem is that since you're playing yourself, you know exactly when you're going to stab! So you can defend adequately... it's very tricky. You can never trust yourself...

Yeah...you know that you are allying against yourself, so you have to defend against yourself while at the same time attacking yourself. Then you'll have to stab yourself while not looking, while you are actually looking in order to order the stab. Finally you will have to let yourself to lose in order to win.
Orz...again.

i think there is a name for people who play with themselves and we should use this term instead of multi-accounting.

lol

Management?

Those are the best strategies Ive ever heard of =P