I think it's fine. I did it on Facebook!

I think suicide attacks are immensely petty. I've never been suicided, being relatively new, but really... what the hell?

I did it with only one unit. I can see the argument if you throw away a decent position, but isn't anything ethical in this game?

I didn't say UNETHICAL, notice. Just petty. Usually, from what I've seen, if you get stabbed, you usually have one or two turns of life.

These turns can, in my experience, be spent latching on to one of those powers squeezing you and setting up a Janissary-like agreement.

ok lets say your working with one player against 2 others - two against two - the two seperate alliances have defeated the other 3 countries. Now your ally stabs you. You have previously unguarded borders, now you need to defend those borders, which naturally is going to give the counter alliance some free SCs of yours.

You have to be careful when you stab and time it such that your former ally turned enemy by your doing, doesn't end up giving his SCs to the enemy because he now has to defend against you. I have been on both sides of this, and I would prefer to turn against the former ally that stabbed me and show them that their treachery just cost them the game. I don't think it's petty, I think it's a valuable lesson about when it's appropriate to stab.

Of course, I wouldn't just GIVE my shit away, but really, if you have to retreat from the borders you were once fighting to defend borders that were once safe, that's legit in my book

Retreating to defend yourself is fine. Abandoning EVERYTHING but your front with that other guy JUST to screw him over is just messed up.

Ideally, you're trying to recover yourself, not just throw everything away with no intent but to kill him. If you don't plan to survive yourself, JUST to mess him up as revenge, THAT is when it's petty.

So how many of you go around kicking bees nests? The bees die when they sting you, but everybody stays away from them.
Suicide sends the message, "don't EVER backstab me". Also, suiciders rarely backstab others. People remember those who are willing to suicide.

Let's take another example. Let's say I'm Turkey. I open aggression with Russia, beat him back with Austria's help, and turn and stab Austria. Austria has two units left... but he still has power because I made him a Janissary. This is infinitely more profitable than suicide, right?

I have done as a tactic to IMPROVE my current position. I was in a game where Germany and France had controlled the board in an unbreakable alliance. France had 14 units and Germany 9-10 with his complete rear exposed to France. France could have won the game in a year but he didn't want to break his alliance with Germany. I had 9-10 units with NOWHERE to go playing Russia...they had me pinned. I pleaded with France to stab....so what I did was completely fall back and defend myself against France's approach from the Mediterranean....creating a vacuum. There were more open SC's than Germany could take in a turn. France sensing that Germany could now win the game, finally made the stab. I got a "survived" out of it. My only other option was play 3-4 more years and go to ZERO. I was never backstabbed in the game. Purely a tactic.

Also, sorry to double-post, but I was thinking... isn't suiciding really just like a more obnoxious form of CDing?

I know that didn't address the issue of revenge...but suicide can be a proper tactic in a game situation.

I think the intent is what determines whether it's a bitchy thing to do or not, really....

We use to call this going Kamikaze, now I think it is called going on a Jihad.

I totally agree with the technique as ONE of MANY techniques that players should hold in their scope of responses. I have even gone so far as to throw a game as a matter of revenge.
It is not something to be done every time, nothing should be an automatic response as predictability of that nature is a disaster for your negotiation skill employment.
Generally the kamikaze happens when there is extreme frustration with the target, such that he is a dot grabber and is abusing your position while you are holding back a solo threat or sitting on the front line of a stalemate.
Or as a response to personal attacks, gross stupidity with out any entertainment value or hope for education,
or to make a severe point of being utterly pissed off about something.
A lot of times it starts as a threat and then someone tries to call it a bluff.

hope that helps.

I will do this, and I see it as a highly legitimate tactic.

If I can't win any longer, why not try to take an enemy down with me? Because they 'expect' me to fight everyone to the bitter end? Because doing X, Y, or Z is in my 'best interest' for a year or two, until they screw me again?

No, if I no longer have a reasonable chance of survival in a game, my goal *sometimes* shifts from "win, draw, or at least have a few SCs left" to "take the bastards down with me".

Sure, I could drag the process out, and possibly survive a few more years, but I find it much more satisfying to watch the (metaphorical) look in the eyes of the stabber as his or her carefully thought out strategy collapses in the face of my 'irrational' moves.

IMO, there is no 'illegitimate' strategy in Diplomacy (outside of outright cheating), including the way you choose to die. If I ever play a game with said stabber again, they're likely to at least *hesitate* before replicating their stab - and hence, my 'irrational' move give me an advantage in future games.

As for Pandarsenic's point of acting as a Janissary, this again falls into the 'do as I say and you might live a little longer' bucket. Sometimes I'll do it hoping to salvage a 'Survived', sometimes I'll do it hoping for a stab later - and sometimes I'll say 'screw it' and go down swinging. If the individual who expects me to be his armor doesn't like my choice, well, frankly, tough luck - assuming that someone will act in the way you want/expect them to is foolhardy in the extreme in this game.

I totally go with those recognising going kamikaze as a legitimate tactic. More, I find funny that somebody who stabs you ALSO expect you to keep on playing in the best of *his* interests...

One of the beauties of Diplomacy is its complexity: a player who stab and then can't cope with the consequences of it, has simply chosen the wrong strategy to follow.

I am with Edi - though - in saying that goiong kamikaze is only one of the possible strategies to be adopted in response to a backstab. At times, the best reaction is to simply make a new agreement (for example in the case other players will perceive the backstabber as being too strong now and will attack him).

Ah, I forgot to mention: it is not a matter of "revenge", it's a matter of tactic in achieving what is most important to you...

It's a perfectly legitimate (if annoying) tactic of deterring stabs.

It's legitimate... but it's not very practical, especially if that's your SOP for being stabbed. Not only will you not win too many games, but even if people learn not to stab you, people will learn to exploit that tick of yours. If I know that a certain player will kamikaze against a stabber, I will try my very best to make sure my enemies stab that kamikaze, so I can pick up the spoils.

But kamikaze's won't get you wins. Instead you take down the "bastard" who was really just a long time ally and friend who realized the need to stab you and you let the guy who I guess was "honestly" your enemy take the win. Sure it might be satisfying, but I wouldn't argue that it was actually strategy, and that it warned future players... If anything it encourages the people who remember to either exact the same revenge in another game, or remain an "honest" enemy and not even bother with an alliance that will self destruct.

If you're in a terrible position, I find the real satisfaction isn't in suiciding against the person who took you down, but rather it's in trying to make a comeback. If you succeed in making a comeback from near death it's much more commendable than not having the respect for a good stab.

Chris, you seem to be saying that retaliation is a poor strategy that will not win games, and that people should "respect a good stab". I would argue that having a rep as someone who will blithely accept a stab without doing anything about it will also not win many games.

Ultimately, of course, the only truly losing strategy is a consistently predictable one.

No of course retaliation is necessary, but I was referring to kamikaze-ing when you retaliate with no regard for your own centres, blindly taking them down with you so that you develop some sort of reputation. When I say respect the stab, I mean, don't make it personal. Defend yourself, and don't let the stab poison your judgement. I would not argue that you should blithely accept a stab, but you should accept that stabs are part of the game and there's no use exploding every time it happens.

I would rather have a reputation for being a solid player than a rabid cornered wolverine.

It's okay to do, for the sake of honor. It's even more okay if you threatened as much before or during the stab.

That being said, it's a bad idea. I would rather just try to cut my losses and stay in the game, maybe turn the tables eventually.

Hmmm.... Ironic, but this thread has convinced me to change my position on this subject due to the majority that supports it. XD

It was not just the perceived bad sportsmanship that made it a bad strategy... it's also just a bad strategy...

Suiciding is an easy way to take a loss. It is fairly fair because the suicider most likely attack the one that was more of a pain or backstabber. I dont' think that's any reason to suicide but people do it anyways

I personally like well-behaved allies.
If somebody knows that breaking a deal is going to cost them dearly, they are far more likely to behave.
The downside is that if you choose an easily tempted ally, then a clever opponent might talk them into stabbing you in the hopes of taking you both out.

i think its part of the game
pretty pathetic on the players' part but perfectly permissible

It can be pathetic if it is done out of incapacity to deal with the loss of a SC or two, but it can be very effective if it is done as a matter to force players actions towards something you want (so, if it is a tool to achieve your strategy).