Okay, here's the deal.

Taking to heart the idea that Diplomacy is a game based on communication, and lots of it, I have (over my time on this site) developed the following philosophy;

At the beginning of the game, send a message to everyone, even if its just a 'hi, lets share info'.

If you think you can affect whats someones actions are, do it.

If it suits you, be purposefully misleading or vague with people across the board that you want to mess, but do make explicit lies that can be disproven.

With allies, potential allies, and even enemies, by clear, detailed, and earnest in your messaging.

I'm always frank, and I'm always trying to convince or talk people my way if I think there is any possibility.

Sometimes, if I feel helpless and upset I neglect to communicate as much as I should, but I don't generally think I'm guilty of that.



Despite all of the above, sometimes I find myself isolated, with no friends (see my 02 Austria death for example of that) and discover that players who rarely speak more than two words to others and never me have masterminded my demise. Somehow.

My question is, does anyone think that talking too much, too desperately, or too suspiciously can alienate people who would normally accept the word of someone who says 'yea sure' to a lengthy alliance proposal?

It seems like a weird concept to me, but it is either that or game History that seems to be alienating people in some of my games.

How do other people formulate thier discussion style in-game?

personally, i talk to every person on the board every turn, if i can, even if i have nothing to say, or if i am simply repeating myself. i think that it feels cool to have that little envelope next to the game name when i open the page, and especially so if someone has spent the time to type a little paragraph. So i try to humor everyone else in the same way.

I like recieving messages, too. I hope to play a game with you two soon.

I share the ideal of communicating with everyone - and feel it generally helps. Definitely there are those who are not interested though and I'm sure I've hurt myself at times by talking too much... but sometimes it's saved the day... I think that it depends on the attention span of my audience... which is hard to assess without a little trial and error.

An aside - nothing leaves me more flat footed than a "yeah sure" response to a lengthy proposal. I feel like I've bored the person and I can't be sure that my proposal was read, understood, or agreed too. Maybe - maybe not. Best to start out small and build the conversation (like in real life).

I have found that talking to someone too much can lead them to believe you're tricking them. For some reason, the more elaborate a plan the more some people take it to mean an elaborate set-up.

On the other hand, the "yeah sure" response to a proposal is the most frustrating thing I encounter (maybe next to excessive emoticon use and saber-rattling threats beyond the reasonable fun of the game) and it usually compels me to repeat myself in simpler terms.

The real issue I always have, though, is this. I propose a move to somebody and I see their orders have since been finalized but I received no message back from them. Initially my assumption was that they had ignored me, but more of then not I notice that they do, in fact, follow the plan I had laid out. But that's difficult because often times my moves depend on whether or not another is going to act in the way I'd suggested, and it seems odd that they wouldn't simply reply in the affirmative - often prompting me to pester people with short messages like "Deal?" when the clocks running out and I haven't heard anything.

You'd think that as a rule, one should at least issue the "yeah sure" if nothing else.

I like to use the ascii symbols to make pictures of penises, and then I send them repeatedly to the player whose name I think is sexiest.

NOTE: THIS HAS NOT BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL.

But seriously..

Tell people exactly what you want from them and what you expect, in clear and unambiguous terms.

I have a pet theory about different classes of Dip communicators A's, B's and C's type thing. It's not that one is better than the other, but there are definitely three broad groupings i've identified, and the way they interact is pretty interesting.

I won't thread hog with a big spiel, specially as i've only started my first game on this site.

I'd like to hear it.

I love a player with good press. Maybe you should start a game for people who are so inclined.

That said, I must say that I am sometimes the "yeah sure" guy... well it usually comes in the form of "Alright. That sounds good."

Or something of the sort. This is usually because I can't really think of much else I'd add... I agree to the plan completely and I'm not going to treat it like a grade school test (Answer in complete sentences) and repeat everything you said back to you and append it with yeah sure. I'm just going to say yeah sure. Although

I suppose the real response we're all looking for is something along the lines of "Yeah! That's such a good idea! Oh man, Italy will never see this coming! I'm going to see if we can't get France's just at the same time. I wish I had thought of this! Wow your ideas are so creative and practical!"

I like to send messages discussing the different possibilities of what could happen,whether that be "your total demise at my hands" or " our mutually beneficial conquering of the entire map". also,all the different things that could happen in a turn,things of that nature.

Also,messages concerning the trust between the receiver and the sender if we are allies.

And,i like to be as straight-forward as possible.
For example,if I am Turkey,I message Austria saying "well,Hi,we will be enemies in this game,sorry nothing personal"

just to clear up any doubts.

Also,if there will be a game made with players who communicate extensively,i will pay the few points i have.

Truth is; this version of the game is flawed. In the real world communication is carried out by many varied ways (i.e. telephone, fax, international summit, ambassadors). In the board game... you may contact other players in person, by phone, by text or in writing. Until people get over their phobias of trading phone numbers to contact one another, etc; texting is the only form of communication and that makes only those who excel at deceit, deception, lies and basic strategy the winners of most games. The last time i checked, the name of the game was "DIPLOMACY" and that means working things out together rather than beating everyone down in order to win alone.

"My question is, does anyone think that talking too much, too desperately, or too suspiciously can alienate people who would normally accept the word of someone who says 'yea sure' to a lengthy alliance proposal?"

Yes, I talk so much sometimes(and joke[which msot of the time isn't funny]) that people get annoyed and I get the feeling they are all ganging up on me, and then stab out of defense, and that really ticks people off.

even in gunboats I get paranoid of allies and end up screwing em over myself

I can understand that taking a long time might seem a little manipulative to some rookies. But in all my league games if you were caught with a one-line answer you would be jumped on and quickly.

I find I don't trust players who don't communicate (or those who do, in Gunboat!)

However, this strategy has gotten me well and truly stabbed by good communicators who lied through their teeth (most recently, there's a.certain Frenchman currently enjoying fine Italian wines at my expense).

Oh, and I always acknowledge a good stab - its often the last thing I do.

we should set up an intensive press game

I feel more or less the same... In my games so far, there are just a few "wordy" (or pressy?) players, and the others are just there. At most they say something when my armies are near, or when in need of breaking an alliance I may have. I find it more rewarding to be able to discuss, talk and lay plans. And when I make 3 paragraphs to tell an enemy what I think we should do to end the war and turn on a bigger threat, and get a "yeah, ok", I feel like he will move all his armies against me in no time, just for the sake of it, even if he will just do what we agreed.

Completely agree with Centurian's point. I've only been in two league games, but it's generally the players who say that least that end up being eliminated. Same goes for the GFDT games that I'm in as well. The more experienced and skilled players tend to be the ones that use their diplomatic savvy in the form of detailed messages outlining either their genuine intentions and plots, or some sort of elaborate ruse to blindside and stab another player. It's so much easier to convince someone to ally with you or to convince a soon-to-be enemy that they can trust you before the stab with a longer message, because there's more room for you to be convincing.

To add to this, I tend to enjoy playing games with people who talk more because to me it makes the games more interesting and challenging than a game with lots of people who just answer with "oh sure" or "yeah I agree," that kind of stuff. I tend not to trust people that don't say much to me, and when someone writes a lot of press to you, it makes it more challenging to figure out if they're genuine or if they're just bluffing.

Finally, I'd gladly participate in a game composed only of people who are frequent and detailed communicators if anyone else is interested :).

I see it as two extremes. Write too much, I don't trust you, too little, I don't trust you. Give me details but keep it short and sweet if you're being honest.

I tend to be a detailed communicator myself. After an initial greeting and statement of intent, I wait for replies before furthering talks. If someone doesn't even say hello, I know they're shady.

I agree that too much press from someone can be a problem, but it's also the *tone*. I'm much more likely to respond positively to "I have a mutually beneficial idea, here it is" than to "You *have* to do X, or Y will win." or "If you do A, I will hate you forever. In face, if you don't do B, C, and D *right now*, I will come for you"

face = fact.

More caffeine needed

If someone takes the time to write you a small novel on the reasons you should be allied, chances are they believe atleast some of it. Actually read it, if its detailed any vagueness might be a clue and focus in on that. Sometimes I like to ask successive question in a row and see which ones the person responds to (or more importantly which ones they skip).

But most importantly. If you send more than one paragraph to someone, it shows you are sincere atleast about communication and probably committed to an alliance.

Here's the kicker: if you are BOTH big communicators, you should be able to gather the plans of the other guy by asking everyone else on the board. People that write alot have to say something, and it does little good to lie to someone across the board right off the bat.

One would hope Centurian, one would hope...

Rule one, do not lie. Don't ever lie, unless the next move you're stabbing the person you're lying to. And make sure that stab is deadly.