That's not much of a threat.

@ Sean Connery. It is usually used to split up conquering alliances. Say Russia and Austria are invading Turkey. Turkey could say to Austria, I'm going to commit all my resources to defending Bulgaria, you haven't got a chance at getting any of my centres. Do you really want to see a ten centre Russia (4 home centres, 2 Russian neutrals, 4 Turkish) on your border after he's finished with me. Austrias pretty much forced to attack Russia with Turkey if he wants any winning chances.

I've been doing it quite often with mixed results. Experienced players tend to be more responsive to this threat than less experienced ones. I don't think it could be considered meta gaming, because nothing outside a particular game is involved.

As long as the player implies suiciding his units it isn't metagaming :)

I think it is a possible tactic, but not a very effective one.

I've found it an incredibly powerful weapon...

it works sometimes

Threatening to suicide your position is NOT metagaming. Meta mean "outside of". How is this, in any way, outside of the game?

I don't really like the pressure I feel, getting one of those. It takes a lot of the light-hearted feeling of the game out of it, too.

threathening to do that is a legimitate intimidation tactic, and if executed properly works quite well.


however, actually following through and commiting suicide so someone else wins instead of your enemy is really petty.
the game should be played to win. any player who actually takes things likes stabs THAT seriously are really just pathetic in my eyes.

If a player stabbed me succesfully, and if I am totaly and utterly unable to find a way to deal with that, then that player has done a very good job.
giving my centers to another player, just so that the player who stabbed me doesn't win makes no sense at all.

I am strongly against undeserved wins, and giving my centers to someone who made elaborate plans to get them from me is easier for me than simply handing them to a passer-by who didn't do anything to get them.

Agreed. As long as actions are kept within a single game there's no way it could be considered metagaming!

However, if you can go part way towards the suicide as part of your threat then it could work while not being petty as you are still attempting to stay in the game. For example a Turkey having trouble with Austria could try and arrange an Italian conquest of Austria, which would effectively suicide since Turkey would then have Italians on all sides. If Austria refuses Turkey could help the Italians into the Ionian sea which does not lose immediately but shows the desire to help Italy.

it shouldnt be used as revenge but a diplomatic tatic to try and salvage something

It's not really metagaming... I don't think I've ever used it, nor has anyone used it against me, to any real effect. Well, maybe that's not true, the one time where I think it's been used on me was in a GFDT game, where someone threatened to let another player win. It didn't quite work out because the workings of my deal were that I was going to let the other guy win anyway because I only needed a certain amount of centres to be guaranteed a spot. I suppose if that weren't the case, I might have taken the threat more seriously.

In an article I have on diplomacy, Allan Calhamer says that one possible way to deal with a suicide threat is to claim that you "ignore all such threats as a matter of policy, claiming that they are unethical because in effect they join two games together (that is, the player commits suicide in this game in order to give his word more weight in some future game)". That sounds a lot like claiming suicide threats are metagaming to me.

Using that logic, choosing to be a faithful ally is also 'metagaming', because you want to gain a reputation as a player who will keep his word.

@Akroma, you point out why I *do* consider it an effective tactic - if you stab me, and end up losing the game because I choose to concentrate on you instead of the person eating me from behind, then you're likely to mull the consequences of stabbing me again. Advantage: me

The reason Suiciding is close to metagaming is that, if you judge the aim to gain as much success with this country (non-metagaming) or all countries you play as (metagaming), then a solid alliance is good for the country in question by aiding expansion, wheras suicide is not good for this country, only later ones.

No, it's a fair tactic. It often occurs when you are one of three remaining powers, the other two have a combined total of twenty or more centres and you are slowly but inevitably being pushed back.

Threaten to do it, start to give up your centres to prove you are willing to do it, but always be in a position to retain a working number of units. You can often force the big two to turn on each other, and rapidly get back to where you were, or better by picking up the pieces.

Always worth a try.

In a more-or-less closed environment (the league, or even this whole site) there will always be metagaming tendencies. Nothing can be done about it, unless all games were anonimous.

Suicide threats are a valid approach - and totally ok from my perspective - as it is a negotiating strategy based on a lose-lose approach. The problem is if you have win-win metagaming (e.g. I'll help you win this one, you'll let me win the other).

To put it simply - the goal should not be to limit people from using 'alternative' strategies or playing poorly - but to limit people from gaining unfair advantage (the win-win scenario).