Your notes in the forum are very helpful. First, your words around fleets are paying dividends now. I drew Italy in a bunch of games, and am building armies. I can switch direction easier, I can gather more momentum. Sometimes you move backwards, but in the longer run it seems to be propelling me.

this new one is absolutely true. The problem is, it is very hard to do. I understand that I want to be able to spread rumours and always make myself the one who the others can turn to. But how does one do that? And how does one take down the current king diplomat. There is always someone who has a whole bunch of people under his immediate sphere. How does one counter that?

Second, in general be honest. This helps build credibility. Tell people (selectively) where you are going and then go there. If you are going to deceive someone else then make sure the move your deception enables will deliver a crushing blow to your opponent - one that is crippling and keeps them from being able to exact revenge. These types of moves often take time to build up trust, maneuver them into position and then ruthlessly crush their hopes and aspirations..

Having said that, don't stab if you don't have to.

Good advice.

Lando, glad to hear that things are going well for you as Italy =)

Your question involves identifying and countering the expert diplomat. This is tough to do, but there are some general principles that will help.

1) talk to every nation in every phase. Always. ( this helps you build relationships with everyone on the board and makes you more likely to be trusted)
2) identify the pushover(s) in the game. These are the people that the expert diplomat is already trying to get under there thumb. Often, the game isn't won by controlling territory - it is won by controlling other nations.
3) don't ally with the diplomat!!!!! Oh, say you're allied of course. Admire their cunning plan. Pretend to be the pushover. Talk about how their ideas are better than what you were going to do. Expert diplomats have an over-inflated ego and implicitly trust people the think are weak. Then, stab them as soon as possible. If you realize someone is a better diplomat than you then you want to be enemies with them from year one.

make it seem like its their idea, people don't like to be told what to do, give two alternatives and try to subtly push your ally to your favored option, or when there is an obvious course of action, stay quiet and let your ally suggest this course of action so they feel its a two way street. And when you are trying to get a similar sized power to do something crucial, you might have to be direct but do so while explaining why this option is "the best" for them.

Yes, exactly, Santa. You've got the right idea!

Wording is so important as well. Reread your messages before you send them. Imagine yourself receiving that same message. How would it make you feel? Does that match the feeling you want the recipient of your message to have? If so, you have probably created a successful message.

But people are so different. My reaction to something is often very different than what someone else's would be. My perspectives are the same. How do you normalize for people being different from you?

Jacob we had a discussion a while back about whether it is better to be the player who suggests plans or whether it is better to sit back and listen to other people suggestions: initiator versus waiter. Some argued that the latter was better because you gave less away and that could could choose strategies as they were presented to you. Personally I am more in the former camp because I think you have more control over the direction the game. What do you think?
http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=758674#758687

@Lando, I don't normalize, I get a read of how someone is going to respond to me from my messages to them before the first turn. Then I advise it if that person gives me a reason too. To elaborate on what Jacob said in point 3, the problem with acting like an ally with a diplomat is they are some of the best manipulators around so you have to really talk to them like you would an ally. If you follow the SoW games you'll notice all the professors tend to agree that people tend to talk to them differently before a stab so if you can react like an ally would until you are in a position to stab them you should have a lot more success. Also, it's always good to consider that most of the "pushovers" are just afraid of getting destroyed by the "master" diplomat so convincing them to turn on their ally isn't impossible. I don't think I'm on the level of Jacob or the other diplomats are but I can occasionally hold my own in games with them, so I hope this helps.

Lando, that's an excellent question and I think the answer is one part analysis, one part experience and one part natural ability to read people.

I have done a lot of performing in my life. Singing, acting, playing instruments. (nothing huge or well paying...). I'm currently a salesman. In both of those areas you have to be really good at reading people to do well.

I think that same skill-set carries over to diplomacy. You need to have a good ability to read people. This can be developed through time and experience and it can be enhanced by solid analysis, but I also think this is part of the game where raw talent and ability comes into play. It's also why I'm not too worried about sharing my philosophies on here. I don't think most people can do the things I'm talking about. (see what I mean about diplomats having over-inflated egos?)

A couple things that could help people develop their ability to read people are:
-Play fewer games and pay more attention to the games you do play.
-Pay attention to how people communicate with you and tailor your communication to their style.

Ultimately, if you have a good read on someone then you can more accurately predict how they will respond to your messages. There have been many times when I've finished crafting a message and just somehow known that it was going to bring success before I even sent it.

Altman if you forced me to pick one I'd pick initiator, but to be truthful, I rarely initiate. At least, not in a direct way. I think it might be accurate to say that I attempt to initiate indirectly. What I mean is that I have a desired direction and outcome but I don't come right out and say it. I try to get the other person to propose it to me, along the lines of what Santa said in his post. I'm not quite sure how to articulate how I do that. I'll have to think about it some more.

Grrrrrr......phone changed spyman into altman for some reason...

Whores.... send your allies whores.

It works EVERY....TIME!!!

Seriously, though, the biggest thing with 1901 is honesty. I play 1901 extremely conservatively and within the year, I will know: Who is honest, who is a liar, who is after me, and who (if anyone) is a puppet master: in other words: who is trying to say E is attacking me, when he just wants me and E to attack so he can go after R.

Another great thread Jacob, will be following your tactics threads passionatly

I play very straight-forward. I offer to ally with everyone I can and see who I believe the most. I also try to put myself in the shoes of the other guy and think "what would I want if I were him" and I try to offer him that very thing. I've found that alliances are based almost solely on gain. The other guy isn't going to want to work with me if he has no room to grow. Once he quits growing, he will then think about if he can move over top of me. Thus, I try to lay down a plan of action that will suit the both of us. I try to be honest and upfront. There's little use lying early on. I'd say that I tell the truth 90% or more of the time and lie 10% or less of the time and when I lie, I make it count.

Second, I work to lead. I present concrete plans, a direction forward and clear thinking. I find that a vast majority of people tend to follow and they "cling" to leaders. When I offer a solid plan, it shows someone I'm interested and sincere and that I've spent some time in our present situation to think through things and develop a plan that includes US, not just me. People respond far better to this type of press, rather than "hey can we bounce here?" or "I'm interested in ____"

If, at the end of 1901, I have no allies, I move on to their neighbors and make allies with them. If I'm playing as France and I'm being attacked by England and Germany, then I make friends with Russia and offer him whatever it takes to apply pressure on some country until they want to be my friend. I've found that in this game, it's good to make sure that everyone stays busy, and that the busy-work shouldn't be you.

Last, if I think that things are going sour, I find someone I can trust and offer to get them an ally if they can do the same for me in return.

It's all about the care and feeding of allies. Without getting your hands bit off, of course. ;-)