What's weird about a Key Lepanto in an anonymous game?

The Key Lepanto just requires a huge amount of trust. It's also known as the "stab Lepanto". I recommend reading about it on the Diplomatic Pouch.

It's also a terrible opening.

The trouble with the Key Lepanto is that it is too well-known, and if you know it, it is easy to counter. That said, I have had fun playing a successful key lepanto as Italy (and not a stab lepanto either). It took Russia and Turkey completely by surprise.

Yeah, spyman gets to the core of the issue. Austria's opening is too abnormal on its own, and the Italian army in Trieste makes it very obvious.

When I joined the site I was new to diplomacy and did not know much about the game itself. First quality game I was invited was among other good players with rdrivera, and he played very well so I would say that his play in a way was my first insight into the high level diplomacy. Besides rivera I really enjojed playing with The Hanged Man, martinck1, President Eden, slyster, Alderian, Plastic Hussar, V+, gopher.

This thread turned out pretty interesting, although it's a pity I read mainly lists, and not so many details on why a player is so good. There are several comments to be made about good players, before I tuck in

1. A good player wins. This may sound self-evident, but it is not true for all games in which you have multiple players.
2. A good player manipulates. The really good players include some psychological warfare in their play.
3. A good player will estimate you higher than a bad player. I noticed that people who send me texts that "my strategy isn't sound" or "this plan will never work" tend to lose. Not because I punish them or something, it's not necessarily me that makes them lose, it's just that the players who tend to be positive about the messages they receive somehow also send better messages themselves and do better.

Goodnight all.

I disagree with everything you just wrote, except maybe the winning thing.

Manipulation is not necessary. Being an honest and truthful player has it's own benefits. I think the flip side is more true, a great player does not submit to manipulation. As such, I believe that if only the best players were in a game together the one who tried the least manipulation would do the best. As players would respond negatively to the one who is most blatantly attempting it, which all would see through.

As for point 3, i don't think what the player believes really matters. I have seen bad players do very well, and I have seen good players lose quickly. I think it matters as to what you know of the other players, not what you think. If I know somebody is pretty bad at tactics, that is not hurting my game. Likewise, if I know somebody is pretty bad at strategy, I am also in a benefit. These players will become more predictable. I think the danger you are referring to is openly telling them they are wrong or bad. This is my biggest flaw in this game, I believe.

Haha, Lando disagrees that this thread turned out pretty interesting.

That's pretty interesting.

I actually disagree with the winning part also. I think a player who wins 60% and loses draws 40% is not as great as a player who say draws 80% and does never get soloed against. Never getting soloed against is probably almost as important as winning, although I cannot deny the importance of winning.

Lando, I think your last message could use some clarification. Initially, it sounds like you equate loses and draws, saying "loses draws 40%", yet afterwards you appear to glorify draws, talking about an 80% draw rate. Seems to me the first scenario could involve 60% wins, 20% draws and 20% defeats, which, on its own, is clearly better than 80% draws and 20% defeats. I, like you, highly prioritize *not* giving up a solo, especially one of these scenarios where people "race to a solo", assumption being it's a 50/50 shot at getting a solo versus giving up a solo. That said, I'd very happily win 60%, draw 20% and give up a solo 20% compared to draw 80% and never give up a solo while never getting a solo.

Also, as far as giving up solos, I do take pride in only giving up one (extremely unexplicable, I still can't wrap my head around it) in a WTA full press game that I survive, but in those games where I get taken out, it's pretty much out of my control to stop a solo while dead, right? I know, my bad for dying quickly, but that's why I *sooo* despise a survive in WTA, it means I've given up a solo, which is highly unacceptable (since I currently am not able to convert 3 out of 4 solos to my favor)...

Of course good players manipulate. But great players are so good at manipulating that you think they're being honest and truthful, sometimes right to the end of the game or at least until it's too late to do anything about it.

worm: I've only read your last comment, but I don't think you actually need to manipulate and lie. It usually works to just convince them that occupying half their supply centers makes tactical sense (because it does) and then proceed to keep them as your ally. Of course you need to be prepared to lie

Lando, MM, I definitely play with that sentimen as my record will attest but I'm always frustrated by my lack of aggressiveness. I'm so disgusted by the prospect of someone else soloing that I really handicap my chances of winning.

MM - to clarify I made a mistake and said draw when I meant to say survive. To me, defeat survive means loss which is what I was going for. I was confused.

Yonni - it is a very tough balance.

RE: manipulation - I think Tru Ninja is a great example here. He is a great player and from one game experience with him he did not appear to lie or manipulate anyone and has a currently excellent position. Game is ongoing, will not say more.

I asked the question before because GR says they're equivalent. 1 solo and 2 losses or 3 3wd?

I suspect the answer is - what kind of loss? 2 defeats, sure. 2 survives - fuck that.