Spite. Make all my decisions based on it, naturally.

I tend to stab based entirely upon whim. Bad day at work, a particular player speaks about himself in the third person, short sighted greed. Often opens me up to needing to grovel and lick the boots of other players.

1. Lower amount of people to be in the draw.

2. If we've made it across the stalemate line and I feel that I can pull a solo off with the stab.

3. If you've flat out lied for no real gain. (Just bad play)

4. Misorders (Like doing the Key Lepanto, and then they don't leave Serbia...) (>_>)

Goal: To ascertain at least 3 builds from the initial stab. (This includes taking from others, but on the move the stab comes I need to have 3 builds popping up, or enough to fill the home centers I have empty ex. I have Smyrna with a fleet, so I get 2 builds... etc.)

How do you all define a stab?

I stab because sometimes it makes the global chatbox blow up in the funniest ways, especially if it's during a live game.

winning. I stab if it will advance my position. It is rarely if ever personal. Also I never consider it a stab if it is the opening of a game. If an alliance is not firmly established it is just normal play.

For me, a stab is a move against an ally that was not predicted by the stabbed party and directly results in a loss of one SC (weak stab) or multiple SCs (strong stab).

So, moving some fleets against an "ally" for position is not a stab because it is clear and its intent is usually obvious. Taking one SC, perhaps without support and just to get an edge on a different ally, is a weak stab. Turning on your ally by taking multiple SCs in one turn, causing oftentimes irreparable harm, is a strong stab.

I define a stab as attacking someone unexpectedly, possibly even by just not providing expected support.

Early on I want to make nice with everyone and then stab someone. Someone is getting the short stick and I hope it isn't me. This stab isn't about an immediate gain of centers so much as it is about forming an alliance with someone else against the stabee.

Later on in the game I will generally not stab except for a few conditions:
1. To solo. I'm pretty conservative with regard to this so I usually get stabbed first.

2. They are getting too big, too dangerous, and our alliance is too unbalanced and through diplomacy I have not been able to get them to fix it through giving me a bigger share or moving to a more stable position.

3. My current ally previously stabbed me so I am open to returning the favor when it strengthens me because I'm okay with them being eliminated. I don't like eliminating just to "improve the draw" so will not stab to remove someone that has been a solid ally all game except under conditions 1 and 2.

And possibly other corner cases that I'm not thinking of.

I will stab for as little as one center to create a stalemate position. For instance, if I play England against a heavily land-based France and have already overrun Scandinavia plus St. Petersburg, I will stab for Portugal.

I don't think of stabs as necessarily being just against (former) allies. Any sort of move against another player that is unexpected is a stab to me.

But it seems as though the vast majority of opinions are against me. Does anyone stab just to get a country to move his units your way, opening him up to a stab from another country?

I mean, lets say there's an A/T that's fighting Italy and Russia - and winning. While Russia and Italy are still alive, would you, as Germany, launch an attack on Austria, to open him up to a possible Turkish stab? This would, once you disengage, change the situation in the East from a strong 2 power alliance into a coalition of three weaker countries against a strong Turkey - keeping that side of the board balanced.

If another guy looks at me bitch I'll shank him

goldfinger, I think you play a deeper game than I, and probably most. (Note: I very much enjoyed our last game quite awhile back.)

My concern with your proposed scenario would be that Austria would figure he was screwed and if he was going to die, he might as well try and drag down the one that screwed him. I have certainly gone that route.

I really think the commonness of eliminating the small players at the end encourages this. If you make me a small player, than I may last awhile as someone's pawn but ultimately I lose. So I might as well go down swinging at you. Stop rewarding small draws more than large draws and maybe a more vibrant game can be played.

Apologies, you were talking about Diplomacy, I thought you meant in real life

@Goldfinger, I do play like that and manipulate the board so I can set up situations like the one you described. I'm just not sure if I would define that as a stab. I consider stabs as a successful attempt to eliminate or cripple another player. I rarely get stabbed, though there are situations where I get attacked and lose centers, the difference being that I saw/guessed the attack was going to happen and I just couldn't persuade the other person to go with different moves. The other situations, where you are have hostile borders with an ally, or some non-agreed upon bounces are just another part of the game.

It's important to note that "stab" in this game is short for "backstab." One cannot backstab somebody in the face, so stabs at the very least must be unexpected. Furthermore, as enemies are typically facing each other, one cannot stab an enemy, as they are already at war. Thus, to me a stab is only against an ally and only when the ally does not expect it.

It's a simple cost-benefit analysis. If one believes that the advantages of an alliance have reached the point where they are less than the advantages of an *effective* stab, a stab is the proper move to make.

I think this sums up everyone else' arguments in much fewer words.

Caleb's analysis is sweet and succinct. But I must admit that sometimes when I'm in a number of boring games and it's a bit late at night I go a little crazy and stab someone just to make life more interesting. I probably make 90% of such stabs just before going to bed. Does this say something about my psychological makeup?

I agree with Alderian's explanation of his motivations for stabbing.

If I have a good ally, and we have gotten along well all game, I will only very rarely stab to go for a solo.

It depends what you define as the *benefit* though. I play pretty rationally, but at times I've noticed my choices are more influenced by the enjoyment I have in the game than a dry cost-benefit in terms of points.

I recently drew a game, because all the players were going for a draw after one of the players got eliminated. I find this boring, it's not why I play the game at all. I play it for exciting moves, outmaneuvering people and good cooperation with players. That's also why I stab. In one of my games (ongoing), I stabbed an ally with whom I had had a great cooperation. I could have had a good three-way-draw, but it would have been boring. I prefer to have interesting fronts, rather than boring point-gains.