.

just imagine what he's like with a sandbox game...

Why don't you just do what makes you happy. It is a game, after all.

Diplomacy nihilist

Diplomacy is more like a sport than like a computer game, in that you have overall ranking. What you do in one game has little bearing on another, so maximise your outcome each individual game, rather than thinking about the whole.

When you maximise, win is better than draw, draw is better than lose (duh). You will notice stabbing is not in that list, so if you can improve outcome by a stab, do so! (Though I'm of the school of thought that stabs work in your disadvantage diplomatically (people indeed get angry), so they should mostly be used decisively when you finish a player).

Read the rules on how WTA, PPSC, GhostRating are calculated. Then remember or forget them as you see fit.

My two cents.

Thanks for the response, Minister.

I suppose the thing is, being naturally competitive, that I want to do the best I can - both in individual games and overall performance - just struggling to work out how to define it.

And yes, of course, to have fun while doing it!

Firstly have fun
Then try never to CD and keep NMR to minimum
Communicate, communicate, communicate
Try to make right decisions, even if they turn out wrong.
Try to solo, if not aim for a good draw, survive if you can and if you can't try to be a thorn in the side of guy who stabbed you
Points and GR are just a way of keeping score on the right decisions, they shouldn't influence your decisions IMHO
Don't let anything undermine the enjoy the game rule. Often I play as if we were a bunch of friends at my house. If I'm a shoe in for the solo, I'm happy to end the game early. I have moral victory without rubbing my friends nose in the dirt. Others are more competitive on here and don't treat their foes as friends. That's fine also.

I recommend playing anonymous games where possible. If you're good at this game, you'll start making enemies and people will know you're not a good ally to have in a pinch.

Have fun.
Stick to WTA. When you play WTA you win or you die - there's more motivation to win.

Don't quit a game just because you're losing. Fight on to the bitter end. If nothing else you'll get the respect of the other players.

Try playing Gunboat games. Having to work out which moves your allies/enemies will make in order to support or thwart them will increase your strategic and tactical skills, making you a better player.

Play anonymous games. Then players you've stabbed in the past won't be distracted by the need for revenge or be unwilling to ally themselves with you because of your past. That works both ways of course.

@dD: Damn. Should have "refreshed" before I posted.

The order of Diplomacy:

Solo
If you can't Solo, stop the Solo and be in the Draw
If you can't be in the Draw, play kingmaker to punish those determined to see you fall. Doesn't matter if you survive or are defeated, just make certain the dicks that did you in get nothing for it.

On the topic of what to play, you will gat a variety of opinions as to why WTA is better or PPSC is better. I prefer WTA because people play it like the board game. When there is no points for second place, it's more like the board game where there are no points at all.

Don't play anonymous games, get to know your enemy, learn how they play, attempt to use that to outplay them. Don't play anonymously with people you've decided are not enjoyable to play against. Have fun. Stab when you need to, expect your stabbed ally to know that this is part of the game (and they should have seen it coming) Stab rarely (so they don't see it coming...)

Also 1 or D or point is a Dagger, which is used for stabbing (usually in the back)

Thanks for the responses, good to hear different opinions.

Virtually all of my games have been PPSC so far - I think it will be interesting to switch to playing mostly WTA to see how that changes strategy, outcomes, etc. - and I like the fact that that's more like the original board game.

Playing anonymously (vs not) is an interesting one. In one respect I like playing against the same people repeatedly, and learning their strategies/abilities/preferences can be an advantage or a disadvantage, but is always interesting. And I've certainly annoyed a few people that I've played with by stabbing them, though I'm still not sure whether to feel guilty or not. Then again, playing anonymously can be quite a different challenge, having no idea who you're playing with, or their relative skills/motivations.

As for gunboat, I like the different type of challenge that it offers, but for me it significantly reduces the enjoyment of the game, as it takes out one of the key elements. I think all the elements of communication, psychology, persuasion, coercion, fooling, bluff, collaboration, etc., etc. are what marks this game out as unique compared to virtually anything else I've played. So to play without that - for me - really diminishes the quality of the game. (Although I do understand that it's a good way to hone your skills in tactical thinking.)

Live games - I've only played two, and been defeated badly in both, so clearly in need of some work there. Unless, of course, my opponents were cheating, which seems to be an accusation often levelled at people (in live games in particular?).

And in terms of the ethics of game-playing - I absolutely agree with above posters - I'll try never to NMR, CD, etc. and will always fight to the bitter end.