As far as I can see, you broke our DMZ agreement, claiming that I had not honoured certain additional terms added unilaterally by yourself...

The real point is that of trust. Diplomacy revolves around the making and breaking of agreements. In most successful games there will be one or more agreements that last a relatively long time, but there will also be others that are short term - not necessarily intentional from the start but made so by the expediencies of reality. In other words, I might have to break my agreement because someone else did something I had not prepared for...

In the end, it is a matter of personal survival/advancement. I think Highlander stole this from Dip, there can be only one winner.

I would say this though, if you gain a reputation for not being trustworthy, you will not make much progress in games.

In my view, you should break a treaty when and only when you can get away with it.

I think game-play should be free, although personally i don't break agreements I make very much, it is absolutely up to your style of play and the situation. The only thing i would say is that it really annoys me when players are unnecessarily rude. Again this is my personal view, but if someone is rude to me it i have let that alter my political views in game.

Good points all!

Some other things to consider. Ultimately, this is a game. I've seen a few folks take things personally and I think every DiP player should keep that in the back on his mind.

For me, being rude is sometimes part of the act I have to put on in order to not get totally sidelined in a game. Especially when playing a country on the periphery of the main conflicts.

Honoring alliances just for the sake of being trustworthy, seeking revenge just to teach people a lesson, forgiving just to be seen as nice all create a form of metagaming. Everybody's opinions differ on this, on whether it is moral. Personally I don't see anything wrong with it. If we shouldn't play for reputation, why do we have names? But on the gaming level, alliances exist just to benefit the individuals. They should be made only when there's something to gain, and broken only when it gives a greater gain. On the gaming level, playing for reputation is irrational. But there's nothing worse than an irrational opponent. If you know a player honors treaties, you fear that someone else will kill him. If you know a player wants revenge, you fear that you will waste valuable time defending yourself while everyone else gets the spoils. If you know a player is nice, you fear that everyone near him will grow strong. Everything has use on the gaming and metagaming level. It's up to you to decide how to use them.

Also the circumstances of every game is different. Some people probably think I am the least trustworthy player on this site, breaking treaties left right and centre, playing totally without honour. Others see me a a reliable, loyal and generous ally. Its nice when you play a game where you can afford to be loyal, or where loyalty is the strategy likely to serve you best, but I think sticking to any one doctrine is foolhardy because at the end of the day the aim is to get and keep your own country in a position where you can win the game.

It doesn't mean you don't need to have principles, and certainly in most games loyalty to at least one ally throughout the opening period of the game

...is proven to be a successful strategy. But any player if he wants to win must be at least thinking about the stab, be it sooner, later, or hypothetically. And I would advise anyone who is strong enough to survive the repercussions but still a little worried about their ally's strength, to take them down.

I sometimes do actually use years in my agreements these days, particulary in the pre-game diplomacy it can be useful to say ' So we gaurentee province x will be a DMZ until at least Fall 03?' This sets a time limit but normally means that people are more likely to wait until the time expires than break the agreement outright.

Agreed. Any agreement with a time means that you'll find enemy troops lined up for the end of the agreement!

Well, I typically make alliances or stab based entirely on what I believe will be more conducive to my success. There are appropriate times for either, and it is useful to know whether or not your opponents would be better off without you, because that is a good indicator of their imminent stab.

I'm generally quite forgiving of people who stab me, as long as they are willing to work it out, because I think there are too many people here with the strike to kill mentality as opposed to the strike to wound mentality. As soon as they set their targets on a player, they cannot see the reason in backing off, when a rational look at the situation might call on a reversal of forces, in order to shift the balance of power, so that you end up significantly dominant in your theater.

As an example, France, Germany, and England are often seen as the northern/western theater of the game, and their triangular political positions make strike to kill much less effective. If for example, France and England band together to attack Germany, when Germany has been eliminated, France and England will be more or less equal in power, and very likely to fight amongst themselves simply because England cannot possibly hope to win the game without attacking France at some point. But a smart England, or France, will understand this, and before Germany is completely eliminated will coerce the Germans with the tantalizing prospect of survival, and turn against the other. The end result is that Germany's new ally will be stronger than both Germany and their opponent in the balance of power, and will also have Germany's gratitude. This is the strike to wound.

There's a reason that animals don't often fight to kill other animals in nature. If A, B, and C are competing, if A kills B, then he has just saved C a lot of effort, whereas if A just beats B, then B will understand where he is in the hierarchy, and will survive to compete with C as well.

Interesting analysis above. From the games I have played, I have found that to stab, or be stabbed is virtually inevitable. Only once have I managed to play a game (face to face) where my ally and I didn't stab each other throughout the game. In the end, it was a race to get to 18sc's first killing off the other two remaining players.

I think if you are going to have alliances, fine, all well and good. But be prepared for that stab. Never completely trust a player - always leave at least one guardian unit behind to delay things until your own units can return from far flung provinces. Of course, you run the risk of dying in the process, but you can delay things for your stabber!

If I stab, I tend to do it once, and once only. Get yourself in the best possible position, where you can gain at least two SCs off your 'ally', and then make the move in the autumn. Always offer something tantalizing - perhaps you have supported your 'ally' into an enemy's SC in the spring. The timing is crucial. Get it wrong, and you're likely to have a very, very annoyed player hell-bent on revenge. And that can cost you the game.

hehe, um cgwhite i wasnt actually asking for advice on how to stab. more about the unspoken rules of a stab.but all good points. in my defence flashman i said that the dmz could continue if these additional requirements were met, they weren't so i had to disolve the dmz but thats one ofr the lawyers. thanks for all the posts

Well, in terms of etiquette. It's still whatever is more conducive to your victory. There are no written contracts in-game, you are not legally bound to your word. However, other players may punish you in-game for your treachery or deceit. So, just use your best judgment, but you are never by any means obligated to hold to your agreements. Half of the game is in the deceit.

Stabbing for the sake of a stab is counterproductive. Likewise, going hellbent to get revenge for a stab just makes you meat for everyone else.
From the other side of the coin, never stabbing would be like playing poker without ever bluffing .. it's an integral part of the game and i think you'd miss a big part of what makes Dip so great.

the above debate is the reason Diplomacy is such fun to play. Different responses are appropriate in different situations. For my part, I always attempt to construct fluid, temporary alliances and treatys. "___ is a DMZ until 1903, and we can renew it then if we both want it?" for example.
When breaking a treaty, I'm much more likely to have an apologetic look, as if I'm genuinely pained to be stabbing someone, than the 'Ha-har" attitude you sometimes see.

Sharp, in the oft-quoted book 'The Game of Diplomacy', refers to the "Armoured Duck", or someone who, once stabbed or holding the knife, is unwilling to back down. He frowns on such naivety, prefering the pragmatic allegiances that circumstances allow.

I think, in terms of etiquette, most players will forgive a stab. It is, after all, the way to play. However, keep talking to them, and they will be much more likely to forgive down the line if you find yourself needing to ally with them than if you had ceased all communication only to have to venture the feeble "Hey, sorry about before! Fancy allying?"

This is an interesting topic. The stab IS what makes this game fun...that and the negotiation. But I think that building trust is the key to the stab.

A stab by itself is completely forgivable. It is, after all the nature of the game and is expected at some point. In my opinion and as some of you pointed out, the stab should only be attempted once and should cripple your opponent enough to turn the tide for good. Because if it's been countered well enough to minimize damage to where negotiations can be resumed, a second stab deems that player untrustworthy.

And as far as being stabbed twice goes, untrustworthy players will not ever be given the opportunity to stab me thrice, "armoured duck" or not. This, to me, is just common sense. Alliances only work with trust. Two stabs = zero trust = no alliance.

As far as stabbing goes, I try to be as apologetic as possible in my stabs. I'm not even that great of a liar. But I definitely will try to be as convincing yet generalized as possible prior to my stab so that I'm not necessarily flat out lying.

And I agree with cgwhite32, timing is crucial. Stabs in the Fall are almost always better.

Thanks Darwyn. Of course what is the most fun is misleading your ally so that he believes you are acting in concert. Offer him a series of utterly plausible moves that could easily come off, and then look at the shock on his face when your units slice through his unprotected rear! (well, I say look, but online it's not possible).

Often, not stabbing when you can stab is very productive long term strategy, bizarre as this may sound. It builds up trust with an 'ally' to the crucial point, so that when you are intending to stab several turns down the line (if you can afford to wait this long), you can point out that you are just moving your units around. After all, you point out, you didn't stab before when you had the opportunity, why stab now? It can be very, very convincing.

As for DMZ's they are a useful tactic, but unless you pre-arrange a bounce every move, they can easily be violated. Then, of course, you are a turn behind, and in deep trouble!