ok.

Man, just too late :) My opinion is to keep all options open. Nothing more boring than a standard mid-game etc.

I must admit, I have no set plans or must do's in every game because everyone you play with is going to be different; I think there's too many variables. Do what feels best for you. I've never looked at a single other person's previous games to see how they've played a country before either, so I cannot honestly speak to that possibility. It may have paid dividends for others, I just don't have the time.

For better or worse, every year of every game is really a new start.

That being said, I've never thought insulting someone or calling them stupid has led to a grand alliance or anything. Perhaps I'll try that in a future game.
"Hey (insert country here). You're a stupid moron. Just do what I tell you and we'll sweep the globe."

@Stratagos - There is no set way to play diplomacy, if you're playing a WTA game and you choose to SC farm and let someone get the solo so you can get 16 SCs and feel good about yourself, by all means, do it. I would personally think you're an absolute dumbass, but I can't say for sure that I'd tell you that.

LanGaidin, I actually used those exact words in a game once, and I ended up winning, with my partner in the juggernaut getting second. I was playing with a bunch of friends from my high school though, so maybe it isn't a legit strategy, but it worked for me:]

You definitely have to be flexible for Diplomacy. That being said, Wilson, Gunboat, regular, and Black Press games all have different opening options for me. I'm much more willing to trust DMZs in Wilson than anything else, while I'm unwilling to risk them in gunboat unless I feel constrained.

I'm sorry, Wilson? Is that public press?

Stratagos, disregarding Diplomacy for the moment, do you believe its possible for someone to know more than you? That someone can understand a tactical situation better than you? Know some things about a situation that you possibly don't?

If any of those answers are yes, then the possibility exists that you have made a tactical blunder in your game. While you may disagree with them, I suppose it all depends on why you play Diplomacy in the first place, and whether your goals and his goals are the same.

@Ding - I *absolutely* believe there are better players than I; I do not, however, consider myself to be a complete dunce.

My read on the tactical situation in question was that while the suggested moves would likely suceed, the odds of long term success were slim, and a less risky option was a better choice in this case. I *understood* the reasoning that was supplied by the other party; I simply *disagreed* on the long term consequences of the stratagy in question.

While my upside for this set of moves was fairly attractive, the downsides were quite possibly severe, and not worth the risk given my strategic position.

I was actually quite tempted to execute the suggested plan, but it depended on the second party consistently working in a way that benefitted me, and I by no means considered this a given.

@ dingle. I don't disagree w/ the idea that Strat could have made a mistake. I think it's more the way that mistake was addressed (which as you said, could speak to the other's motives or goals). Explaining why it was a mistake (even if it's subjective opinion) and coming up w/ ideas to counter it is one thing; simply abasing or ridiculing him however is not going to lead to any type of positive relationship - which again may be the motivation behind the insults.

Damn, messages crossed. Your most recent description was much more thorought Strat. Sounds like you played it as you saw best, and perhaps neither choice would have been incorrect in the long term. Regardless, the only "must do" I can really think of is communicating - unless it's a gunboat:)

@Lan - I've been trying not to discuss the moves in question, as this is an active game

Stratagos, you were unclear in your original message. Did they say you were stupid, did they imply you were stupid, or do you think they think you are stupid?

The words "disgraceful", "stupid", and "spineless" - or variations of the same - were all used to describe my choice ;)

along with threats of some type of lifelong vendetta which I actually found amusing on some level

Well, I don't like people metagaming - I expect to be stabbed when it is not to both our downfall (then I am pissed - because dragging the both of us down is just senseless), I don't like "I am such a faithful ally, I never stab - I stick to my ally now!" either. A bit against the spirit of the game imo. I ahvn't found players too predictable - humans always do some strange things from time to time.

Somtimes I might give some angry responses, when the following happens: I am with an ally, I see dangerous/most likely moves of the enemies, I tell my suggestion on how to avoid them. The other party plays deaf, loses 2-4 SCs that turn, can easily overrun now - and I am doomed as well. Understand that makes your ally angry. Other than that - it could be a blow, but also just bad sportmanship.

Stratagos,
On further review, I don't think we should be talking about an ongoing game like this.

agreed, I will revisit the situation after it ends

In every game I have ever won (not a great many) at some point I have been told that I have made a terrible blunder. That's diplomacy, other players will try to convince you to play the moves they want you to play. You know what you are doing Stratgos. In the end you're going to what you think is best.

whether or not it actually is best