because people are so into their own plan they are unable to see that anothher power can stand in the way just by being a pain in the ass.

Because a lot of players don't really care whether they win, or don't really believe they can anyway. A lot of players just want to blow shit up.

If there was something tangible like real money at stake in games, you would see the levels of discipline, professionalism, and good manners(!) absolutely skyrocket.

Because in general, the "Mutual Shared Destruction" tactic doesn't work. If someone stabbed you and has you at their mercy, then clearly they made the attack when they were stronger and it doesn't matter if you "suicide" yourself at them because they have you on the ropes already. Your weak attempts at "bringing them down with you" is all hot air.

It's much like if you are bullying a kindergartner out of their lunch money and they say "If you don't give that back, I'm going to take you down with me!" Clearly the threat has no real voice.

Anyone found in this situation should seek out aid from the other players on the map (preferably ones that are equal in strength to the aggressor) and work out a deal that benefits you a little bit and the other party a little more. That way, once the enemy is under more pressure than he can handle, it gives you more leverage to bring to the bargaining table.

I have found the threat of suiciding can work in some cases. Specifically, where you are the weakest of three or four remaining powers, and you fear that the second or third -ranked remaining player is about to stab you, I find that threatening to commit suicide to allow the strongest player to solo, can be a productive tactic.

I can agree with that for the most part. It wouldn't stop me from testing the waters, though. Worst case scenario is that I'm beaten back a bit and forced to renegotiate and settle for a draw. Again, however, it goes back to seeking aid from the other powers. You offer your services to one of the equally matched powers in a way that benefits you a little (having a survival instead of elimination) and them a little more (here it benefits them with a better position on the map).

As a stand-alone, it doesn't usually work, but in conjunction with effective communication with all players on the map, it is very powerful.

As a caveat, I should say that it works much, much better in a WTA than in a PPSC, for obvious reasons.

I'm talking less about a stab where someone didn't uphold an agreement or alliance and you are threatening revenge because they seriously weakend your position. This for obvious reasons fails because they are often set up to trash you while you were caught with your pants down looking the other way..

This is more a question of why the tactic of warning of mutual assured destruction doesn't work against someone who is openly hostile, say in spring or fall '01 and you see it coming, but even attempting to convince them that their boneheaded assault will simply result in joint defeat doesn't work.

Santa and fielder brought up the best points so far that many people are just dumb and blind.

So how do you deal with such incompetence?

More often than not I find myself stuck between an incompetent bonehead bent on attacking me alone for some reason, and someone only slightly less incompetent who decides that it is better to pick me apart because the other player is attacking me than make signifcant gains vs our common incompetent neighbor. Reason seems to have no effect, and generous offers rarely buy them off.. This happens most often to me as Austria or Turkey where I'm screwed before 1901 simply because of who got assigned as my neighbors in Russia, Turkey, Austria or Italy, and no amount of skillful diplomacy seems to have any effect. I usually have to try to survive a few turns till a French German or British ally can be of some help.

I've found that the best way to make sure you aren't trusted is to not have an enemy. "Let's kick France's butt" is believable. "I'm keeping my options open" isn't. I've found that being on the business end of a 1901 blitz is usually the result of neighbors solidifying alliances before I even get to the table.

"So how do you deal with such incompetence?"

If I figure it out you will be the first to know! I dunno if it is incompetence or just human nature. I'd bet there isn't a single diplomacy veteran in the world that has not waged a war of rightous vengeance. These things happen and that's why even the very best players can be knocked-out embarrissingly easily.

In practical terms, you should simply consider the potential blowback before you stab, and calculate if it's really worth stabbing. A good tactic is to get another power to stab with you, so you are not the sole focus of the stab-ees rage.

Food for thought. Keep in mind I lose rather often ;)

And the best players see the incompetent player, realize you're a competent player (read: threat) tied up by an incompetent player (read: not-a-threat) that can be picked off at their leisure later, and go somewhere else. ;)

True, I guess I have employed that tactic myself, when an incompetent player stumbles on a rather lucky successful first year against a player with a strong history who I view as a possible future threat, I'll try to take the "threat" out first knowing I can deal with an incompentent player who manages to get more SC's than I do out of the deal, later on. It just sucks to be on the recieving end of such an engagement.

@ fielder, guess I should just be glad I have so few outright defeats..

In a WTA game it can work if you threaten to let another player solo when there are 3 or 4 players left.
The reason it might not work is that the other player might not believe you if you threaten to do so. I remember a situation where I had to follow through with my threat to make the other guy change his mind. He later said he hadn't believed I would actually do it. In that case we were still able to stop the solo after he was convinced by my actions.

At three centers in S01 or F01, you can chalk up trying to talk sense to someone, especially as Austria unless there's a clear Western Triple or Juggernaut taking place. Even then, in low-caliber games, Italy is still likely to take you out and in noob games its impossible, especially when Germany becomes a threat (which should never happen btw).

If any country can survive beyond the first three years with at least a small handful of units, then anything is possible. Interesting enough, there's actually a series of statistics that show how a country's win percentage increases or decreases based on who is defeated. For example, if Austria survives to see the defeat of Turkey, its win percentage skyrockets but if it sees the downfall of England, its win pct drops.

Where can I find those statistics? I'd be interested in studying them to help aid my choice of diplomatic targets in such situations..

After long experience and thought, I have come to discover that no amount of diplomatic skill or tactics can overcome dumb luck, newbie stupidity/inexperience (like self-bouncing in the north sea in spring 01), and incompetence. That is why it is so nice to play with skilled players even if they kick your ass. Didn't happen so much in the mail days, but I find any number of openings, midgames, and alliances screwed up, no matter how carefully constructed or planned out, by sommeone who decides to move or not to move for no reason that makes any sense to anyone but him or her. To quote Mason Williams, sooner or later you find out that because I don't want to is the world's best reason.

Mason Williams - the webcomic guy?

I think that the threat of suicide doesn't work because it eliminates your leverage with third parties. Say you're Germany, and you launch a suicide attack on Russia. Russia's other neighbors have no reason to make concessions to you because you're going to attack Russia no matter what. Once you make a 100% commitment to a particular course of action, you lose any ability to do diplomacy.

@Lief, I'm currently working on them. I have all the stats drawn up and I'm putting them into a report. Austria's report is complete and I'm almost done with England. To highlight the stats I used, Austria's win percentage is 6.8%. This number has a small bump up when looking at only games ending in a solo to 9.9%. In games where Turkey is eliminated, Austria's win percent skyrockets to 29% while it drops -4% when England is defeated. It really shows the interconnectedness of all the countries.

Mason Williams, writer, guitar player, writer for Smothers Brothers show, composer of Classical Gas. Dead now, I think.

"This is more a question of why the tactic of warning of mutual assured destruction doesn't work against someone who is openly hostile, say in spring or fall '01 and you see it coming, but even attempting to convince them that their boneheaded assault will simply result in joint defeat doesn't work."

Often because people won't follow up on it. One of the obvious effects of someone launching a MAD attach on you is that they will themselves die, which is clearly against their aims.