I completely do agree. I find that a lot of my success depends on whether or not I can get online frequently or not. That being said, people do tend to talk less to the people that they are not coordinatin with so it is a bit of chicken vs. egg.

I'm saying that those initial allegiances are formed in the above way, and continuing frequent absence will only reinforce them.

I feel like naming this idea. Suggestions?

The Availability Theory? Logisticism? Lol.

I think you're absolutely right....which is why I try to never leave this site lol

so screw it, let's only play face to face ... that's all I knew for 30 yrs until I found this love/hate place!!

Green Dot Syndrome

I pretty much concur completely. I don't think I personally make my alliances in this manner, but I definitely see people do so and I've adapted to that tendency.

Before you label your theory, how about a strong rebuttal from the other side. I, in fact, disagree. I assert that its not who talks to who first, but rather who talks to who *the most*. Now, I do say that who talks first might well be a byproduct of who talks the most, but it is not the chief thing that sways people.

If Im Austria in 1901, and Im playing a 24-hour phase game and I log on about 5 hours after the game started, and I happen to notice that all of my neighbors have already sent me messages, its likely that some have already been talking. In 1901, my goal is to log on frequently and check press and send messages to those who are doing likewise. It might be that Russia and Turkey exchanged some early pleasantries and tossed around some ideas with the agreement to revisit the issues in the fall and not talk further in the first season. However, I have found it very beneficial to continue to talk about other matters. matters of the board, talk among neighbors, early theories, etc, so long as Im talking. Trusting relationships arent built merely woth early words, although it might help. Trusting relationships are built on frequency of togetherness, just as it is in real life. If i spend 5 days hanging out with one friend and 1 hour a week at the beginning of each week, I will have established a stronger relationship with the person I spend more time with. Naturally this type of behavior will spill over into a game where communication is paramount. As Austria, I can overcome an early deficit with simply more positive press.

Now, I did say that tje first one on is a byproduct of press frequency and this is how: if Turkey and Russia happen to both be on for the first hour and share about 30minutes of press sharing and then log off, even if I log on and send a message with the intent to send more as my early messages are received and Turkey only logs back on once this phase, then I missed out on the opportunity to talk more frequently with him than Russia and its likely that Turkey will work with Russia and against me. This isnt ultimately due to the fact tjat Russia spoke first, but rather that Russia and Turkey had the adequate time to form a mutual bond, even if no plans were entirely set in stone, and I simply did not. Not because of my lack of desire to talk to Turkeuly and form a relationship, but because Turkey did not log on frequently enough to allow me to make up the lost ground.

This principle is true even in later stages of a game. If youre not keeping in regular contact with your ally and someone else is, the liklihood of your ally going rogue is grossly heightened due to your lack of attention to a relationship.

Now I would like to test this theory and hence I have set up the Full Disclosure games for a purpose, this being one of them. I have studied the numbers of Diplomacy for a long time and I wish to also study tje less-tangible things tjat make up the game--namely: how press shapes the game. It is my firm belief that I will discover that my theory about alliances will hold true after I begin to examine the press releases.

@Thucy: I agree completely. I don't get online very often and rarely have time to communicate at any stage of a game. It probably contributes to my stats too (Defeated 40, Won 1). It's one reason why I play a lot of Gunboat.

@Abge: "Green Dot Syndrome". Good name.

@Tru Ninja:The two theories are not mutually exclusive. There's a lot of intersection.

Players who are more engaged and message more will naturally do better - they are diploming more. Initial messages early does help.

Someone long ago made a comment about how "time" is a major factor in success on this site, for some odd reason I think it was uclabb, and I could not agree more with putting in extra effort paying dividends, and that is indeed one of the staples of my game play, for what that's worth.

It's not really a new theory, to be fair. I've seen it mentioned various times before, often in those threads talking about Diplomacy and luck. Yes, it happens. All things being equal it will decide who allies with whom. But all things are not equal. If you were to look at all the factors upon which an alliance is built then this would be significant, but other factors dominate.

I don't agree, I actually posit that for most players it ends up being *the* major factor of who allies with whom.

...and that's why full press is much less skill-dependant than gunboat.

Not in my experience (although around half of that is in live games in which it isn't a factor at all). Mind you we all have our prejudices. I personally take a highly suspicious view of anyone who will agree to an alliance when it's clear they've not had a chance to even talk to the other guy, and will give preferential treatment to the other guy. As long as I hear from someone within a reasonable time of the game starting (12 hours or so) they suffer no great disadvantage. I dare say there are some players who allow timing to be the main factor, but I think they are in the minority and tend to lack experience.

I think it affects us "experienced" players more than we care to admit, frankly.

Totally with Thucydides. I hope one day the site will change the starting point of games to the exact moment that the game had been planned to start and not when the player threshold was reached.

What bothers me more, however, is how easy the agreements made pre-1903 are broken. I've been shocked about how few players on this site are genuinely looking to construct at least some kind of relationship with the other players, but at the same time how extremely high the success rate has been of that small group of players that does look for serious interaction from the start.

To give people an idea: I've played 13 games here (all of them classic FP WTAs). I've been stabbed maybe twice per game (very conservative average, it's probably closer to three), so that makes 26 stabs. Of these stabs, I can only consider 1 truly effective (by France, gameID=73400, Spring 1908) and that stab was done after 7 years of effective allying.

So that's one stab in 26 that was truly, measurably effective, and one that was very late into the game.

I believe if people would be more interested in long-term success in a game (read: winning a game) a big part of the green dot syndrome would be automatically resolved.

"I believe if people would be more interested in long-term success in a game (read: winning a game) a big part of the green dot syndrome would be automatically resolved."

This.

Ultimately, though, your average player doesn't have enough attention span/ambition to go for a win or see a game through to the end and plan that far ahead.

And yes most players also lie far too much and play relatively lone wolf. It's frustrating because you begin to realize that an experienced player can't necessarily wipe the floor with a lot of noobs, what you need is either a cooperative noob or another experienced player to balance it out.

Yeah, that's why I'm trying to boost my GR further and further, not because I (the RL person controlling redhouse) like to feel good about myself, but rather to be able to play with people who are actually worth playing with. That's why I really do my best against all those people who think breaking the S01 DMZs we agreed to is actually a viable way of warfare, so that one day, I no longer need to play with them :-)

"all those people who think breaking the S01 DMZs we agreed to is actually a viable way of warfare"

To be fair, it sometimes is. Lol.

Not when you're playing with me Thucy.

lol @ 'co-operative noob'. Every dip players dream ally. As Tru Ninja said though, if you have seven good players in a game, who's online at the start shouldn't really matter too much. Over time, it's who contacts you more frequently (and atleast in my case, humor in press gets bonus points) that matters. I usually don't write orders until I've received press from everyone in the first turn.

Woa someone comes out and says you get the best relations with the first person you message and everyone is so willing to assume that it is a theory.

First of all it is wrong to call this a theory because it lacks the basis that theories have. Why people interacts best with person who replies first? This theory does not answer.

Secondly, it is not NEW at all. All of its assumptions and conclusions are actually following the good old boring realist theory of international relations. Actually this game is based on this theory which basically asserts that people (and states) do whatever works for their best interest.

So here I present you the answer why people interacts best with person who replies first. I will be applying the (probably the simplest form of) classical realism of international relations.

Since this is a game, every player chases for their best interest:
- Winning the game. Therefore getting more SCs.

There are two vehicles that serves you in your way to win the game:
- Strategic and tactical moves (that is basically submitting orders)
- Political/diplomatic moves (your communication with other players)

So when you decide to make alliance, you consider your best interests. You seek strategic advantage when you make moves. And you look for someone who TRUSTS YOU ( you do not necessarily trust them).

You cooperate with them until you reach a point that backstabbing is best for your interest. So, in a nutshell, you cooperate because it is for your best interest. You backstab because it is for your best interest as well. Therefore strategic interests are the FIRST PRIORITY when deciding alliances.

Now lets move to the main topic: replying early. A reasonable person would expect that, if he gets quick replies from a player, that player is more dependable. It is not certain whether he can get a reply from the other country.

Secondly, when he gets a late reply, he worries that it may happen later in game again, giving him less time to consider his moves. That therefore increases the risk of making a mistake for him. That reduces trust unless the late replier may prove otherwise.

When we consider a situation where, player gets an early but "not promising" reply like "lets make an alliance and bonk the heads of the French" and a late but well-planned alliance, he would reasonably choose the latter one. Therefore, strategic interest are always priority and other trust issues are collateral in making alliances

To sum up:
I have made an ANALYSIS of diplomacy game using the classical theory of international relations.

What is claimed before lacks theoretical basis and, so to speak, draws heavily on the
classical realism. The reason the other theory reaches a different conclusion is that, although it makes a good analysis of trust issues regarding replying early, it ignores that it is just a collateral issue and fails to consider the importance of strategic interests. Therefore, I conclude that what is claimed before is not a new theory, neither wide enough to be a theory.

I am claiming that we do it more because we don't know what else to do, devil-you-know, etc. I'm confused as to why your post is so... how to say.......

I am merely noting something I have observed over four years of playing games on this site.

>.> it is all because of the bloody essays I write, I Know it sounds nerdish xD
It is nothing personal ._. I just cannot stop writing like that... (*trying to oppress the troll inside me)

Without moaning, I would say that "real life" friends playing in the same games also changes things up a lot....

:D Only with them you experience the best alliances and best backstabs xD

All thing being equal it is best to communicate early on.
All things being equal it is best to talk more.
All things being equal it is best if you can find some poor chump to be the fall guy and at least one other player who agrees with you and will play along.

Thucy is wrong though when he says its "not pesonality, strategy or tactics", but the first guy to speak to you. For me it the first person to display those qualities and keep displaying those qualities right up to the end of phase (we're talking about the first move here) but if it is a 48 hour phase and I first hear from someone 24 hours into that phase, there is still time to get a good dialogue going.

One thing that is true. Those early game discussions are very important.

@SpeakerToAliens: Yes, there's a lot of overlap between what I'm saying and what Thucy is saying, but that's merely because I said that his idea is merely a by-product of what I was saying.

It's far more important to be the frequent talker than it is to be the earliest talker.

"Even if France and I happen to be on at the same time nine hours after the game's start time, the fact that England and I already had a trust-building interaction has in my mind already made France an enemy figure - backing France's plan would almost count already as a stab. "

This just seems like bad play to me. Regardless of what I may tell you, I'm never going to commit to a course of action before talking to all of my neighbors. (Or at least trying to talk to them.) Just because I've received a couple of emails from an anonymous person playing a neighboring country isn't a good enough reason to go along with a plan. If I'm reluctant to listen to a better plan just because it showed up in my inbox 6 hours later, then I'm playing badly.

"If I'm reluctant to listen to a better plan just because it showed up in my inbox 6 hours later, then I'm playing badly."

This is certainly true. However what I am saying is that what I described is something we do, not that we should do it or that it is good play.

Oh, I'm sure you're right, at least in a lot of case. I suspect this is more the case for people who are more into alliance play, and less so for people who don't take alliances so seriously. But I don't think you're wrong. I'm sure it's an easy trap to fall into.

I completly agree with your thesis. However that would fall under the skill of diplomacy, England already participated with you in diplomacy and built your trust, granted France never got a chance, but it was still diplomacy that got you on Englands side.

Primacy, recency, frequency, vividness lead to effective diplomacy. I don't think any one (such as primacy, being first to exchange press) trumps the others. Ideally, you are the first to communicate with the power, the last to communicate, generate the most (quality) press, and paint the clearest picture of why the power should go your way.

Also, getting first crack at communication with a power is meaningless (or can even hurt you) if you don't use it effectively. I can certainly think of games where I heard first from Neighbor A and thought "what an idiot, I hope Neighbor B turns out to be somebody I can work with."