Thanks spyman!

We should play a game sometime...

I'd really like to, alas I am in semi-retirement for the time being. I still check into the forum because I find a good read, but my workload has gone though the roof this year. I hoping it will settle down in a few months (when we hire some more staff) but for time time being I would be unreliable to play with.
When I get back into I would be up for game with you for sure redhouse.

The CIA will assassinate you before you can perfect this 'fluid' technology.

Re: fiedler, lol +1
Re: spyman I'm actually in semi-retirement too. MadMarx, Nerevatus and Bad were also interested in playing, so I think we can assemble a cool team in a few weeks.

There's a fine description of this in chapter two of Richard Sharp's The Game of Diplomacy (http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/god.htm)

For those who don't know it this was originally published in book form, and while in places it's now very dated (written in the mid 1970s when most players here probably weren't born) it's still an essential read for anyone who wants to understand the game.

He calls 'fluid' 'free for all', but I think that the quote below summarises the concept rather well:

"The opposite of alliance play is the free-for-all. Far more entertaining, it shows the game of Diplomacy at its splendid best. The essential difference is that instead of allying with A against B and ignoring B altogether during the negotiating period, one allies with both. It is immensely satisfying to see your two ‘allies’ cutting each other to pieces in exactly the way you have planned, while you stand by collecting the pieces that fall from their dismembered empires. The simple rule for this kind of play is: stay on good terms with everybody until the last possible moment."

https://sites.google.com/site/webdiplomacylinks/home

I wrote a little story about my theory, in discussion with orathaic, who gave me some ideas on how to write it and who manages the website above.

here's the link to the full article (comments should be enabled at the bottom) https://sites.google.com/site/webdiplomacylinks/home/webdip-submitted-content/fluidtheory

bump

Since I feel bad about hijacking your other thread, let me respond to your article. It's important to remember that in Diplomacy, two-power wars tend to hurt both participants. If you haven't seen it, I recommend reading about some of the research into Prisoner's Dilemma games (and some of the n-player extensions). [Quick summary: cooperative play is good, surprisingly good if you haven't seen the problem before]

For what it's worth, I find myself very rarely lying when playing, and even more so when I am playing well. Rather, my best play is characterized by successfully understanding the view the other six players have of Europe, and using that understanding to create conditions where they will, for their own reasons, choose to do things that benefit me. This doesn't mean that I nibble away at each of my neighbors; for some reason, my neighbors tend to get upset when I do that, and I'd rather have one enemy that borders me than three. You do have to end up having enemies in this game as part of making progress, although if conditions change, those enemies might later become allies. But, in a really successful game, the other players' worldviews are such that they consider themselves better off if I win my wars (even as I'm growing), or at the very least not worse off to the point that they should intervene.

So, yes, keeping friendly relations with as many people as possible is always good, and worth doing with your enemies, too. Don't stop talking to somebody just because you're at war at the moment. But also don't nibble -- if everything goes perfectly, nibbling can work, but it rarely does, so if you have found a profitable alliance and a winning war, keep it going, just try to make sure that your side of the war goes a little better than your friends'.

Ahwwwh... CSteinhardt, you're the man.