CivDiplomacy in Moderation..

[Daaraa]

Well, it was an interesting first kick at the can. My mistake was in trusting Russia without investigating earlier activities. Luckily for me, the Austro-Hungarian army in Greece was what saved me from total collapse. Things would have been interesting had things gone a little further.

 

[Adamski]

A highly entertaining game, Dip is great for web games. My first web following maybe 50-75 board game efforts - mostly long ago.

Turkey attacked me from the get-go after making overtures to me. That was a devastating start to lose Sevastopol. At the same time I had probs with Austria. Then Germany (my erstwhile ally) and England attacked me as well and it seemed the rot had set in. Somehow I managed to hold things up and eventually reached an accomodation with Matt the German, which probably saved me.

After some years diplomatic ties were established with France, and a long and mutually beneficial partnership established. Meanwhile Austria and Turkey came unstuck, and I was slowly able to turn things around.

Just when I was ready to slice and dice some turkey, Kitten unilaterally extended his brief as GM from NMR to actually moving a Turkish army to save Ankara. Turkey would have been finished.
Yes, finally I would still have had my revenge on the Turk, but I played a different rule and was attacked yet again by the Austrians in a final act in our decade long war. :rocket:

 

[barron of ideas]

This would have been a much different game without the 1914 tiime limit. Russia is over the stalemate lines I am familiar with, and should have organized a stop the winner (France) alliance, giving up taking Turkish and Austrian and Italian centers of his "allies" in order to win by taking more French owned centers. It would have taken longer, but would probably have been a Russian victory. I don't see how France could have won, perhaps with help of other players but hard to get when you have more centers than anyone. If France has a defensible stalemate line to keep Russia from winning, I don't see it.

 

[Daaraa]

I think Austria and Turkey could have tied things up for a few more turns allowing France to grab a slight edge although it would mean a lot of fancy maneuvering. I would look forward to more experienced players response to this.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

What sort of MATH is this Barron doing?


Turkey and Austria were linked to France as Russia couldn't offer anything but destruction and so far had been only hostile.

In effect we had 21 supply centres versus 13 by the end of the game and no reason to change.



I do not see the Russians making quick enough progress in the North to prevent the French positioning their forces to defend and also to counter-attack. As for the stalemate lines...NUMBERS of units make their own statemate lines so don't go looking for mere geographical positions on the map.

France with Austria and Turkey resisting the Russians is the situation and in that situation I'd say for certain that were I to play France purely from a military perspective I'd win against any opponents (or at least feel confident enough to do so). Had the game continued I'd still hold that France would have soloed, had Russia struck out earlier against France and tried to get some support then I'd say Russia would have probably won!

 

[Flatlander Fox]

From a PURELY tactical standpoint the Russians have the upperhand.

But from a diplomatic standpoint, the Russians are at a disadvantage. The gains made in the north against France would be tempered by the stalemate that would ensue in the south.

I would say that if played PERFECTLY, the Russian would still be hard pressed to win, only because of a hostile Austria and Turkey.

All sides need to be commended for their survival in this game, since alliances and such seemed to not matter to these bands of cutthroats.

 

[barron of ideas]

I may have a diferent viewpoint that is normal here, but as I understand the game, if any one else wins, you lose. France is the front runner and should not be supported to victory by the "minor players" Austria and Turkey. If I were playing either, I would listen to Russia proposing a "stop the winner before he takes it all" program. The GM (gamemaster) gifted a draw at 1914 to Austria and Turkey that otherwise they would have had to diplom and fight for, and in the struggle to get first France and then Russia under control, to keep either from18 centers, I think Russia has the better position. Stalemate lines do matter. Absolutely, if Austria and Turkey play not to lose, France shouldn't be able to win. Russia might be able to.

If Austria and Turkey don't care to help Russia stop France from winning, then France is in a superior position, if in fact there are 21 units opposed to his 13. But Austria and Turkey are not looking out for their own interest if they ally with France, at 15 centers he is very close to victory, and the time had come when everyone needs to take action to avoid losing, no matter what the situation had been earlier in the game.

If France can maintain an alliance while he is 3 centers from victory, he is a superior diplomat. Are you sure you would play to help France against Russia? Russia needs to stop France, and should give reasonable assurances to his new allies that will cause them to help, but they should want to help anyway. Winning isn't everything, not losing is also important.

 

[Adamski]

Hey you blokes I have to protest at all the subtle undertones about Russian (lack of) diplomacy and bent on destruction. If you look at my foreign relations throughout the game, I only ever really shafted Austria, while I had the dirty done on me by Turkey, Germany, and England. So in fact in clawing my way a supply line through Germany by diplomatic means, and non-agression pacts with italy and France, did I survive. With a revoluton in Turkey, a Russo-Turkish front could have been established to victory!

 

[barron of ideas]

My point is that the minor (in size at this point) players need to throw their weight against the leader to prevent his victory. At the moment it is France, but soon it could be Russia, at which point they need to flip alliances and help France against you, negotiating with both of you for additional centers so they can grow too. There is a lot of negotiation and play left in this game, if it had not been artificially limited to 1914. Because Russia, Austria and Turkey (ther RATs) are natural allies to prevent France from winning does not keep them on your side when you get to 15 or more centers, they are just as likely to look to France for help when you have cut him down to size and now you are the leader.

Normal Diplomacy is a bunch of two against ones, with the negotiating skill of the players determining who has allies (the two) and who doesn't. EFG are two to one, RAT are two to one, with Italy odd person out, whoever they help or gang up on has a big impact on how the game goes. If they help Austria, Turkey has difficulty making progress and Russia may also find rough going, which means the winners of the western powers does well.

If Italy attacks France, often the Eastern powers do well after feasting on the centers of their chosen victim (Austiia more often than not.) Seven powers at the start become 5 and a three to two is not unheard of, which eventually becomes a 2 to one, and then if everyone plays correctly, and one of the 2 isn't over stalemate lines, it becomes a draw, as the final three divide into two to ones of various players, the leader always being the one.

 

[Magnus]

Barron, you make some good points, but you are speaking entirely from a theoretical 'ally against the leader' perspective and you are leaving human nature completely out of your argument.

For example, say I am Austria in the game and at one point I received a rather nasty stab from Russia. However, Russia is still a few centres behind France and now asks for my help to stop him. What am I more likely to do?

1. (as per your argument) realize that if France solo's we all lose therefore ally with Russia to stop the French victory

2. (as per human nature) agree to just such a thing and then stab the hell out of my eternal enemy Russia when I have the chance, who cares if France wins, I got my revenge!

Of course not all people will be so vindictive, France may have offered Austria guaranteed survival, and Austria accepted this in preference to helping Russia in any way. (This is sort of what happened in this game - I knew Toasty was very keen about his 'only surviving archduke in civdip games' title, therefore I told him, I would support his survival for the rest of the game if he didn't move against me, thus guaranteeing I would end with more centres than Russia) - this is a human nature element, not a 'Diplomacy by the book' element. I think understanding how each player in the game ticks is far more important than tactics, otherwise every game would end in a draw and nobody would bother playing anymore.

 

[Flatlander Fox]

Adamski, I wasn't saying your Diplomacy was lacking, I was observing from the outside that it looked like it would be difficult to solve the southern problem.

Barron, your thinking is much like mine, except as an Austrian or Turk in this game it wouldn't help you at all to ally with the Russian at this point.

The tactical situation ALSO determines who you ally with, not only who the winner is. (You know that too, and I think this game would show that.)

I look forward to having you in a game soon, and hopefully we'll get to test our theories.

 

[barron of ideas]

Personalities trump theory, if you would rather lose than help someone who offended you, that is your choice. It was Russia's choice to so offend Austria that nothing would change his mind when push came to shove. Good play involves not burning bridges like that, if you can. So some of the responsibility for the situation at the end belongs to Russia as well as Austria. I try to stay in touch with everyone, especially the people I am attaching, and try to pursuade them it is not personal. Try to be nice to people on the way up, you may need them on the way down.

 

[barron of ideas]

If you get angry at the person who stabbed you, why do you play the game? It is a game of being attacked. I get mad a bad stabs, for one center, or when the attack is not sensible, like Italy attacking both France and Austria in 1901. Stabs are the only way to attack that makes sense, you can't stab your enemys, they expect the attack. Stab to kill, or don't attack at all. Don't just irritate the bull, go for the jugular. If Russia had eliminated Austria entirely, even if Turkey profited from it, the game would be much more stable, with 3 than with 4, and the final draw would have been "for more points".

 

[Magnus]

I second Fox's idea - let's meet on the battlefield!

once things die down a bit on other fronts, of course...

 

[TrailblazingScot]

I get angry with backstabbers...I play the game because I love (for once) having the moral high-ground and being given the opportunity to experience righteous indignation and crush my enemy!


Austria and Turkey HAD nothing to gain by fighting France, they couldn't hope to win! If they aided Russia they faced treachory and destruction rather than survival! I don't understand the logic of resisting the strongest player just to let the second strongest who has attacked your lands win. Maybe I'm just not good at this game...hehe



As for the Winter 1914 end...having a time deadline is very, very common and people knew it was coming for sufficient time to take advantage of it and make a sprint finish.

The Russians decided not to compete with France directly despite the end of game quickly approaching...that is part and parcel of diplomacy that relations between leaders and nations effect how things play than every nation trying to stop the largest from winning. Certainly in my experience at civfanatics, face-to-face and redscape this is the case and to some extent the world master tourney too!

 

[Daaraa]

I think the only way Turkey could have helped Russia come closer to victory and fight the French victory would be to let Russia take some SCs. That seems a bit of a stretch to me.

 

[Adamski]

NEWSFLASH: Strong Gallo-Russo relations continue after war. Edinborough. French and Russian leaders signed the Pan-European Pact today, setting up a duality of rule across Europe that creates a massive political-industrial unit. The United States opposes such a creation and advocates returning European states to their independant roles.

France was the only nation which acted honourably toward Russia during many years of conflict. Accordingly, Tsar Adamksi felt bound to respect such a peer.

To me, the game is about the enjoyment and immersion factors. That is often tied up with some diplomatic relationship development and pattern in the game.:slay:

 

[barron of ideas]

It is likely that each person who plays Diplomacy does so for his or her own reasons. I start out with the objective of survival, and if everything works out, playing to win. But the objective of "not losing" looms large in my mind. Others have other objectives, and it is important in forming alliances and in deciding on who to attack that we try to discover what the other players are out for.

Often goals are compatible. I am often prepared to offer a 17-17 tie to a potential ally. And mean it when offered, the problem is that the situation changes over time, I admit that if I have a chance to win, I will take it.

But I hate to lose, and will ally with my "worst" enemy to prevent my "best friend" throughout the game from winning. If he wins, I lose. I am under the impression there are more players like me in the game than there are other types. I don't want to stab my ally, but when the situation calls for it, well, the knife goes in right there. But never for just one center, the only cure for the anger of the victim that accompanies a stab is the healing of elimination of the stabee. Good stabs are to be admired, even if you are the victim. Why did you allow it to happen? The other guy is a better diplomat. Learn from your mistakes, and the superior play of others. Benjamin Franklin said "Experience keeeps a dear (expensive) school, but a fool will learn in no other." So read the literature, there is a lot on line, Google Diplomacy Zine to find some.