-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Board Game Double Decker Diplomacy - G1 Over (E/F/G/I/R/T Draw), G2 Over (A/E/G Draw)
- Thread starter Ampharos
- Start date
I would like to say that there were three MVPs of game 1. The guy who dominated most of the game, Bass, with his great skill and determination. Then the king of surviving, who I think was the only one who could turn the flow of the game against Bass, Agape. And the guy who brought peace after all the chaos, UncleSam.
After Aura Guardian, Outlaw and Maxim left, the game was chaotic with all the substitutions. Especially the short stint by askaninjask. I think the only reason this game ended so quickly was because of UncleSam (the bringer of peace and prosperity ^_^). He completely changed the dynamic of the game, from a Bass vs Divided group of nations w/ an Agape Resistance, into a Bass vs a solid conservative Alliance that could stop a Solo run.
Actually after Aska's NMR and sub out, Me and Kiritsugu were all set to let Agape expand enough to get a solo, as both of us just wanted to have fun with the game. But US's "<3 you all" entrance changed it all.
Although, I would have liked to see Kiritsugu being a little more involved in the England vs Germany battle, I still understand and respect his thoughts.
Overall it was a decent game, and I think US could have made the conservative alliance into an offensive one, but since it would have still been a draw at the end of the day, and everyone played well to deserve a draw, I think it is justified.
Would have loved Agape to have joined in, but I respect him a lot more now. The guy stood by his belief even when he faced a certain defeat. And the 2 center to 9 center play was inspired by him and is dedicated to him. "Never give up! Anything can happen in this game." & "You are not out of the game till you have an SC with your name on it." are all lessons that I learned from him. *Salutes*
----
I don't believe how much I got addicted to this game +_+. I actually am thankful to the guys who guided me initially over IRC. Especially Agape, Aura Guardian and Drawesome532, as they were the ones who initially told me about the different strategies in the game. Its definitely a fun game, but I agree to what Agape and Bass think; as in, we should all try to achieve a solo if possible. Not for the sake of betrayal, but for the sake of enjoying the game. Since not all betrayals lead to victory, and not all loyalties lead to glory. Cheers!
Note: Btw, I think I will sit out in the next game. Expecting a busy month ahead.
After Aura Guardian, Outlaw and Maxim left, the game was chaotic with all the substitutions. Especially the short stint by askaninjask. I think the only reason this game ended so quickly was because of UncleSam (the bringer of peace and prosperity ^_^). He completely changed the dynamic of the game, from a Bass vs Divided group of nations w/ an Agape Resistance, into a Bass vs a solid conservative Alliance that could stop a Solo run.
Actually after Aska's NMR and sub out, Me and Kiritsugu were all set to let Agape expand enough to get a solo, as both of us just wanted to have fun with the game. But US's "<3 you all" entrance changed it all.
Although, I would have liked to see Kiritsugu being a little more involved in the England vs Germany battle, I still understand and respect his thoughts.
Overall it was a decent game, and I think US could have made the conservative alliance into an offensive one, but since it would have still been a draw at the end of the day, and everyone played well to deserve a draw, I think it is justified.
Would have loved Agape to have joined in, but I respect him a lot more now. The guy stood by his belief even when he faced a certain defeat. And the 2 center to 9 center play was inspired by him and is dedicated to him. "Never give up! Anything can happen in this game." & "You are not out of the game till you have an SC with your name on it." are all lessons that I learned from him. *Salutes*
----
I don't believe how much I got addicted to this game +_+. I actually am thankful to the guys who guided me initially over IRC. Especially Agape, Aura Guardian and Drawesome532, as they were the ones who initially told me about the different strategies in the game. Its definitely a fun game, but I agree to what Agape and Bass think; as in, we should all try to achieve a solo if possible. Not for the sake of betrayal, but for the sake of enjoying the game. Since not all betrayals lead to victory, and not all loyalties lead to glory. Cheers!
Note: Btw, I think I will sit out in the next game. Expecting a busy month ahead.
It was fun to play this game as it has been a fairly long time since I have last played Diplomacy. That said, I honestly think it was a complete clusterfuck. I do think Sharp's book is a very good resource (at least, if you are playing Germany or Austria) but that is hardly the reason I stabbed UncleSam. Quite simply, I knew that at the time Drawesome couldn't depend on anyone else so I expected him to do as I had asked of him (which to my mistake turned out to be wrong once he got back on his feet), and siding with France would mean that the Juggernaut would have gone unchallenged for quite a while, and during that turn I needed to rely on Outlaw supporting me into Denmark in order to guarantee a build, something which I was rightfully skeptical about. And admittedly, France is harder to invade as England compared to Germany should both countries survive into the lategame with a lot of centers. In that sense, I believe I made the right decision, but I am aware US and DLE were probably planning on winning together as an alliance of best buds, so I can understand why the former might have been pissed at me for crushing his dreams.
Drawesome's stab did take me completely by surprise. Although I did leave Belgium wide open that turn and therefore could see how he could have been enticed by short-term gain, I didn't see how he could have any hope of gaining any additional centers from me beyond that, and he honestly shouldn't have. Kiritsugu subbed in for Russia right as this happened, and at this point both me and Drawesome (or perhaps Agape in his steed, I'm not really sure) attempted to woo him over to our side. An inexperienced player might conclude that siding with Germany is the obvious choice, since at that point I was occupying St. Petersburg. However, any experienced Russian player is generally aware that Germany and Russia might be the two most incompatible powers on the board (rivaled only by Turkey and Austria). I did offer to leave St. Petersburg, and I could understand why a new player would be skeptical of my offer at first and hence try to kick me out of there by force. However, I proved during that turn that my deal was genuine, so a logical Russia player would have had no reason to refuse my offer at that point, especially since Germany had let his guard down due to Russia's actions on the previous turn. This is what Kiritsugu meant in his post: I asked him to help me take Norway back from Germany, and he kept refusing despite how intensely I begged because in his words, he had no intention of betraying anyone, letting alone winning the game. For me, it was an absolutely devastating turn and the final nail in the coffin as far as my chances of winning the game outright were concerned. Had I kept Norway, I would have not had to succumb to losing so many units, and Russia could have dealt with Germany rather easily because his eastern borders were so heavily exposed, allowing me to continue my attack on France unhindered.
My only choice left was to attempt to survive the German onslaught that followed through superior tactics (which I achieved after I tricked Drawesome into thinking I accepted his request to ceasefire) and then hope for a draw, which is precisely what happened. Technically, I still could have won if US had let his guard down, but I'd say he played pretty much perfectly and literally kept me on a leash, putting himself into a position that would prevent me from becoming too strong.
In terms of play, I was very happy that my overall tactics have not become rusty at all over the years, but I still don't quite think this game can be called a good learning experience for the newer players. It sets a bad precedent for players who want to win outright whenever possible, and the ability to stab and cope with being stabbed is a rather vital skill that some players weren't able to develop. If there was anything to blame for all of this, I would say it would be Agape messing up the entire flow of the game with literally every move he made, and in particular providing very bad advice (if you could call it that) to Drawesome, claiming that he was the person who convinced him to stab me right when he did as well as allowing Russia back into Sweden unopposed during one particular turn. I can't say for sure if this was the actual reason for the stab since Drawesome didn't comment on it in his post, but I will say that if I were him I would have either done it much earlier (ie, try to keep me and France against each other as long as possible while making smaller gains here and there), or much later when both of us would have a lot of centers. Admittedly the latter is less preferable since I would have a significant defenders advantage as England, but I will never the less insist that the timing of his stab was incorrect.
Anyway I am not trying to come off as being salty or negative, just wanted to give my honest assessment. I got absolutely crushed in my first two diplomacy games, but I think it was ultimately learning not to be afraid and overly passive that allowed me to get a lot better. Thanks again for hosting, Walrein.
Drawesome's stab did take me completely by surprise. Although I did leave Belgium wide open that turn and therefore could see how he could have been enticed by short-term gain, I didn't see how he could have any hope of gaining any additional centers from me beyond that, and he honestly shouldn't have. Kiritsugu subbed in for Russia right as this happened, and at this point both me and Drawesome (or perhaps Agape in his steed, I'm not really sure) attempted to woo him over to our side. An inexperienced player might conclude that siding with Germany is the obvious choice, since at that point I was occupying St. Petersburg. However, any experienced Russian player is generally aware that Germany and Russia might be the two most incompatible powers on the board (rivaled only by Turkey and Austria). I did offer to leave St. Petersburg, and I could understand why a new player would be skeptical of my offer at first and hence try to kick me out of there by force. However, I proved during that turn that my deal was genuine, so a logical Russia player would have had no reason to refuse my offer at that point, especially since Germany had let his guard down due to Russia's actions on the previous turn. This is what Kiritsugu meant in his post: I asked him to help me take Norway back from Germany, and he kept refusing despite how intensely I begged because in his words, he had no intention of betraying anyone, letting alone winning the game. For me, it was an absolutely devastating turn and the final nail in the coffin as far as my chances of winning the game outright were concerned. Had I kept Norway, I would have not had to succumb to losing so many units, and Russia could have dealt with Germany rather easily because his eastern borders were so heavily exposed, allowing me to continue my attack on France unhindered.
My only choice left was to attempt to survive the German onslaught that followed through superior tactics (which I achieved after I tricked Drawesome into thinking I accepted his request to ceasefire) and then hope for a draw, which is precisely what happened. Technically, I still could have won if US had let his guard down, but I'd say he played pretty much perfectly and literally kept me on a leash, putting himself into a position that would prevent me from becoming too strong.
In terms of play, I was very happy that my overall tactics have not become rusty at all over the years, but I still don't quite think this game can be called a good learning experience for the newer players. It sets a bad precedent for players who want to win outright whenever possible, and the ability to stab and cope with being stabbed is a rather vital skill that some players weren't able to develop. If there was anything to blame for all of this, I would say it would be Agape messing up the entire flow of the game with literally every move he made, and in particular providing very bad advice (if you could call it that) to Drawesome, claiming that he was the person who convinced him to stab me right when he did as well as allowing Russia back into Sweden unopposed during one particular turn. I can't say for sure if this was the actual reason for the stab since Drawesome didn't comment on it in his post, but I will say that if I were him I would have either done it much earlier (ie, try to keep me and France against each other as long as possible while making smaller gains here and there), or much later when both of us would have a lot of centers. Admittedly the latter is less preferable since I would have a significant defenders advantage as England, but I will never the less insist that the timing of his stab was incorrect.
Anyway I am not trying to come off as being salty or negative, just wanted to give my honest assessment. I got absolutely crushed in my first two diplomacy games, but I think it was ultimately learning not to be afraid and overly passive that allowed me to get a lot better. Thanks again for hosting, Walrein.
I don't really understand what Bass wanted Russia to do; it was clearly in Russia's best interests to re-take St. Petersburg, whether by force or you allowing him in. I agree that Russia does not want to see Germany doing well, but Russia also doesn't want to see a huge England. Fostering a war between the two is a strong play, and if Kiritsugu had intended to win it would've been the best play I think. That being said, obviously if he had wanted to win he would've turned on Germany after the Austrian conquest.
In response to what Bass said(no idea how to tag people on here) my stab was meant to be a little more than just taking Belgium. I stabbed around the time that Askaninja subbed in as Russia, and we had agreed to an alliance against Bass because he was so large. Whether or not he would have actually followed through on this I'm not certain, but I trusted in it. Originally, my plan was to stab around the time I "defensively" moved against England. Bass knows exactly what I'm talking about as Russia was supposed to also move and help me but if i recall correctly he was NMR that turn.
Anyways it was cut a little short because of Russia bailing and the original stab was to come sooner than that one. But I knew I had to do it eventually before you got too strong and turned on me.
Anyways it was cut a little short because of Russia bailing and the original stab was to come sooner than that one. But I knew I had to do it eventually before you got too strong and turned on me.
Thank you for clearing that up Drawesome. I initially suspected as such.
Read my post carefully, I wasn't talking about taking St. Petersburg back, it was the turn after where I proved I was going to allow him in anyway. What I took issue with was the turn afterwards when I asked him to turn on Germany and let me have Norway back while leaving St. Petersburg. Turning on Germany after conquering Austria would have been too late anyway since in that scenario, Germany would have had time to solidify his defenses in the east.
Except he didn't; Germany clearly did not have time to solidify his defenses, because conquering England is so difficult for Germany. If Russia had wanted to wait and stab Germany only after Austria is defeated (with Turkey going to Italy), that would have been the smartest play if he wanted to win the game.
My prediction was that Gale would have stabbed both moi and Kiritsugu, and thus forced Drawesome to ceasefire with Forte for a time being. This would have lead Unclesam into an even stronger kingmaker position in the west, which is why I strongly suggested that Germany should try to eliminate France before England.
We could have some sort of scoring system, perhaps like the one they used in IRL diplo tournaments back in the day? That'd encourage solo wins, and tying over getting eliminated.
We could have some sort of scoring system, perhaps like the one they used in IRL diplo tournaments back in the day? That'd encourage solo wins, and tying over getting eliminated.
It feels just so easy to declare games a draw as there doesn't seem to be much incentive not to draw as of now. Changing that in some manner seems ideal.
These are the articles I was thinking of:
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/ftf/race.htm
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/ftf/fred_townsend.htm
From the top of my head I'd think the first link combined with country modifiers of link 2 could be good.
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/ftf/race.htm
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/ftf/fred_townsend.htm
From the top of my head I'd think the first link combined with country modifiers of link 2 could be good.
What about requiring 1) DIAS and 2) max players in a tie at any time?
I think a good start would be to get players who are actually interested in playing the game who aren't flakes and sub out or get emotional and quit. When you get players who are just fucking around with their friends or are just there to fill a spot who aren't actually interested in playing then I feel people who are interested in playing to win no longer want to play and lose interest which leads to the easy out of a draw.
The second means you have to wait until 4 players eliminated before draws are allowed. The DIAS, while it would have been redundant this game, would thus require the 3 remaining players to decide if they really want a tie, or if they can solo it.
How about this solution?
If a draw is proposed the player with the most SCs wins the game. If there are more than one player with the same number of SCs then they are declared joint winners.
----
So its not beneficial for folks with lesser SCs to draw, and draws can be achieved but require more effort to strike a balance in number of SCs between the winners.
Lets say one of the major power is suspicious of the other, in such a scenario the proposal for draw and finishing with equal SCs will also be suspicious, and the future events after the proposal will depend on the players involved.
And the winner at the start of the game will always be Russia, so you can't have 7 way draws either :p
----
Kind of like the 'Nash Equilibrium'? Idk what this system is called though -_-'
If a draw is proposed the player with the most SCs wins the game. If there are more than one player with the same number of SCs then they are declared joint winners.
----
So its not beneficial for folks with lesser SCs to draw, and draws can be achieved but require more effort to strike a balance in number of SCs between the winners.
Lets say one of the major power is suspicious of the other, in such a scenario the proposal for draw and finishing with equal SCs will also be suspicious, and the future events after the proposal will depend on the players involved.
And the winner at the start of the game will always be Russia, so you can't have 7 way draws either :p
----
Kind of like the 'Nash Equilibrium'? Idk what this system is called though -_-'
Why does DLE get a pass?(And France as well? I don't remember anymore. There was two before me and AG quit and it wasn't Maxim.) Subbing is fucking lame. I'm lame for subbing, so is DLE, so is the other person whom I forget.
EDIT: And fuck you, my songs were great.
No subbing allowed would be amazing. Cause then you don't get totally different mindsets abruptly changing the game. That is why I quit. It's plum stupid to keep playing when your game gets toasted by a new personality added to the mix that wasn't there to begin with. If Bass had been England from the start I would have been extremely less salty. Why should I bother when two original players aren't there anymore? I shouldn't.
Oh, also: I didn't want to SUB, I tried to FORFEIT, and that was to produce a specific tactical/strategic result that ONLY a forfeit could acquire. Specifically, allowing a rapid growth against the English/German offensive. The growth, which my continued presence in the game precluded. So, don't call me lame for subbing. If you think forfeit-for-a-specific-result is lame, call out that instead.