by blazebbc » 09 Nov 2018, 20:27
I generally agree with what has been said, but... I add a layer. I try to tell the truth (or a version of it) to everybody. And, I attempt to hold alliances with everybody possible. I am not in any games as France right now, so I'll use that as an example.
1901: I offer alliances to Germany and England separately. Both are genuine offers: I don't care with whom I ally. I'll see who agrees and/or seems to be the more suitable ally. At that point, I will continue to talk with the other as an ally, hoping to learn his specific moves and take full advantage of them. If the duplicity can be continued into the fall or even 1902, I will do that. However should their be an opportunity to attack, I will. I prefer to attack early as it secures an alliance.
Meanwhile, I create peace with Italy and set an agreement that we work together later. I keep stroking this relationship until the time comes to turn on another player. (Germany?) I do the same with Austria and Turkey. I also try to work closely with Russia. I want to know when he plans to come west. I'll set up agreements with him to move against either Germany or England depending on who remains. as soon as he is ready to come west. Etc.
So as France, in 1901, I try to cement alliances something like this: F-G, F-E, F-I-R, F-T,, F-G-A... Etc. I honor all of these alliances truthfully, until forces to make a decision- i.e. move against a new opponent. When I do that, the player I attack might feel betrayed, but the rest of the board thinks that I am doing nothing more than fulfilling my end of the alliances. Throughout, I do not consider myself to be lying to any of the allies. I honestly do not now which alliance I will honor down the road. So, I put forth a significant effort maintaining them all until I have to make a decision. This allows me flexibility should something unexpected happen on the other side of the board or should I get stabbed.
Of course, once I know whom I must attack, I continue to work with that person - deceiving them - so that I know precisely where their units are going to be at the chosen moment. I do not often count the number of centers in a stab. Rather, I look at what type of response there will be to my stab, both strategically and diplomatically. If my stab will result on infuriating two of my other allies, I had better be certain that I am going to be strong enough to overcome a fight with both of them. In this case, even a three-center stab can be a bad idea. If, however, I am going to be cheered on by all of my other allies - and I have a clear and unheeded path to home supply centers, a zero-center stab can be very effective.
Post-stab communication... This varies for me, depending on what I want the results to be. For instance, if my stab will put me in a very strong position, making other allies nervous, I might be a touch condescending to the player I stabbed, so that s/he focuses his forces on me - and leaves his backside open for my ally, helping him to equalize in power. If I would rather have a janissary, I might say that I could not resist the temptation, put it all on myself and offer to keep the player around. This can all be really delicate - and, whatever my post-stab communication, I need to be ready to deal with full fury of whomever I stabbed. If I have done my job well previously in the game, I can predict the other player's behavior.
If you want to win at this game (not draw), you will have to lie and deceive the other players. No other player will agree to let you win outright in 1901. If you are happy to have two and three-way draws every game, you will have some success by never lying. However, if you happen to have somebody like me as a partner, you might find yourself painfully cut out of a draw.
I find that there is no one path that always brings victory... I have games where I find it best to stick with my initial ally almost all game. (i.e. F-E until the near end.) In others, the alliance I keep the longest might be one form across the board. (i.e. F-T until I cross the main stalemate line in two places.). I never know what path the game will take.
I don't have enough games here to amount to much of a record, but I am the #9 player on Bounced. Here are my numbers:
In 83 total games (68 starts, 15 replacements), I have 21 solos and 23 draws of various types - only one two-way draw. Most of the replacements were losses as I don't mind picking up bad positions for the challenge of it. I believe all 21 of my solos were form games I started. I don't like picking up strong surrendered positions - it feels cheap to me. (My two games completed on this site so far - at least since the new scoring system - were one center Italy positions, from which I was pretty quickly eliminated.)
Ally Extraordinaire
Intermational Medal of Honor Recipient