Solos

[Carebear]

Here I was chiding Rick for being a little off-topic (even knowingly so) and a raging bull (thewysecat) blundered into the china shop.

Viva the FITofRAGE 7-Way Alliance! *tongue firmly in cheek*

Is it allegedly being off-topic that truly bothers you? I don't think so. That said, I'll happily start a new thread if you are willing to commit to actually discussing the ideas at play in that thread. In written communication it can be hard to discern intent sometimes, but otherwise this just looks like mischaracterisation and *head firmly in sand*

Why start a new thread, go post on one the several already existing ones...

[thewysecat]

Why start a new thread, go post on one the several already existing ones...

Cite three where you or anyone else has offered that Dip is not a fully competitive game. That's what you asserted in this thread without evidence and to which I responded.

I contend that not playing for a solo is contrary to your VCs and that playing any game contrary to your VCs is being a dick to the other players since you have lied to them in a RL sense.

Since you disagree. Show the basis of your disagreement. Is it that you contend your play is congruent with your VCs? Or do you contend that it is perfectly acceptable to sign up for a game and then play to amended VCs of your own devising?

Perhaps cite some posts in one of these threads that you feel adequately does the job if offering a post here is redundant in your view.

[rick.leeds]

Personally, I think if you are going into a game without aiming to solo, then that isn't how the game is 'supposed' to be played... but that is opening up a huge debate that has no answer, so I'll skirt around that.

Wouldn't skirting it have been better done by not mentioning it in the first place.

Perhaps the best way to look at it is to go into a game aiming to get the best possible result... which IS the solo victory, of course, [...]

Yet you persist. There are fully cooperative games like Pandemic. There are fully competitive games like Puerto Rico. There are mixed competitive/cooperative games like Battlestar Galactica. I think Diplomacy best falls into the third category. So, while a solo is nice and can be one's sole goal, depending on one's philosophical outlook it does not have to be the sole goal.

First, to be clear, I don't understand why you think I am off-topic, here? The OP asked:

How does one go about playing a game from the off, knowing that they're going to go for a solo?

My comments were addressing that.

This IS an old debate, which is why I didn't expand on it, so I'm not going any deeper than I already have. To suggest it's off-topic to mention what the primary object of the game actually is, a solo, when the question is about soloing makes it seem to me, Carebear, that you simply didn't like me mentioning it. Of course, I could be wrong about that reading... it happens occasionally.

[marsman57]

You have to understand that players will say something like "so-and-so is gunning for the solo" in order to discredit your diplomatic efforts. They want to remind you or other players that they believe your promise to "get the x-way draw" is empty. This cold water splash can cause allies to get fickle and further the other party's game.

Some people genuinely get angry if you stab them after a long alliance as well and will make no bones about telling you that they are. I think the important thing with such people is to burn the bridge when you are ready to convert to victory. If you burn it early and get stopped, there is little chance you will be able to get them back on your side as they'll let another party solo just to spite you.

As for playing for the solo, I think the only real tip I have is to not make alliances that cut off all of your growth opportunities if you think you still have a shot of a solo victory.