jay65536 wrote:jimbobicus wrote:In all my games of diplomacy on this site, this has to be in my opinion the worst I've seen. Although I have noticed a growing trend in this direction of what I'll term "personality politics". In this game England, France, Germany had all decided to stick to each other come what may. Not even interested in discussing the board and looking for other alliances. They just thought "who do I like the most" and go with that.
My perspective on this is as someone who plays FtF, where this can sometimes also be a thing.
The thing about this dynamic is, the top players are using it to their advantage.
In this game, Pootleflump didn't let her "stick[ing] with" her 2 allies get in the way of what she wanted to do. When you look at the game from an outsider's perspective, she did exactly what you're supposed to do in this game--find allies who would not stab her, have them help her get past the stalemate line, then stab them for their centers. So how is Pootle's game tainted by "personality politics"? She is playing the game.
I think what you're annoyed at is the fact that you were playing with at least 2 players on whom the techniques she used worked. And as someone whose 2 favorite games are Diplomacy and poker, I have to tell you, if you are going to take it personally when bad players play badly, you may as well just quit the game. I don't consider myself a top Diplomacy player--yet--but I do know this: if you want to be a top player, you have to adapt your methods of persuasion to your opponents, not just bail when they don't respond as you like.
Oh dear, reluctantly...I guess I must defend my failed strategy in this game (failure is always a challenge to justify). It was never about personality issues as Jimbobicus claims. I’ve never played with Pootleflump before (or since) & she did nothing in this game to establish “absolute” trust as is being postulated. I had played with RD45 once before, but stabbed him, so had no reason to “absolutely” trust him either.
WT alliances as Germany are challenging, especially against quality opposition & I almost never attempt them, but this time I did for multiple reasons that for the purposes of this discussion are irrelevant.
Once you start there isn’t much turning back for Germany, it’s all or nothing from S01. The tactics have to be spot on, the communication excellent, the ruses to confuse the enemy well executed. If Germany doesn’t cross the stalemate line at least as far as Vienna, then it stalls. I usually have to win Moscow as well, but that can subsequently become English. Germany’s role is to win the fight, otherwise you’re of zero value to your two allies & it ain’t easy.
So why do such a crazy stunt if all that happens is you get stabbed by E or F once you’ve achieved the objectives? Because the defense is not based on being able to protect Germany from assault at all times. When all 3 alliance partners are the same side of the stalemate line, then to stab one with the collaboration of the remaining ally should send massive alarm bells ringing. It’s not possible that could be a 2-way attempt (as was successfully pulled off in this game by France). Turkey is still there & it’s crazy to start a civil war amongst the three, before the enemies are reduced to ruins. It has to be a solo attempt & not only that, in many cases a deal has been struck with the remaining eastern power (in this case Turkey). Plan being the westerners get whittled, with his cooperation as necessary, to achieve a 2-way including Turkey.
Germany is sadly at times during a WT attempt in a position where his only defense against France is England & his only defense against England is France. It is only the threat of repercussions should a stab be attempted that saves Germany, until sufficient builds are gathered to pursue the attack east & simultaneously defend Germany. A situation I nearly achieved (but nearly ain’t good enough). My contingency plan that France wouldn’t dare stab Germany was a a real strategic tool, but that also failed for reasons I didn’t anticipate, or discover until it was way too late, so I lost.
England had decided to take a Dip break for personal reasons. It was agreed that a 2-way EF would be an appropriate send off & for some reason England never did the strategic analysis to see that the odds France was not lying were close to zero. My help England to solo stunt if betrayed by France, never got off the ground. I know what I could/should have done to avert the disaster that followed (every defeat carries with it lessons for future avoidance) but it has nothing, I say absolutely nothing, to do with this personality politics bullshit diatribe that Jimbobicus continues to throw up.
I had a plan, it went well, I had a fallback plan if trouble came my way, it failed, I lost, but I can only blame myself for failure to implement the strategy & diplomacy correctly. It wasn’t anyone else’s fault but mine, but what I got wrong has nothing to do with anything Jimbobicus spouts on about. He loves to blame someone else for everything that goes wrong for him. I always blame myself for my failures, but importantly see what really went wrong, not what in my opinion, blind fools say you got wrong. This failure had everything to do with poor EG diplomacy on my part. If I get that right, France cannot pull off the solo she achieved. All credit to France, she saw an opportunity & took it, she may have even identified my lapse & if so, even more well done.
Importantly even in a most unfortunate failure situation, there was no pathetic petulance from Germany in PP. I didn’t (& don’t) blame England for letting France solo. It’s as much my fault due to poor communication. I didn’t either threaten to quit, or more incredibly actually do it! I don’t mind getting enlightened criticism from talented players, but average quitters can keep their feeble abuse to themselves.