Diplomacy; The board game. (+)

[payn]

This is a + thread intended to discuss Diplomacy from folks who like the game. I know its highly divisive, and if it boils your blood, please just move on.

Wondering if there are any EN Worlders that fancy a game of Diplomacy? A simple game, that requires a deft strategy in navigating alliances and breaking stalemates. Widely released back in 1959, Diplomacy was second to chess in its frequency of play by mail circles. The game doesn't feature dice or cards or any random element. Its pure beauty lies in the need to work together to gain momentum, and eventually work against those alliances when the timing calls for it.

I was introduced about 20 years ago and was fascinated by its design. I marvel at all the combinations of alliances and the large body of study on the strengths and weaknesses. Often, games never came close to finishing as it is difficult to do in a single sitting. With negotiation turns and having up to 6 other players to chat with every round, the time to complete was prohibited. about 8 years ago I found an online site called playdiplomacy.com that took the game online. This actually works wondrously as you can privately email the other players and the automation resolves all player moves at the timer deadline. A great way to play the game without having to spend an entire single afternoon to enjoy Diplomacy. The online circles even have score rankings to show how experienced a player is at the game. scoring based on size of map conquered before a stalemate is achieved. It's also great to see other games progress turn by turn online, al beit, without seeing the communication between players.

I have seen a few interesting variants. One is called "Woodrow Wilson" in which all diplomacy is done in the open at the table. Its a little awkward seeing everybody say something like, "we can all agree Italy is boned" Though, it makes performing a stab (inevitable moment a player turns on another breaking their alliance) much more difficult. Though removes a little of the shroud of war that communication has in the standard game. Another is "gunboat" which has no communication at all. All players simply turn in orders each round and that game plays out. The interesting bit here is that you have to intuit what other players are intending and it can lead to some rather chaotic rounds as things naturally go awry.

So, lets get to the discussion.

• What is your preferred way to play Diplomacy?
• What are your Diplomacy experiences?
• What are your favorite alliances to form at early, mid, and late game?
• Last, but not least, why do you love Diplomacy?

 

[Meech17]

I've never played Diplomacy, but it's something I'd like to try.

My current D&D group+ some others have gotten together twice now to play some different Social Deduction games, like Werewolf, or Coup. I've been thinking about trying to get them all together to play it.

I will have to check out the website you shared.

 

[payn]

I've never played Diplomacy, but it's something I'd like to try.

My current D&D group+ some others have gotten together twice now to play some different Social Deduction games, like Werewolf, or Coup. I've been thinking about trying to get them all together to play it.

I will have to check out the website you shared.

A few things, Diplomacy can take a long time to play. I'd discuss that with your friends. One thing you can do is set a timer for each turn that lasts 5-10min so turns dont drag on. The pros of this is it ensures that a lot of turns happen. The con is it gets chaotic as you race around the house/store/play area talking to all the other players. You could also play naturally and if you dont finish, record positions, and pick it up again next time. Obviously, the con here is folks need to be on board and not get bogged down in lost momentum from session to session.

I do really think the ideal way to play is via internet site like playdiplomacy.com. Turn clocks can be whatever you want, but I found 24 hour clocks to be pretty good. This allows folks to work, hang with family, get stuff done and engage the game when they have time. You can also have as detailed or not messages passed via email. Yes it takes a long time to play a game, but it gives everyone ample time to strategize and focus on a single game from start to finish.

Good luck, let me know how things develop!

 

[Blue]

Back in the 80s I played a good amount of diplomacy. The "style" I think I liked best was an extended variant at a summer program, where we took a turn after breakfast, another after lunch, another mid-afternoon, dinner, and evening. Gave plenty of time away from the table where people could talk.

Tried playing in 2022 after likely two decades of not playing it (and playing lots of Eurogames, co-op games, and other things that I had no exposure to in the 80s) and the grand "sit down and play all day" was not a style I liked. Diplomacy rounds were both too short, especially when you're trying to talk to someone who has to talk to several other countries, and too long that it took all day. I'm not saying that to knock the game, just that stylistically I think I got the most out of it when played over a long period with set "make your move" times. I think that means that it would also work great for PbP or email play.

I really liked the lack of randomness. If you had perfect information you would know everything. But it's just how good your information is that is one of the major thrusts of the game, the other being that you can't win by yourself so you will need to conduct Diplomacy. ( Title drop. ) Some in good faith, but backstabbing seems like it is often a necessary component to win as well.

 

[payn]

Back in the 80s I played a good amount of diplomacy. The "style" I think I liked best was an extended variant at a summer program, where we took a turn after breakfast, another after lunch, another mid-afternoon, dinner, and evening. Gave plenty of time away from the table where people could talk.

Tried playing in 2022 after likely two decades of not playing it (and playing lots of Eurogames, co-op games, and other things that I had no exposure to in the 80s) and the grand "sit down and play all day" was not a style I liked. Diplomacy rounds were both too short, especially when you're trying to talk to someone who has to talk to several other countries, and too long that it took all day. I'm not saying that to knock the game, just that stylistically I think I got the most out of it when played over a long period with set "make your move" times. I think that means that it would also work great for PbP or email play.

Agreed, Diplomacy needs time to breathe making it not ideal for a random board game night.

I really liked the lack of randomness. If you had perfect information you would know everything. But it's just how good your information is that is one of the major thrusts of the game, the other being that you can't win by yourself so you will need to conduct Diplomacy. ( Title drop. ) Some in good faith, but backstabbing seems like it is often a necessary component to win as well.

Yeah stab philosophy is interesting. Some folks try and use an alliance and then exploit it by getting the ally to place their forces in a vulnerable position. I usually avoid it by asking for a long term strategy, and if the ally cant provide it, I start making counter suggestions. If an ally suddenly goes quiet, or avoids discussing my inquiries in detail, I assume a stab is incoming and take defensive maneuvers. Every game is quite exciting.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Diplomacy. Okay.... so I've often talked it like this-

Saturday Morning: Hey everyone, it's so great we could get together for a gaming weekend. Let's play Diplomacy! That will be awesome and fun!

Sometime Sunday Morning, probably around 2am: I hate all of you and I'm not speaking to any of you for at least a month.

I joke, kind of. That said, it's been a long time since I've played Diplomacy. It really requires something I don't have a lot of- time.* But back in my more youthful days, I played it a fair amount on breaks, vacations, etc., with friends. And yes, it would require multiple days.

It was a lot of fun, but you had to be prepared for betrayal. You really had to have a "gamer's mindset" for it. We had one person in the group who, after a particularly vicious (and spectacular!) betrayal from an ally ... refused to play the game again.

It really brings home a lot of game theory, and issues about cooperation and trust.



*All evidence from this website to the contrary!

 

[billd91]

I've enjoyed Diplomacy, both remote and in-person around a table. I first played it in high school and then a fair amount in college. I do find that I need to be in the mood for it these days.

A game with some similar dynamics is Republic of Rome because you've got an expressly political phase where you may need to raise troops, pass land bills to appease the people, or apportion concessions, all while players angle to be consul for life and the game directly works against the players by generating wars and disasters. If you like Diplomacy and you get a chance, check it out.

 

[grimmgoose]

I played a game of Diplomacy with my coworkers back in 2018. The game was one turn per day. The assumption was that it would be a nice quick game to play at lunch.

It turned the entire office into Game of Thrones. The amount of lies, backstabbing, secret alliances, and staring at a map was incredible. Productivity plummeted for the two weeks we played. People invented flags, wrote up 'official' treaties. It was a whole ordeal.

We never finished it, but I still have the map saved on my phone. We all work from home now, so the chances of revisiting it is unlikely, but it was a hell of a time.

 

[payn]

Any alliances that folks have experience with?

I have tried a few. The best I've tried is the;

The Anglo-Saxon (England + Germany)​

England and Germany ally a little more frequently than England and France, because England and France are both naval powers, while Germany is traditionally a land-based power. However this alliance will have to be very patient, when fighting the French. A good French player will be able to last until approximately spring 1904. France has a strong defensive position, due to the impassable Swiss territory. While finishing, or while attacking France, England and Germany turn against Russia. Then England can continue against Italy, while Germany crosses the stalemate line and attacks Austria.

I've heard the Anglo-Saxon also referred to as the "elephant and the Whale". The alliance works well because England fleets up and Germany builds ground forces. Making it difficult to invade one another, thus holding off untimely stabs and alliance collapse.

I have also tried the;

Top-of-the-World Sweep (England + Russia)​

This alliance is one of great ease and effectiveness if used correctly. With Russia and England both at the "top of the world", they can sweep downwards without stop, crushing Germany, Austria-Hungary, France and sometimes Italy and Turkey. Russia advancing into Germany, Austria-Hungary, and sometimes Turkey, it claims the Eastern world. England can make its way down the coast and into France, completely dominating if it can get its navies into the water fast enough. And once it has claimed France, Italy will be the next to easily go, since it will generally be attacked by Austria-Hungary and France at the beginning of the game. But here's where the hard part comes in. Russia and England both border Germany, which is a key spot in attacking both Austria-Hungary and France. Also, these are both big countries, and though they are supporting each other, it can get tricky and tensions can get high if Turkey decides to attack Russia. England can't do anything. And if France attacks England and is winning, Russia really can't help at all either since it would have to cross English territory and therefore make a seemingly aggressive attack on England. Overall, this is a great alliance if they can pull it off properly. If not, they will most likely fight each other to the death.

Seem to work out well at first, but it collapsed and I was forced to stab as England as my Russian partner began to panic about their southern and western fronts. I was forced to side with France after an agreed DMZ at start of the game. We struggled to bust Germany, which we finally did and then France tried to get cute forcing me to stab them (which resulted in a rage quit). Eventual stalemate formed at the typical western and eastern triangle.

 

[TwoSix]

I only played it once, in college, and it took a little over 8 hours. One of the best TT experiences I've ever had.