Diplomacy Master Thread- Helping Your Opponents Beat Themselves

[Shoot the Moon]

Man, we are way too soft on CFC. We need to take a harder stance at some point.

If someone can demonstrate:

1) What exactly "take a harder stance" means
2) How it helps us win the game

I'd be a lot more open to it.

1) It means we quit ignoring their deliberate provocations and we start dealing honestly with them. They don't respect us because our messages to their team so far have told them not to. Pretending not to see what they very intentionally put in front of us does not benefit us at all. They want to do this diplomatic dance with us and we are completely ignoring their movements. That's not going to give us what we want at any sort of price we'd be willing to pay. Instead we're acting oblivious to their signals and desperate as well.

2) It helps us win the game in the same way that diplomacy will ever help us win the game, but the route we've taken so far with this team has delivered pretty lousy results in return. Maybe those results were unavoidable, but they have done a number of unfortunate things that we could have potentially avoided if we weren't telling them to walk all over us with every message we send them. If we want to make any sort of diplomatic deals with them in the future, or if we'd like them to adhere to the ones they already did, we need to be willing to play their game.

The vibe that our team is sending to CFC is a mix between insecurity and dishonesty/obliviousness. (The only time I can think when we would actually want to send that impression is if we actually were planning an imminent attack on them, which we aren't.)

BGN and others say it better than I do, but we aren't gaining anything at all by continuing to send them nicey nice messages in response to deliberate provocations.

First, I don't think your one is specific enough. I think what scooter meant is what would a message look like--propose a draft say and then defend it as helping us. Second, and more importantly, I think your statement that our diplomacy has produced bad results is simply wrong. We have had a secure border that has allowed us to expand aggressively in other directions. It is also worth noting we were able to secure a fair amount of what would otherwise be "their" land without significant diplo ramifications. As I see it there is one major and one minor area where our diplo didn't produce ideal results for our team. First, we would have preferred their border city in a different location but didn't achieve that. We also had to give a couple resource gifts for an NAP, but that is the minor one to me. In comparison to the benefits our diplo has accrued with them, I'd say it has in no way been a failure--for me, the successes far outweigh those two shortcomings. Considering that our current diplo has kept us out of war with them, while a harder line risks that, I don't see taking a hard line as advantageous at all.

[antisocialmunky]

How about we just smile if they contact us again and respond as if nothing has happened while secretly plotting their downfall somehow with WePlanConflicts and Civ-Span or something? Too many people here just want to act out thoughtlessly, overtly, and immediately while we should be deliberate, subtle, and patient.

You guys did see me implode in that one PB from trying to get revenge right? Just play the game as best you can, make a note to pay CFC back (if you care that much and can't let go), and grind them under your goose stepping jack boots when you are taking over the world or vote for an AP cheese win to spite them if it all goes to hell.

[Sullla]

Pulled over from the other threads - let's try and contact WPC to talk to them about this upcoming war. We want to make sure that they're ready to go on Turn 150 and check up on their war plans. Obviously we're hoping that they exchange a bunch of units with the Germans in bloody fashion while achieving nothing in terms of territory, but they don't have to know that.

[Yell0w]

I still don't get the CFC hate.

This goes over diplomacy or use for our team, this sounds personal to me. Don't get personal in politics.

So far they have held every agreement
They don't word their messages very smooth like we do, after we discuss almost every message lengthly (which is good, I hope).
And maybe they aren't as good at hiding their zeal in winning as we are, or they even have malicious intent, but I really don't think they would break a NAP in this diplomacy game. The outfall no matter who wins the argument about a broken NAP in the end hurts them most. It doesn't only hurt them ingame but as organizers of this game and as a community. They are a team too... I'm just guessing now but don't you think there would be quite a few unhappy people over there if their team breaks a NAP, even if some would say it is justified.

[Boldly Going Nowhere]

I still don't get the CFC hate.

This goes over diplomacy or use for our team, this sounds personal to me. Don't get personal in politics.

So far they have held every agreement
They don't word their messages very smooth like we do, after we discuss almost every message lengthly (which is good, I hope).
And maybe they aren't as good at hiding their zeal in winning as we are, or they even have malicious intent, but I really don't think they would break a NAP in this diplomacy game. The outfall no matter who wins the argument about a broken NAP in the end hurts them most. It doesn't only hurt them ingame but as organizers of this game and as a community. They are a team too... I'm just guessing now but don't you think there would be quite a few unhappy people over there if their team breaks a NAP, even if some would say it is justified.

Understand he difference between spirit and intent of an agreement vs. the letter of the agreement. They play to the letter in poor faith, and do this consistently.

[spacetyrantxenu]

What you're saying is rational, but I kinda hate these guys, insofar as you can hate random people on the Internet that you don't know. Their style in this game is grating and I want them to die a horrible death in game. Is that making it personal? Maybe, and I'm sure it isn't the most productive way to approach the game. But I'm going to get immense satisfaction when/if we can destroy these guys later on. We have to set goals, right? Some people want to win the game and nothing else matters. I think winning is a great goal, too, but I really want to kill these guys at some point. My point of view is obviously why I'm a small (minority!!!) voice in this team. A lot of people here have more tolerance and forbearance than I do and are able to hold a more steady and rational viewpoint, keeping things in perspective, all that jazz.

I just want to do this (the audio is what I'm after) : We just crushed their face!

[Shoot the Moon]

I still don't get the CFC hate.

This goes over diplomacy or use for our team, this sounds personal to me. Don't get personal in politics.

So far they have held every agreement
They don't word their messages very smooth like we do, after we discuss almost every message lengthly (which is good, I hope).
And maybe they aren't as good at hiding their zeal in winning as we are, or they even have malicious intent, but I really don't think they would break a NAP in this diplomacy game. The outfall no matter who wins the argument about a broken NAP in the end hurts them most. It doesn't only hurt them ingame but as organizers of this game and as a community. They are a team too... I'm just guessing now but don't you think there would be quite a few unhappy people over there if their team breaks a NAP, even if some would say it is justified.

Understand he difference between spirit and intent of an agreement vs. the letter of the agreement. They play to the letter in poor faith, and do this consistently.

Examples from this game being what besides the marble thing?

[scooter]

Message from WPC:

Greetings to our brothers in arms,

I hope your preparations are well underway.
Our main turnplayer, Beta, is writing a detailed war plan for your comments at this moment.

While we wait for that, I would like to discuss about the NAP contract between our nations.
We would like to extend the NAP, to lets say turn 200 for starters.
Would you agree with this proposal?

Best regards,
proviisori of WPC

[scooter]

WHat do you guys think about sending a cropped version of that screenshot showing the German stack composition at the WPC border? I think we should.

[kjn]

WHat do you guys think about sending a cropped version of that screenshot showing the German stack composition at the WPC border? I think we should.

Give me a moment, and I can set up my report on the German army. Including garrisons and so on.