things looking grim from '01

> Every once in a while I have a game where I know from
> the initial round of negotiations that I'm in really
> bad trouble...
>
> What are strategies to use in that situation?

If you must roll, try to roll in one direction.

For any position, but especially those with stronger offense than
defense... Pick one enemy and go for the jugular. Very few alliances can
stand the strain of the knowledge that one power is going to emerge
weakened. Let the victim know that the only way out is to completely
burn bridges with his key ally and point out *almost* every possible way
in which he could get stabbed or jabbed. Warn the beneficiary of your
aggression about the consequences of early leader syndrome, but only if
you think that you can get through to him. Feel free to beg, cajole,
manipulate or even throw a tantrum if you really think all is lost, but
it's better to show what a good ally you'd be by maintaining clear and
specific communication.

For a strong defensive power - Dig in. I've taken France to 1910
against an unshakable GE alliance. Although it's possible to force
France as early as 1905, I don't think that my results were unusual.
Five game years is at least 5 weeks in a typical judge game or hand
adjudicated PBEM game. A lot can happen in that time. Even in a face to
face game, a couple hours of that kind of tension can be brutal.

Always look for allies in unexpected places as well as securing
traditional allies. You need to warn the other side of the board about
what happens if the action shakes out too quickly in your corner. When
Germany tells your Austria, "I don't know what you expect me to do for
you," then tell him... If he doesn't then march up through TYR with
French assistance and make Germany your temporary base until IRT have
had a falling out. If you're A, R or even T then you want England
threatening the Med. If you're in the north then you want to try to
get Italy into the Atlantic... Even if Turkey is threatening
your Russia, you want the pressure on England to ally with France
rather than Germany.

In a board-wide web of alliances disrupting one alliance is
likely to disrupt the one that is annoying you the most. Find a
co-victim, even if it's someone you can't help strategically, and work
together on a propaganda strategy to disrupt the others opposition.

One final alliance breaker... Present entirely different faces to two
allies. When they talk, they will become convinced that the other is
lying about you.

Chris
 >> Stay informed about: things looking grim from '01 

> >One final alliance breaker... Present entirely different faces to two
> >allies. When they talk, they will become convinced that the other is
> >lying about you.
>
> That's a really good one, Chris, so many people forget that one. You
> can look at different faces in a couple of different ways. Here are
> only some:
>
> 1) Act completely insane to one player and absolutely sane and
> rational to the other.

That was the primary thing I had in mind.

> The only worry I've had with this one is
> that the one you're acting completely insane with frequently will just
> start passing your letters to the other player.

Not a worry. Since it is possible to fabricate (as you point out), you
already have reasonable doubt. Forwarding or even providing
substantial excerpts of press is usually considered poor form. Asking
for it even more so.

> 2) You can present completely different potential attack/alliance
> structures to your opponents, but this gets resolved very quickly
> when you have to move. I've usually not been able to make this work
> very well as a result.

You have to lie about your intentions, not your moves. To be successful
you need to be either thinking at least 2 years ahead or counting tempi
for a specific goal (such as crossing a stalemate line or doubling back
through a DMZ). I know *how* to do this, but since I only play a couple
games a year I haven't had a chance to do it.

You can also lie by telling the truth unconvincingly. You're England in
an EG and you want to delay Russia helping France. Tell Russia that you
have an unshakable alliance with Germany and there's no way that you'd
exploit that 50/50 chance at a given German SC even though you know
there is no way that Germany is going to cover it. Russia is convinced
that you *are* going to take the jab. He leaks it to Germany and
proceeds the take care of business in the east thinking that his
diplomacy job is done in the west. You honor your commitment to your
alliance with Germany and gain cred with your ally. If he took the
bait, you add diplomatic leverage and tempo to your position within the
alliance. Russia is off at least 2 moves as far as western involvement
is concerned and loses credibility with Germany. You win all the way
around because only the most paranoid individual in the world is going
to believe that you had anything to gain by being truthful in that
situation... and that much paranoia is mutually exclusive of believing
you or anyone else.

> 3) You can be completely honest with one player and repeatedly lie to
> another player, this is aimed at finally building up trust with
> player 1. This really quickly becomes almost a different strategy
> since it is unlikely that the second player is going to keep
> reporting your messages as fact to player 1.

It's a mistake to act as though all the action is in one corner of the
board. You single out *one* player to which you show the less desirable
set of behaviors. You can be *especially* cooperative to one player in
the alliance you are trying to bust, but you need the back channel
communication to reinforce the positive view, not the negative.

Speaking of "back channel", allies that aren't in your immediate
theater of operations can still help you in this way if you can
persuade them to be so inclined.

> I'm interested to see if Chris had other ideas in mind about the
> "faces"?

You hit the main ones, Jim, but there are some subtler means. You can
tell everyone the same thing, but vary *how* you tell some. Report
rumors with differing degrees of assertiveness, for example. If you
look at the board, you can often tell another player what someone else
is going to do. If you're wrong then it's only because your source
lied. You can get away with that a couple times before you have to
abandon your source. If you make solid claims of intel to one player
and act like you're guessing to another, you can craft versions of
yourself that behave according to the facts without necessarily being
truthful. While both 'faces' conform to the facts, they cannot be
reconciled one to the other.

Chris
 >> Stay informed about: things looking grim from '01 

Chris Babcock <cbabcock.DeleteThis@cox.net> writes:


>One final alliance breaker... Present entirely different faces to two
>allies. When they talk, they will become convinced that the other is
>lying about you.

>Chris

That's a really good one, Chris, so many people forget that one. You can
look at different faces in a couple of different ways. Here are only
some:

1) Act completely insane to one player and absolutely sane and rational to
the other. The only worry I've had with this one is that the one you're
acting completely insane with frequently will just start passing your
letters to the other player. The best way to deal with that is to go back
in "sane mode" to the second player and say, "wow, it sounds like he has
really gone off the deep end and started fabricating letters from me, I
never wrote anything like that". But this gets VERY tricky since you have
to assuage player 2's worry that you are really like that, but you can't
do it until he's told you enough to credibly deny it, otherwise you're
proving you knew about the letter to player 1.

2) You can present completely different potential attack/alliance
structures to your opponents, but this gets resolved very quickly when you
have to move. I've usually not been able to make this work very well as a
result.

3) You can be completely honest with one player and repeatedly lie to
another player, this is aimed at finally building up trust with player 1.
This really quickly becomes almost a different strategy since it is
unlikely that the second player is going to keep reporting your messages
as fact to player 1.

I'm interested to see if Chris had other ideas in mind about the "faces"?

Jim-Bob
 >> Stay informed about: things looking grim from '01 

In article <fihrtf$32u$1@pcls6.std.com>,
Jim Burgess <burgess.RemoveThis@TheWorld.com> wrote:

>1) Act completely insane to one player and absolutely sane and rational to
>the other. The only worry I've had with this one is that the one you're
>acting completely insane with frequently will just start passing your
>letters to the other player.

Should be easier in FTF then. I've really never experimented with
trying to sound crazy, other than the mad-dog "touch me and we
both die" form which is not really craziness at all in a local
gaming community.

>2) You can present completely different potential attack/alliance
>structures to your opponents, but this gets resolved very quickly when you
>have to move. I've usually not been able to make this work very well as a
>result.

I've seldom found lies which are revealed in the same season
useful for anything but tactical gain. Alliances take a while to
bear fruit.

>3) You can be completely honest with one player and repeatedly lie to
>another player, this is aimed at finally building up trust with player 1.
>This really quickly becomes almost a different strategy since it is
>unlikely that the second player is going to keep reporting your messages
>as fact to player 1.

Theoretically speaking, "She's lying to everyone but me" doesn't sound
like a good conclusion for an ally to reach, since "How do I know she
isn't lying to me, too?" follows naturally on its heels.... But in
practice this one has worked just fine for me, as part of a general
"*You* are near and dear to my heart, the rest of them are just
pawns to be played" negotiating strategy. Enlisting #1 in helping
you lie to #2, thereby making yourself seem vulnerable to him, has
its uses.

I am, regrettably, a patsy for "You are near and dear to my heart"
myself. So I know how strong it can be.

But for me this is a tactic for an already-established alliance.
If #1 and #2 are allied to each other and not to you, my
experience is that #1 will tend to stop listening once he knows
you're lying to #2. Maybe this is less apparent in internet
play, where the cost of talking is lower. In timed FTF, talk is
a limited resource and most players won't spend it on a conversation
that doesn't look rewarding.

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner.RemoveThis@eskimo.com
 >> Stay informed about: things looking grim from '01 

mkkuhner DeleteThis @kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:

>In article <fihrtf$32u$1@pcls6.std.com>,
>Jim Burgess <burgess DeleteThis @TheWorld.com> wrote:

>>1) Act completely insane to one player and absolutely sane and rational to
>>the other. The only worry I've had with this one is that the one you're
>>acting completely insane with frequently will just start passing your
>>letters to the other player.

>Should be easier in FTF then. I've really never experimented with
>trying to sound crazy, other than the mad-dog "touch me and we
>both die" form which is not really craziness at all in a local
>gaming community.

Let your inner insanity out to play! I've had people very seriously
accuse me of trying to make them insane. I can be pretty annoyingly out
there when I want to be (anyone around here want to admit when I did it to
them??). FTF though, people can see your gestures etc., but still, yes,
I've done this FTF too.

>>2) You can present completely different potential attack/alliance
>>structures to your opponents, but this gets resolved very quickly when you
>>have to move. I've usually not been able to make this work very well as a
>>result.

>I've seldom found lies which are revealed in the same season
>useful for anything but tactical gain. Alliances take a while to
>bear fruit.

Yup. I agree.

>>3) You can be completely honest with one player and repeatedly lie to
>>another player, this is aimed at finally building up trust with player 1.
>>This really quickly becomes almost a different strategy since it is
>>unlikely that the second player is going to keep reporting your messages
>>as fact to player 1.

>Theoretically speaking, "She's lying to everyone but me" doesn't sound
>like a good conclusion for an ally to reach, since "How do I know she
>isn't lying to me, too?" follows naturally on its heels.... But in
>practice this one has worked just fine for me, as part of a general
>"*You* are near and dear to my heart, the rest of them are just
>pawns to be played" negotiating strategy. Enlisting #1 in helping
>you lie to #2, thereby making yourself seem vulnerable to him, has
>its uses.

>I am, regrettably, a patsy for "You are near and dear to my heart"
>myself. So I know how strong it can be.

That's right, this is the other risk. But it is strong, I probably use
this too often while also playing chaotically to other players in the same
game and scare them. I've been attacked a lot recently by people not
believing some variant of the "you are near and dear to my heart" line
that I meant very seriously.

>But for me this is a tactic for an already-established alliance.
>If #1 and #2 are allied to each other and not to you, my
>experience is that #1 will tend to stop listening once he knows
>you're lying to #2. Maybe this is less apparent in internet
>play, where the cost of talking is lower. In timed FTF, talk is
>a limited resource and most players won't spend it on a conversation
>that doesn't look rewarding.

>Mary Kuhner mkkuhner DeleteThis @eskimo.com

Again true, I do not think FTF and E-Mail are the same game for reasons
like these. Strategies and tactics really are quite different.

Jim-Bob
 >> Stay informed about: things looking grim from '01 

In article <fiic7p$45d$1@pcls6.std.com>,
Jim Burgess <burgess.DeleteThis@TheWorld.com> wrote:

>Let your inner insanity out to play! I've had people very seriously
>accuse me of trying to make them insane. I can be pretty annoyingly out
>there when I want to be (anyone around here want to admit when I did it to
>them??). FTF though, people can see your gestures etc., but still, yes,
>I've done this FTF too.

Hm. My FTF experience with players who annoy me badly is that it's
a tremendously unproductive tactic for them--it will push me from
"I'm crushing you now but if the situation changes we can be
friends again" to "I'm going to eliminate you NOW even if it's
not exactly best play." The one thing that's clear about Dip is
that there's more hope before you get eliminated than after, so
I never want to convince someone that the game will be more
enjoyable if I'm gone.

It's possible that making me angry might give you a weakness to
exploit, but more likely, I think, it will give a third party a
weakness to exploit--so both you and I lose.

Of all the games I've played, perhaps my favorite was the
last round of a FTF tournament when a rather famous player
managed to piss off all four of the minor powers (who were
at 2-3 dots each after he stabbed them all). I got one
of them to help organize, we wrote orders for five sets of
pieces (plus me sweet-talking my one big ally into, mostly,
helping) and the famous player imploded.

It left me convinced that pissing people off is not a wise
thing to do. My hapless big ally ended up saying to the
four minor-power players, "You know Mary will solo, don't
you?" and being unable to distract them from their
enjoyment of dismembering their hated foe. Me? I was
cheering them all the way in to the kill. (And never
had to take a dot from them till the last move, so I
got to be a nice person to the very end.)

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner.DeleteThis@eskimo.com
 >> Stay informed about: things looking grim from '01 

mkkuhner RemoveThis @kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:

>In article <fiic7p$45d$1@pcls6.std.com>,
>Jim Burgess <burgess RemoveThis @TheWorld.com> wrote:

>>Let your inner insanity out to play! I've had people very seriously
>>accuse me of trying to make them insane. I can be pretty annoyingly out
>>there when I want to be (anyone around here want to admit when I did it to
>>them??). FTF though, people can see your gestures etc., but still, yes,
>>I've done this FTF too.

>Hm. My FTF experience with players who annoy me badly is that it's
>a tremendously unproductive tactic for them--it will push me from
>"I'm crushing you now but if the situation changes we can be
>friends again" to "I'm going to eliminate you NOW even if it's
>not exactly best play." The one thing that's clear about Dip is
>that there's more hope before you get eliminated than after, so
>I never want to convince someone that the game will be more
>enjoyable if I'm gone.

>It's possible that making me angry might give you a weakness to
>exploit, but more likely, I think, it will give a third party a
>weakness to exploit--so both you and I lose.

>Of all the games I've played, perhaps my favorite was the
>last round of a FTF tournament when a rather famous player
>managed to piss off all four of the minor powers (who were
>at 2-3 dots each after he stabbed them all). I got one
>of them to help organize, we wrote orders for five sets of
>pieces (plus me sweet-talking my one big ally into, mostly,
>helping) and the famous player imploded.

>It left me convinced that pissing people off is not a wise
>thing to do. My hapless big ally ended up saying to the
>four minor-power players, "You know Mary will solo, don't
>you?" and being unable to distract them from their
>enjoyment of dismembering their hated foe. Me? I was
>cheering them all the way in to the kill. (And never
>had to take a dot from them till the last move, so I
>got to be a nice person to the very end.)

>Mary Kuhner mkkuhner RemoveThis @eskimo.com

To be more specific, I'm better at experimenting with ways to raise the
"level of the game"@TM sometimes than I am about trying to win some
particular games. Some of my efforts to raise the level of the game are
interpreted by others as pissing them off. I note this as evidence for
all the reasons you say, since one wants to both raise the levels of the
game to one's advantage and in some control -- and once the other player's
emotions kick in, control usually is lost pretty quickly.

I also think that one does some of these things BETTER when one is letting
one's natural inner insanity out to play than dreaming up something. That
was my original point. For those who forayed in the gaming into D&D at
times, the chaotic/lawful distinction there is a useful way of visualizing
what I was talking about. I think good/chaotic is possible and useful,
but some people disagree.

Jim-Bob
 >> Stay informed about: things looking grim from '01 

Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
>
> Every once in a while I have a game where I know from
> the initial round of negotiations that I'm in really
> bad trouble. A nice set of alliances has fallen together
> and it doesn't include me, and no amount of '01 negotiation
> seems likely to change anyone's mind. People aren't
> listening anymore; they have to get going with their
> plans (we play on a tight clock locally) and those plans
> seem to involve my immediate demise.
>
> What are strategies to use in that situation? I observe
> that players who give up and roll over are invariably
> rolled over, and that the really good players can sometimes
> pull out a good result from games like this. I know I
> should be postponing my tactical destruction as best I can on
> the board. But what are the diplomatic strategies, other
> than looking for and exploiting fault lines in the enemy
> alliances?

There are seven players at the board; if your immediate
neighbors seem determined to ally against you, then it is
time to talk to THEIR neighbors. At the very least you
should be able to establish a relationship with the first
target on the other half of the board and share information
and ideas. If you can get a neighbor's neighbor to send
a Unit or two against one of your attackers while you mount
a stronger defense against that neighbor, the alliance is
much more likely to crack as one Power grows and the other
doesn't.

Eric.
--
 >> Stay informed about: things looking grim from '01