-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
A) You and I never had any agreements. YOU thought we did, but I never upheld ANY of them. That should have been obvious. I successfully upheld agreements with Germany and Italy. Ask them if they liked my style of play...
B) In Diplomacy 1, I was not senior diplomat, and my senior refused to listen to my advice.
In Diplomacy 2, I was not even a diplomat until my nation was ALREADY down to 2 supply centers, and I valiantly fought a losing battle to the end.
In Diplomacy 3, I was senior diplomat...made a great start, and was defeated when Germany, led by yourself, abrogated your agreements with me over Russia. It was a brilliant move on your part, and you don't hear me whining about how your style of play was evil.
In Diplomacy 4, I managed to reduce you to two supply centers, and have strong agreements with the three other strongest powers on the board, until I was forced to turn duties over to my minions, who pissed Italy off and spared you.
Your insistence that the triple alliance against me was my fault, bald facedly ignores the fact that I WAS AWAY WHEN THAT ALLIANCE WAS FORMED. Had I remained senior diplomat, most likely Italy would have destroyed you by now.
So...
Stop whining about what happened in the past and get on with the game. I am no longer in it to demonize. Your problems are not with me anymore.
Apologies, Hector. My health has deteriorated as of late and I must leave you in charge for some time while I recover my strength. I leave my address in Ostrava in case of an emergency. Then again, it would be wiser to call the Kaiser und Koenig himself if there ever arose an emergency.
(I'm leaving for Vilnius tomorrow and won't be back until late Saturday or Sunday)
If so, that would be really sad.
I think my wife would kill me if I attempted to return to the game though.
If I ever happen to get married, I hope to remember to put into the contract x hours for "personal use" .
.
Executer you are now becoming laughably absurd in your attempts to justify yourself. You're attempting to redefine both agreement and stab in order to wave away your actions. It's almost funny, but it's disturbing in another way - I wonder, if you were to be pulled over for speeding, would you debate the meaning of "exceed" in "exceeding the speed limit"?
If you signed a contract to provide someone with services in exchange for money, then abrogated that contract, you wouldn't argue it wasn't legally binding, wasn't an agreement, because you never intended to keep it. You cannot redefine the meaning of agreement to suit yourself.
What's more, it would be absurd if you really believed what you say. Your statement is that it is not a stab if you intend to deceive the other player. This would make stabbing impossible: it's not a stab if you have made your victim aware that you're going to do it, nor is it a stab if you're already in a conflict, and yet by your statement it's also not a stab if you plan to deceive the other player. Therefore there is no situation that is actually a stab.
You're becoming increasingly ludicrous the longer you go on. I advise you to just be quiet. The reality is that you offered me something and I accepted the terms. That is an agreement - surely you don't need dictionary definitions quoted for you.
What's more, even if we took your statement as true, it would not actually change anything. Despite it being stated repeatedly you still seem to think that people have a problem with you lying in order to gain advantage in the game. That is not the case. It's been said repeatedly, but you still don't seem to get it.
It is not that we believe you shouldn't lie when playing this game. But if you want to win this game, you shouldn't lie with such frequency, to so many players, and neither should you act against the interests of so many players. What you do not seem to grasp, even now that it's staring you in the face, is how your method has entirely backfired. You failed to defeat any of your opponents, despite having decisive advantages - Tai's gambit failed, leaving him hopelessly exposed.He was entirely embroiled with Britain and Germany, unable to defend himself. Any competent player would have conquered Russia and taken at least 2 SCs, probably 3, and secured their eastern flank forever. Instead you decided to leave it to later, and now he's recovered some territory. After making desultory moves against Russia, you then secured an alliance against Turkey. This too should have been a walk-in: Russia was too distracted to help, so it was Turkey against Italy and Austria. Again, a competent player could have finished Turkey and moved on to new targets. Instead you opened yet another front. Whatever you say about misunderstandings with Italy, you don't keep an army in Tyrol in good faith. Even when you returned you didn't withdraw the army from Tyrol, or fall back from Greece. You ordered the attack into Venice yourself.
Austria now sits on the home SCs of two countries, who obviously need to recover them as an immediate priority. They are thus natural allies. Turkey should be Austria's natural ally, with Italy sitting in two of her home SCs, but your bad faith was so flagrant that it is impossible to trust you. It's also not possible to trust Esemesas, since contrary to his claims of misunderstandings, he abrogated clearly agreed treaties. Your "strategy" is not a strategy at all. A strategy requires long-term coherent vision. You have just acted on a whim.
Do you comprehend it yet? It is impossible for me to trust you, because you don't just break treaties when it suits strategic purposes, you'll break them for short term gains, even ones that are unsustainable. You are like a mad dog: just as likely to bite those that feed you as to bite anyone else. There is no way a long term agreement with you is sustainable, by your own description. Your actions were foolish. That now you lie about them and insist they were smart is grating, but it's not the central issue. Nobody cares that you lied about what you would do, per se, so you don't need to lie about the lies. Just admit what you did: you stabbed everyone around you bar Germany, and it backfired.
If you signed a contract to provide someone with services in exchange for money, then abrogated that contract, you wouldn't argue it wasn't legally binding, wasn't an agreement, because you never intended to keep it. You cannot redefine the meaning of agreement to suit yourself.
What's more, it would be absurd if you really believed what you say. Your statement is that it is not a stab if you intend to deceive the other player. This would make stabbing impossible: it's not a stab if you have made your victim aware that you're going to do it, nor is it a stab if you're already in a conflict, and yet by your statement it's also not a stab if you plan to deceive the other player. Therefore there is no situation that is actually a stab.
You're becoming increasingly ludicrous the longer you go on. I advise you to just be quiet. The reality is that you offered me something and I accepted the terms. That is an agreement - surely you don't need dictionary definitions quoted for you.
What's more, even if we took your statement as true, it would not actually change anything. Despite it being stated repeatedly you still seem to think that people have a problem with you lying in order to gain advantage in the game. That is not the case. It's been said repeatedly, but you still don't seem to get it.
It is not that we believe you shouldn't lie when playing this game. But if you want to win this game, you shouldn't lie with such frequency, to so many players, and neither should you act against the interests of so many players. What you do not seem to grasp, even now that it's staring you in the face, is how your method has entirely backfired. You failed to defeat any of your opponents, despite having decisive advantages - Tai's gambit failed, leaving him hopelessly exposed.He was entirely embroiled with Britain and Germany, unable to defend himself. Any competent player would have conquered Russia and taken at least 2 SCs, probably 3, and secured their eastern flank forever. Instead you decided to leave it to later, and now he's recovered some territory. After making desultory moves against Russia, you then secured an alliance against Turkey. This too should have been a walk-in: Russia was too distracted to help, so it was Turkey against Italy and Austria. Again, a competent player could have finished Turkey and moved on to new targets. Instead you opened yet another front. Whatever you say about misunderstandings with Italy, you don't keep an army in Tyrol in good faith. Even when you returned you didn't withdraw the army from Tyrol, or fall back from Greece. You ordered the attack into Venice yourself.
Austria now sits on the home SCs of two countries, who obviously need to recover them as an immediate priority. They are thus natural allies. Turkey should be Austria's natural ally, with Italy sitting in two of her home SCs, but your bad faith was so flagrant that it is impossible to trust you. It's also not possible to trust Esemesas, since contrary to his claims of misunderstandings, he abrogated clearly agreed treaties. Your "strategy" is not a strategy at all. A strategy requires long-term coherent vision. You have just acted on a whim.
Do you comprehend it yet? It is impossible for me to trust you, because you don't just break treaties when it suits strategic purposes, you'll break them for short term gains, even ones that are unsustainable. You are like a mad dog: just as likely to bite those that feed you as to bite anyone else. There is no way a long term agreement with you is sustainable, by your own description. Your actions were foolish. That now you lie about them and insist they were smart is grating, but it's not the central issue. Nobody cares that you lied about what you would do, per se, so you don't need to lie about the lies. Just admit what you did: you stabbed everyone around you bar Germany, and it backfired.
I knew that I would be busy in March since two months ago, that's why I only promised to watch the country while TE was gone.
Rest assured! The Austro-Hungarian Empire is not yet destined for the dust pan of history...we shall sweep our foes before us and polish their cenotaphs most vigorously. None shall cough upon our spotless reputation!
*Hector stumbles through the Imperial Palace, laden down with paperwork, looking to see if he missed a reply in his understaffed office*
Beautiful, Vain, simply beautiful tapestry of text! (hey, he's Ottoman, got to adjust )
)
Do you consider it unethical to lie to your enemy in a game of Diplomacy?
Vainglory said:
And you cannot redefine the rules of diplomacy to suit yourself.
"Diplomacy is a game of negotiations, alliances, promises kept, and promises broken."
"Players may discuss their plans for upcoming turns via private message or publicly in the thread. During diplomatic negotiations, players may say anything they wish. These conversations usually consist of bargaining or joint military planning, but they may include exchanges of information, denouncements, threats, spreading of rumors, and so on. Public announcements may be made and documents may be written, made public, or kept secret as the players see fit. These discussions and written agreements do not bind a player to anything he/she may do with his/her orders."
Vainglory said:
My point is that I lied to you from the beginning. My moves were so obviously anti-Turk that I could not fathom that you would mistake their meaning. I continued lieing to you in the belief that those lies WOULD BE SEEN AS LIES. The fact that YOU believed an agreement to be in place DOES NOT MEAN THAT I BELIEVED AN AGREEMENT TO BE IN PLACE.
Once again, THIS IS DIPLOMACY...and not real life.
Vainglory said:
Only in the real world. In diplomacy, I am not bound to do ANYTHING, even if I expressly promised to do so.
Vainglory said:
And yet you did so to win Diplomacy III.
I think your problem with me is that I do get it. The only people who had a problem with my diplomatic style were you and Russia. You, because I blatantly made it my policy to eliminate you...and Russia, because we never could get our interests to coincide, so I was forced to stab Russia over his invasion of my friend Germany.
Italy and Austria's falling out was over my failing to allow Italy to grow at the same rate as Austria, not over me 'lying ways.'
Vainglory said:
And here you demonstrate your complete ignorance of the situation. You aren't STILL believing your neighbors, are you?
Here's a little primer for you...
Italy and Austria have been cooperating against Turkey FROM 1901. That 'alliance' has been ongoing since the begining of the game. You haven't noticed this?
My Russia policy has been confused by Taiisatai's play...and the need to grow proportionate to Italy. Italy specifically requested I not eliminate Russia, as that would leave Italy at my mercy.
The Venice situation was a mistake, as I've mentioned already...because of miscommunication between Italy and myself. It had nothing to do with 'lying' to other players, and much more to do with the (entirely correct) prediction that Italy was going to attack me. I therefore correctly ordered measures that protected my forces.
Vainglory said:
:rofl:
Turkey is Austria's natural ally?
What rubbish.
A Turkey / Austria alliance IS THE LEAST LIKELY ALLIANCE IN THE GAME.
I had a long-term strategy. That strategy was your defeat, a weakened, but still active Russia...and a share-the-spoils policy with Italy. If I had succeeded, I would have been free to deal with a weakened Russia with Germany. Italy would have been free to go after either France or myself. I was, and still am, ready for a war with Italy...but I doubt France was, or is.
Vainglory said:
Vain, it is impossible for you to trust me...not because I am a 'mad dog.', but because you are Turkey, and I was Austria. You never should have trusted me in the first place.
I leave you with the relevant portions of the game rules.
"Diplomacy is a game of negotiations, alliances, promises kept, and promises broken."
"Players may discuss their plans for upcoming turns via private message or publicly in the thread. During diplomatic negotiations, players may say anything they wish. These conversations usually consist of bargaining or joint military planning, but they may include exchanges of information, denouncements, threats, spreading of rumors, and so on. Public announcements may be made and documents may be written, made public, or kept secret as the players see fit. These discussions and written agreements do not bind a player to anything he/she may do with his/her orders."
I contest that, it certainly can work. It's the natural counter to a Russia + Italy where Russia screwed over the Turks in the division of stuff. Germany + Russia seems more unlikely, outside of limited cooperation in the North.
Well, just as Austria-France would be a peculiar alliance. I think the Germany-Russia case is more, lack of common interests...there is certainly room for a campaign against England.
Now, while generally, I'd say Austria-Turkey is an incredibly unlikely alliance...I managed to be either side of that in Diplomacy I and in Diplomacy III (in which TE was Turkey!).
It can work, but it never an alliance for the long-term.
In Diplomacy III, as Bagricula points out, Austria and Turkey allied as a means of mutual defense against the monster Germany / UK alliance. Had we not allied, we would have been defeated easily.
It is the natural counter to a Russia / Italy alliance (although Austria / Germany is a more natural one for this scenario) ONLY if Austria AND Turkey are desparate.
It is hardly a beneficial alliance for a strong Austria or a strong Turkey. The positioning on the board mitigates against a successful Austria / Turkey alliance.
Germany / Russia is a brilliant opening alliance, as neither can hurt each other...but it is like the Austria / Italy relationship...destined to fracture at some point.
IMO, the best long-term alliances are:
Germany - Britain
or
France - Britain
or
Russia - Turkey
or
Russia - Italy
and the best of all is
Germany - Austria
France - Britain is very, very hard. Home SC's are too close, and Brest is a huge point of contention. France - Russia is what I would call the perfect alliance. Britain - Turkey is also good in a scenario where either France or Italy has fallen.
Russia - Turkey is strong, but it generally benefits Russia more. Same with Russia - Italy.
Germany Austria is a steel-forged alliance, but they can't do much to help each other initially. Austria can keep Russia busy, but Germany doesn't want Austria to be too successful against Russia either.
Spring 1906
British Orders
F London - Wales
F Norway - Norwegian Sea
F Edinburgh support F Norway - Norwegian Sea
F English Channel - North Sea
French Orders
F Nrg - Edi
A Yor S F Nrg - Edi
F MAt - NAt
F Bre - Eng
A Mar S A Bur
A Bur S A Bel
A Bel S A Hol
A Hol S A Bel
German Orders
F Den - Hel
A Kie - Ruh
A Ber - Kie
A Mun support A Kie - Ruh
Austrian Orders
F Greece - Ionian Sea
F Albania S F Greece - Ionian Sea
A Serbia - Bulgaria
A Ukraine - Sevastopol
A Rumania S A Ukraine - Sevastopol
A Warsaw - Moscow
A Venice holds
A Trieste S A Venice holding
Italian Orders
F Ion S F Aeg - Gre
F Aeg - Gre
A Rom - Ven
A Apu S A Rom - Ven
F Con S A Bul Hold
Russian Orders
A Stp support A Mos holding
A Mos hold
F Sev move Rum
Ottoman Orders
F Bla S F Sev - Rum
A Bul S F Sev - Rum
Orders
Results
The Italian fleet in Ionian Sea is dislodged and has to retreat or be disbanded.
The British fleet in Edinburgh is dislodged and has to retreat to Clyde or be disbanded.
The Austrian army in Rumania is dislodged and has to retreat or be disbanded.
Retreats:
Italy: Fleet Ion
Britain: Fleet Edi
Austria: Army Rum
Next deadline for the Summer 1906 retreat phase is in 24 hours, 17:00 GMT on Wednesday, March 7th.
No extensions for a retreat phase. If I have received all orders I will end the phase early.
British Orders
F London - Wales
F Norway - Norwegian Sea
F English Channel - North Sea
French Orders
F Nrg - Edi
A Yor S F Nrg - Edi
F MAt - NAt
F Bre - Eng
A Mar S A Bur
A Bur S A Bel
A Bel S A Hol
A Hol S A Bel
German Orders
F Den - Hel
A Kie - Ruh
A Ber - Kie
A Mun support A Kie - Ruh
Austrian Orders
F Greece - Ionian Sea
F Albania S F Greece - Ionian Sea
A Ukraine - Sevastopol
A Venice holds
A Trieste S A Venice holding
Italian Orders
F Aeg - Gre
A Apu S A Rom - Ven
F Con S A Bul Hold
Russian Orders
A Stp support A Mos holding
A Mos hold
F Sev move Rum
Ottoman Orders
F Bla S F Sev - Rum
Orders
Results
The Italian fleet in Ionian Sea is dislodged and has to retreat or be disbanded.
The British fleet in Edinburgh is dislodged and has to retreat to Clyde or be disbanded.
The Austrian army in Rumania is dislodged and has to retreat or be disbanded.
Retreats:
Italy: Fleet Ion
Britain: Fleet Edi
Austria: Army Rum
Next deadline for the Summer 1906 retreat phase is in 24 hours, 17:00 GMT on Wednesday, March 7th.
No extensions for a retreat phase. If I have received all orders I will end the phase early.