Is Great Diplomacy Play an Art, or a Science?

[David E. Cohen]

I saw some discussion in one of the tactics problem threads concerning use of game theory analysis in order to determine an optimum order set.

In my opinion, while game theory may occasionally be useful, and there are plenty of articles in the Hobby literature attempting to quantify the play of the game in various ways, great Diplomacy play is most definitely an art, not a science, since it is more about "reading" opponents and than any tactical virtuosity (though it never hurts to be a tactical virtuoso, since it gives you more options) one may possess.

I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who thinks otherwise.

 

[Karlburg]

I do best in gunboat precisely because I don't ever really act as though anyone's allied to me. I do talk, but I don't need to do so. I think that you should make your (opening) move first then talk later, though. The mere act of talking in diplomacy will get nothing.

 

[State Machine]

David, I mentioned in the other thread that strict game theory isn't practical. But even then, I still use it to some degree. But, as you say, you must read situations and opponents. And in my experience there is often no domininent strategy in complex tactical situations, so you need to use intuition or random selection anyway.

And, of course, it depends on how much time you have to analize. With 15 minutes to make a move, intuition (and better tactical ability) is more important than sitting down for an hour or so and carefully figuring out your next PBEM move possibilities.

I'm inspired to illustrate more complex situations. Both because of this and the current newbie tactical problem. I think it would be good to show how complex Diplomacy tactics can get. This is not Risk! I'll start another thread...

 

[David E. Cohen]

I'm inspired to illustrate more complex situations. Both because of this and the current newbie tactical problem. I think it would be good to show how complex Diplomacy tactics can get. This is not Risk! I'll start another thread...

Go for it.

P.S. Sometimes I describe Dip as "Risk for grownups". LOL

 

[David E. Cohen]

I do best in gunboat precisely because I don't ever really act as though anyone's allied to me. I do talk, but I don't need to do so. I think that you should make your (opening) move first then talk later, though. The mere act of talking in diplomacy will get nothing.

Wow. "The mere act of talking"? The mere act of talking has both won and lost many a game.

 

[unmerged(26876)]

As one of those who raised the idea of Game Theory in the other thread I now feel I must defend myself...
GET OFF ME DAVID! :rofl:

Game Theory has it's place. But:

David, I mentioned in the other thread that strict game theory isn't practical. But even then, I still use it to some degree. But, as you say, you must read situations and opponents. And in my experience there is often no domininent strategy in complex tactical situations, so you need to use intuition or random selection anyway.

Although I believe in analysis I also have a firm belief in my "gut feeling".
And will sometimes discard more "logical" moves to counter moves I 'feel' will happen. I am right more often than I am wrong.

And, of course, it depends on how much time you have to analize. With 15 minutes to make a move, intuition (and better tactical ability) is more important than sitting down for an hour or so and carefully figuring out your next PBEM move possibilities.

Agree. But I feel you underestimate the capacity of the human brain.
Humans have immense capacity for 'pattern recognition' and we can sort through a decision tree and discard the irrelivant information and dead end or no win choices very quickly.
Much of what is 'instinct' could be put down to that perhaps?

A computer by comarison must still waste time considering the 'pointless' branches.

In a game of "Rock, Paper, Scissors" if a human knew I never played 'paper' they would never play scissors - but a computer would still give that option serious CPU time every turn.

Is it an Art or a Science?
I quote Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte
"In war nothing can be gained except by calculation."
Well there you are it's a Science! But wait... he also said:
"No rule of war is so absolute as to allow no exceptions."
So... is it a Science? Well?
"Unhappy the general who comes on the field of battle with a system."
Are you saying it's an art?
"War is an immense art which comprises all others."
Erm... thanks Napoleon... you seem to be sitting on the fence.
Perhaps a second opinion?

http://www.bellum.nu/literature.html

 

[unmerged(33865)]

One of the common assumptions of game theory, which is not necessarily true in either real life or diplomacy is that your opponent knows (or can figure out) your strategy. Although working in an alliance can make leaks to an enemy more likely than you might wish to believe. This makes strategies that use randomization necessary to success. If you can act unpredictably without needing to roll the dice, (not always picking the less likely option as that tendency will be noticed and figured out), then go ahead.

While it might be insanely complex to calculate the right probabilities for each possibility, approximating won't be much worse, as is certainly better than being found out, and having the enemy take advantage of you moves.

Diplomacy is clearly an art, but using a little science can help, like the way artists (old masters) who learned perspective made better paintings than their predecessors who hadn't.

 

[David E. Cohen]

Diplomacy is clearly an art, but using a little science can help, like the way artists (old masters) who learned perspective made better paintings than their predecessors who hadn't.

This I agree with. Dip is an art, with science being a tool that, if employed, may improve the art somewhat.

 

[unmerged(9699)]

This I agree with. Dip is an art, with science being a tool that, if employed, may improve the art somewhat.

I personally think diplomacy is a game. It's neither art nor science. It's not even close to them.

The most important skill one needs to have is to "read" other people. Because we all know words can be as empty as a beer keg on a saturday night while body language, tone of the voice etc. never lies. One also needs some rudimentary planning skills to move the units around, somewhat like the planning used in chess though chess requires immensely more though in that department.

 

[unmerged(26876)]

I personally think diplomacy is a game. It's neither art nor science. It's not even close to them.

"Strategy is a game." - Ardant du Picq

The most important skill one needs to have is to "read" other people. ...body language, tone of the voice etc. never lies. One also needs some rudimentary planning skills to move the units around, somewhat like the planning used in chess though chess requires immensely more though in that department.

Hmmm. Not sure I agree there.
I play a lot of PBEM Gunboat. It is not possible to 'read' people playing that.
And it has a lot of similarity to chess.
It would be easy to think that chess is more complex because of the variety of pieces - but in Diplomacy the pieces have a greater variety of moves.*
In chess a player is concerned with such things as Power and Tempo. So to in Diplomacy.

{*Ohhh. Variant idea. You could play chess with Diplomacy moves!
Pawn E3 SUPPORTS Pawn F3 x E4! :rofl: }

 

[unmerged(33865)]

I personally think diplomacy is a game. It's neither art nor science. It's not even close to them.

The most important skill one needs to have is to "read" other people.

*snip*

Those who are good at reading people will do well at diplomacy. It is a skill we should all try to enhance. But like at poker, some people are easier to read than others. If you use a bit of game theory, and sometimes randomize your moves, after you have done your best to "read" the other players, you will make yourself harder to "read". Thus, you are able to tone down the others players ability in this crucial area, thereby increasing your chances of winning.

 

[unmerged(33865)]

*snip*
Hmmm. Not sure I agree there.
I play a lot of PBEM Gunboat. It is not possible to 'read' people playing that.
*snip*

Various skills/attributes are necessary for success in Diplomacy:

1. Tactical ability
2. Ability to persuade / good communication skills
3. Ability to get along in an alliance / appear trustworthy / friendly / likable
4. Reputation
5. Ability to read people
6. Able to keep a secret / not tip your hand
7. Some knowledge of game theory?

In a no press Gunboat (where you never find out who the other players are/were), tactical ability if key, but while that is a good way to build up tactical ability, it isn't really Diplomacy, as there is no diplomacy.

If we have press, but it is still gunboat, then reputation is specific to what you have built up in the game, and thus plays a lesser role than usual.

If everything else is equal, then the ability to read people may tip the balance, but an unlikeable player with a poor reputation will not be helped by the ability to read people. He will read that everyone is out to get him, and he will be right, but it won't do him any good, as he will be out within two years.

 

[unmerged(26876)]

I agree with 90% of what you say except this

In a no press Gunboat (where you never find out who the other players are/were), tactical ability if key, but while that is a good way to build up tactical ability, it isn't really Diplomacy, as there is no diplomacy.

In Gunboat there is still diplomacy.
How much depends on what orders the GM will allow.

In some of the older games you will see players supporting and moving to "Swi" (Switzerland). A call for peace.
Surrendering: RUSSIAN A(Pru) - Ice (Iceland)
You will see players suggesting attacks for other players
RUSSIAN A(Swe) S ENGLISH F(Den)-Kie was one I recently saw.
and suggesting alliances RUSSIAN A(Rum) S TURKISH A(Ser) H as example.

Based on this you can still 'read' other players a little.
But not through voice, tone, body language or any of the usual methods.
It's more a case of logical deduction.

 

[unmerged(33865)]

I agree with 90% of what you say except this


In Gunboat there is still diplomacy.
How much depends on what orders the GM will allow.

In some of the older games you will see players supporting and moving to "Swi" (Switzerland). A call for peace.
Surrendering: RUSSIAN A(Pru) - Ice (Iceland)
You will see players suggesting attacks for other players
RUSSIAN A(Swe) S ENGLISH F(Den)-Kie was one I recently saw.
and suggesting alliances RUSSIAN A(Rum) S TURKISH A(Ser) H as example.

Based on this you can still 'read' other players a little.
But not through voice, tone, body language or any of the usual methods.
It's more a case of logical deduction.

Point taken, but the judge program I played through did not permit moves referring to Switzerland or Iceland, nor invalid orders like RUSSIAN A(Swe) S ENGLISH F(Den)-Kie, as Sweden is not next to Kiel. Besides, the delay in transmission, (write now, have it read before retreats) makes it so highly stilted that I am amazed you found it useful.

 

[Gothmog]

As to the original question, I'd go with art rather than science, since the heart of the game is about persuasion, negotiation and human behaviour. These can't really be quantified as easily as the core mechanisms of many other games can (be they chess or World in Flames).

 

[unmerged(34319)]

Diplomacy as Artful Science

The most important pieces in the game are the 7 sitting around the table: namely the players.
What the player sees as his vision of the game be it a mass of tactical moves (the science player) or the interaction of psychological motivations (the art player) is what you use to manipulate the dynamic background of the game for the player and to secure for yourself that which you value in that particular game.

Having played this game at all levels (for 40 years this Christmas) the game is neither science nor art, it is entertainment. I refer to my mentoring classic 3 points for Diplomacy :

1. The purpose of the game is to have fun and make it fun for others.
2. The object in playing the game is to achieve recognition from your fellow players.
3. The rule book victory conditions are to obtain 18 centers, however if you have to do that to win then your diplomacy has failed.