Diplomatic relations on this site are different than you are accustomed to...can you explain diplomatic relations you are accustomed to first, and than we can all see the difference.

I agree, how are things different? In any game, face to face or online, everyone does things a bit differently but some things are fairly constant... Most tend to contact all their immediate neighbors right away, some jump right in with exact plans while others test the water first. Either way, each person is trying to establish trust while secretly making plans against at least one of these neighbors. You need to establish trust with all, set up agreed on plans (DMZ spaces, mutual support ideas, etc). When you feel you can trust one more than another, then you tend to firm things up with them and hope you are not being set up yourself!

But the key is to write early, write often and be agreeable to most everything that makes sense for both parties. Never suggest a one sided deal (even when that deal is in the other persons favor) and never accept a one sided deal even if in your favor. One sided deals are stupid and making/accepting them shows your own ignorance. Always have reasons for you to work together and THAT will help sew the seeds of trust!

Just accustom yourself to expect anything! :)

I like everything that Halt said above, only I normally only conduct stabs if I am completely certain that someone else is going to stab me. I also make alliances only if I plan to keep them for the entire game, and draw with 1 or 2 really good allies.

Then you are doomed to lose! You can never be completely certain of anything in this game, online or in person. You need to establish trust with all and hope they all believe you, then pick one of those guys you trust the most or feel most comfortable with and arrange a stab on another. If you do not do so, then the chances are good they are conspiring against you! You need to be proactive and lead the charge if you expect to win, otherwise your chances slip to near zero.

What Guaroz said ~
There isn't really a particular "style" or a specific "code" for things to go on here, so just act according to your own rational calculus I would say.

"You hesitate to stab me with a word, and know not -- silence is the sharper sword." --Samuel Johnson

Samuel Jackson is so much cooler...
"Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know 'cause I wouldn't eat the filthy mother%$*ker."

@Halt: Ha, I like the last reason to stab. That was actually why I stabbed just recently. And did you just pick Halt, or was there a certain book series you might have read?

@Everyone else (excluding the one dude who agreed with Halt whose name I do not feel like copying and pasting): I'm afraid I must have stated the question badly. I know exactly how I negotiate and the ups and downs therein. I was simply wondering about YOUR individual styles. I've noted some are very similar to myself, some are much more suspicious/trusting, and others, well I don't know what they're doing.
There is the generally acknowledged style, of course, but everyone has a certain aspect within that which they enjoy using more/less or a certain point that ticks them off if there is a lack of it, or far too much.
Perhaps that makes it clearer?

Write early and often, determine who you can trust, be convincing (but not too much so) on why you should attack that "other" player. Be a leader and show resolve, others will usually listen if you are making a reasonable offer that suits you both. But don't sit back and wait for others to make a move, that will result in your losing far more than you otherwise would. You simply can't sit back and wait. But in any stab, it must make sense and be a long term goal, some will stab for a one center immediate gain while ignoring the long term. Always look to the long term and avoid short term gains. If you can gain a center and that gain puts you in a superior position, then it's not a "one center grab". you are in a better position making it long term.

You had mentioned a few things you need to think long and hard about, one was this waiting for others but the other was your not knowing what others are doing and wondering how much to trust/not trust them. That is the key to the game, you must not only "sell" yourself but you need to be a wise buyer of others sales jobs to you. Nobody can be 100% trusted, if you put too much trust in any one person you will often feel a bitter stab later, trust is important of course but never feel completely safe, ever.

I can take this to be how you, personally, negotiate, correct?

absolutely. I do tend to be a more loyal ally than most others even though it may sound like I am being distrustful, but while I am loyal in most situations, I am also ever vigilant and always doubting at least to a small degree. But even there, that can get you in trouble, if you let ion that you have any distrust, your ally can take it the wrong way, so it is a very precarious line to walk! When you think of it as buying and selling, it might make more sense? and after all, are we not selling ourselves and our ideas? Are we not buying (or not buying) what others are selling to us? and these sales jobs, we distrust some products by the way they market themselves while we admire other products simply by a good sales pitch?

Got my name from a book series :)

If we are talking negotiation style, I always like to build early rapport with as many people as possible and take it from there. With immediate neighbors, I suggest or ask for possible plans in ways we might cooperate. With indirect neighbors, I try to build up connections by beginning an information sharing deal, or similar deals which do not require material cooperation. Part of the reason why I usually know so much from the board situation, and can usually find out very quickly if I'm about to get stabbed. Not full proof, but effective nonetheless.

Of course, my definition of immediate and indirect neighbor changes with the map and its size. As much as possible, I also talk to all players in an honest fashion, esp. when asked to give tactical advice (i.e. move order sets). These are always a logical set of move with a goal in mind.

I agree with many of the things that has been said in this thread, especially with much of what Tomahaha said. Below is a summary of what I look for in allies, how to select them, and how it affects you as you proceed toward the end-game.

You need to converse much with as many people as you can, and more importantly, listen to what others are saying and how they are saying it. With all these chunks of information, you need to form a conception of the overall scenario, always considering the potential ways the game will play out. Next, try to visualize how you might best be able to fit into it, or rather, take advantage of it for a chance to win. By understanding the dangers that each player faces and what they hope to achieve, formulate your discussions keeping those things in mind.

Even more importantly than having successful communication (selling your pitch) with an ally, it is infinitely more important to be able to pick your potential allies correctly- allies who analyze the scenario in the same way you do, and where you all feel comfortable proceeding with a general plan because everyone remains secure and has individual success. However, because things can change so abruptly, it is important to keep as many positive relationships as possible in case you have to change your gameplan.

As the game progresses, sticking with a long term plan for mutual security strengthens an alliance, and I am a big advocate of *negotiating strategic borders*, rather than just trusting an ally and agreeing to dmz's and/or cooperative theatres (even if you both agree to a particular gameplan or strategic analysis, because a wise player knows how to use this against you). However, many times in the early game, a player must take substantial risks with such flimsy agreements in order to provide better opportunities for success. It is important to adjust your style as players get knocked out and your position solidifies.

I rank potential alliances, and consider criteria in such a way that follows:

type 1) A good potential ally is someone you're pretty sure you can trust, and who is attacking somebody else. (a workable condition at present, yet you are uncertain of their longterm goals and/or have infrequent or unstable communication)

type 2) A better potential ally is someone that acknowledges that if they attack you, then it will cost them huge consequences either from you or from other players (i.e. it behooves them to work in accordance with your goals)

type 3) The best potential ally is someone who CAN'T attack you (because you've established a strategic border based on your mutual goals), and attacks other people because it's the only way to go.

Beyond this criteria for finding and selecting allies (with the aim of finding "type 3" allies), an aggressive diplomacy player can capitulate other players, open them up to vulnerabilities, and take advantage of (or stab) the players who lack the scrutiny as laid out above. You'll find that most mediocre players here become content with "type 1" alliances ("type 2" if they're reasonably good), and that is why they always get stabbed and/or are easily tempted to stab their allies.

As the game develops, I am constantly considering candidates for each of these types of alliance, with the end goal in finding type 3 allies. This is why constant communication is necessary in order to review the scenario and find players who share your outlook, (or even better, those who would could most easily gain from you accomplishing your objectives).

Some players out there could choose to play more aggressively- seeking out allies who are doomed to fail in the hopes that you'll be able to capitalize on their defeat, or capitulate their actions. This is a strong technique in some cases, however my preferred style is to make sure that my allies remain happy and in good shape, so there's little chance they conspire against me.

This is very conjectural of course and varies from game to game, but I find it as a very successful strategy if it plays out well. If anything, it's a very good strategy to protect yourself from being stabbed.

I find it amusing that someone would ask, let alone answer, such a question. If you want to learn players styles, get out there and play some games. It's even more interesting that you pose the question as a eager beginner, and then respond annoyed as if you're an expert when folks try to offer suggestions.

Why would anyone willingly give you a dossier on their individual playing style. And if they did, who's to say it's accurate? It could be a dead on balls assessment, deliberately misleading or unintentionally incorrect, or some combination of the three. You'll never know until you play the person multiple times, and even then it's no sure thing. Every game is different.

Another important thing to consider is how you can not go into any game with a preset plan of attack. Lets say you drew France, You earlier won as France several times by attacking Germany from the get-go. It worked well for you several times and you have this plan of attack down to a science? But you start negotiating and find the German player is very warm and welcoming, he has some good ideas, thinks strategically and damn, you like the guy!
You also find England says little, he writes once a week and his ideas are not communicated well. He's not distrustful and not exactly a moron, but he's not Germany.

What to do?
Go with the planned attack of Germany or instead work with Germany on taking out England? In this situation, you would be a FOOL to continue with the plan to take down the German. You simply need to be flexible and adjust on the fly, never go with preconceived ideas and let your negotiations lead you to where you need to be!

But considering the above situation, it might also be prudent to eliminate Germany earlier as he will likely be the larger long term threat, IF you are reasonably certain you can get England to do what you say (i.e. move order coordinations). In the above situation, he isn't a moron, and so should realize that your ideas and moves are better. Later on, without someone telling him how to move due to complacency, he will be less capable of dealing with you as compared to Germany.

@Ruffhaus: I have played, sir. People are stupid. I wanted to see the variety of answer I could get. Of course, I should have foreseen that once more experience players posted, the inexperienced would simply agree. And then there are players such as yourself who don't like to engage in a little friendly discussion. I am able to very easily offer a long winded response concerning the games I've played and how I've played them, but I don't really feel the need to "prove" myself. I know how good I am, and honestly I don't give a crap how good you think I am.

@Tomahaha/Halt: If England is a not so bright player like that, though, then it would be a good idea to at least try to use him against Germany. If within the first few turns he shows complete incompetence, that's the time to ditch him. But of course, if Germany is the friendly guy, and his moves do nothing to suggest otherwise, in the end that will be the stronger alliance. Never abandon the stupid guy, though. He's always so eager to listen to good advice.

@Raro: I like those three types. Generally I find myself with a whole mixup of them throughout the game. In one of the games I'm in now I actually had one of each all going at the same time.

If you think you can manipulate someone then go for it! However, I did say this person talked to once a week (I see this often) no way am I going to work closely with this person! A DMZ, mutual peace, fine, but working closely as an ally? not gonna happen, your assumption you can manipulate this sort of person is a bit optimistic at best! That once a week part was added for a reason! If he is more responsive and you fear the Germans intellect and think you can manipulate England, then maybe! But thinking you can manipulate anyone, that is also a bit much to hope for. Yes it can happen but not too often! I'm siding with Germany in this situation!

oh, and that part about after the first turn, the English player shows incompetence and should be ditched... good luck with that as well! Once you stab Germany, you ruined that relationship for the whole game. You can try to get back on good terms and it's possible to do so, but you never have as much trust and it's an uphill battle that will have prevented you from a win!

I have nothing against a friendly discussion. When the discussion is friendly so am I. And when it's nasty, well then, I can be nasty too. Your personal jab aside, I don't understand why anyone would disclose their playing style to anyone. Knowing your opponent is a critical part of the game. You usually have to go out and collect research on players on your own, but I guess you caught a few fish trolling here who spilled their guts.

As to you I did not make any assumptions as to how good or not you may be. I've never seen your play to my knowledge. How would I know one way or another? I said that you posted this posing as a beginner and then responded to it as if you thought that you were an expert. Perhaps that was all part of the lure...

Tom, there is this concept called waiting moves or delayed commitment. Perhaps you are familiar with it? Basically, you don't have to commit right away. If England proves incompetent in the first year, ditch him ( and since you played safely in not stabbing Germany right away, as most good players do in the first year) your relationship won't be wrecked. Besides, you said these people responded once a week, not that they checked once a week. All I need is a confirmation to follow my orders which usually have paragraphs of explanation and analysis in themselves to prove why my plan is logical or reasonable.

we are on the same page more than it sounds I am sure! But for arguments sake only, I understand what you are saying and after turn one, there are few real stabs in year one. HOWEVER, if France were against England and moved to the channel, that could be hard to weasel out of later and you may have set the tone for the rest of the game!? And how likely is it that England (in this situation) is going to prove incompetence on the first turn? Kinda hard to do for the most part isn't it? incompetence will show itself soon enough of course but most likely after the damage has been done.

We do agree that you must chose your allies wisely, you must chose your enemies wisely as well! I think we also agree you should try and be proactive and not sit and wait for others to come to you with ideas as this person had indicated earlier. Hey, sometimes you will be approached first (someone has to be first) and that's cool if you reply very quickly but a "sit and wait" approach is seldom a good idea (though Italy can possibly pull this off for a full year for the "most part" he still needs to arrange DMZ areas with France and Austria of course but he can wait and make a real decision after seeing how things go ...but I digress)

yolo amirite?ωβγφδδσχψωωβνμ,κκξγηθυφεσσς;

That wasn't me, it was my friend

Ruffhaus, I personally do not see anything wrong with divulging or discussing strategy. You as well as me often comment on other players' mistakes or misunderstandings about the game. I've seen often get upset if a strategic game is ruined by someone's inept diplomacy. This is why I think that discourse on this site only makes games better, because the competition will in turn become better. I would much rather play a game of diplomacy with a crop of players who know how to harbor successful alliances than a bunch of loose cannons whom I may or may not be better than. You can have access to all the strategy in the world (thousands of books have been written and reviewed about strategy and technique in all sorts of games: poker, chess, backgammon, A&A, etc.), but it still requires the skill in implementing and adjusting for each game as you are faced with decisions and equally skilled opponents.

agreed, experienced players are preferred over newbie know nothings. I like helping the Newbie to learn and get good, even good enough to teach myself a lesson! And such discussion is nothing that will give away anything in a future game either. Oh no, Tom says he wants to side with competent people who write often and he feels good about, oh, and he will stab someone as well!? Yep, use that against me, if you can find a way to take advantage of me from these discussions, good luck to you. Nobody is going to say any particular strategy that works for them, maybe they have a secret trick that tends to tell them exactly what they need to know about others. If asking about their Mother somehow gave you some sort of insight, you would of course keep this tactic secret no doubt! (haha, that would be an interesting conversation ...You move to Gascony, I will move to Burgundy and hey, how's you Mom's apple pie, did she beat you much as a kid?) General rules of thumb we can all learn from is what we are discussing and most of us know exactly what we are doing anyways. It's all good fun!

@Ruff: Nasty? Who said anything about nasty? From what I can see, you joined in being nasty. I am simply arrogant. Something I willing admit to. I will respress that in gameplay, but feel no need to do so on forums. I am, without a doubt, one of the most politely arrogant bastards you shall ever encounter. If I happen to hurt someone's pride with mine, well my sincere apologies.

Concerning the newbies, they are surprisingly easy to manipulate. Something I found very interesting. Simply sound knowledgeable and trustworthy and they believe you to be knowledgeable and trustworthy. A situation I always enjoy, as it can make for a very profitable alliance, or a very effective stab, mainly relying on the positioning of the countries.

Also, I agree. Talking strategy is simply that. Strategy. There are so many different variances out there it is impossible to take something from here and apply it as a standard in the game. The only way to really know how a person plays the game is to have played with that person for multiple games. Which is why I prefer to, in most instances, play anonymously. It takes away the bias. Because while I personally don't hold a stab from a player in one game against them in a different game, there are many who are unable to do so. Pretty much the only time I play non-anonymously is if I know everyone, or practically everyone, in the game. In those circumstances, knowing your opponents adds a whole new level to the gameplay.

Knowing others is interesting as well. We want to say it does not influence what we do but we simply can't help it, humans will be humans! But that can also lead to a more effective stab as well so it can go both ways. One thing we all need to be careful of is getting too caught up in (or out of) alliances based on the past.

Indeed. Each game is a new beginning. The only thing about other players that should be taken to a new game is the knowledge you received about how they operate.