Is a win/defeat/draw/survive record not enough of a marker? Maybe that record could be incorporated into optional requirements for joining a game?

A good solution to this is to just make games with a password and then advertise them, then say you only want high caliber players, and you can be the judge of that.

Irrational? The government & the military wondered, Did the Kaiser have any sense?
The several alliances pre-WWI, were they for Reason - or Honour?
Is "military intelligence" not an oxymoron?
Does a high I.Q. guarantee "street smarts"?

And, are fellow-travelers sharing Passwords enuf separation.
Classic Dip was meant to mirror the geopolitical picture of 1900, including the economic arena. We don't all have to have read F. Fischer and Alberti to know how to play a Game. The variants may be something else.

+1 Taylor4

Diplomacy is a frustrating mistress, though. I sympathize with Argotitan...

it's frustrating indeed, if it's completely irrational ... i understand though if someone sacrifices himself to let the enemy of his enemy win.

Making games with passwords takes too long to organize, and looking at track records doesn't necessarily give you insight as to someone's play style since people can get lucky over and over again. It also inhibits rational newcomers from being discovered.

Isn't it the point of diplomacy, that you have to convince other players, that your suggested actions and moves are the best. Shouldn't be too hard, if the players were that "stupid".
If a player lets an opponent win, with intent or accidentally, it's also you who did a bad job in diplomacy, not (only) him. ;)
I don't like the point system very much but in my view it is a better representation of the qualities of good players than something like a quiz for difficult tactical situation.
This game is diplomacy not something like chess, so you have to convince the other players of your plan and do not only make the perfect moves.
The win ratio of diplomacy is much smaller than the the win ration of chess as well. Don't forget about this fact when your opponent wins ... ;)

If everyone would play perfectly well, how could someone solo a game?
At least in balanced variant with more than two or three players, there have to be at least one person who makes a mistake which directly or indirectly gives another player the chance to win the game. Often this is connected to some diplomatic efforts by the winning player who managed his opponents to play in a way he was able to win.

Example:
Russia gets France and GB into attacking Germany. Germany moves its units west to defend itself while Russia is able to invade Germany and gets it SCs.
It is a very simple example, but you could ask the question: Who acted stupidly?
You could say the German, letting his front to Russia completely open, but in this simple example it is clear, that he only had the choice to bet overwhelmed by GB and France who attacked him first or by Russia.
Perhaps France and GB should have checked out first that Russia e.g. supports Austria in fighting against Austria and Italy so it won't be a problem that the German borders to Russia were unmanned.
I won't say France, GB or Germany acted "stupid", Russia simply acted better in this simple example than France and GB and Germany, who failed to convince France and GB of the risk of a Russian invasion ...


Perhaps you can give an example where you hadn't a chance at all caused by the stupidity of other players to convince me of your opinion?

@Argo: A good diplomat can work around the shortcomings of his neighbours.

If someone is being irrational, there are multiple ways to take advantage of that, both via diplomacy and via strategy.

Maybe whoever you think is being irrational is not the only person who needs a skill check on their diplomacy skills.

tobi, you can't convince stupid people. If someone's an idiot and you make a good argument, it won't matter. Stupid people are stuck in their ways because they don't get it.

fasces, a good player can only do so much. If someone throws the game away, that's not your fault.

I'm not talking about relative stupidity here either. I'm talking about absolute stupidity like someone doesn't understand basic support rules, or someone doesn't understand that you can't sacrifice SCs temporarily if the supply center requirement is so low.

An example would be like England talking with France over support holding North Sea from Belgium if Germany's grown to both of their sizes. If France is an idiot and doesn't understand the rules of the game, Germany will support move itself into North Sea, and kill both of them.

it's called being new. Just establish a minimum phases played requirement in your games.

No. Newcomers can be rational. You're discriminating against innate talent.

I just don't agree with you, regarding the possibility of convincing "stupid" people. It depends on what and how do you want to convince them of. And if you fail to convince them, it's probably because they are already convinced of something else. Sometimes, ethics just won't allow players to stab another one, no matter if that attitude seems "stupid" for other people.

On the other hand, however, it could be interesting an exam to check that all the subtleties of the rules are understood.

By the way, if A support hold B and B supports C to 1, while 1 attacks B supported by 2, the letters win, right?

Players can have stupid convictions. I'm not sure why you believe all convictions are equal.

Likewise, there's nothing wrong with asking questions in order to learn the game, but if anything, there should be an explanation of how the rules work before testing people. It's like how students are taught in class.

The problem is that you'll find the same problem in real life Argotitan. One of the things I enjoy of this game is that you need an effort to play with or against "stupid", people. I allowes you to learn how to defend yourself from stupidness, or how to profit with it.

You can't defend yourself from stupidness. It's influence on the world is a matter of luck.

Tolerating that sort of attitude and behavior reduces your game down to bingo or the lottery.

*stupidity, its*

"By the way, if A support hold B and B supports C to 1, while 1 attacks B supported by 2, the letters win, right?"
the letters win, the attack on B fails (due to the support hold by a) and the attack on 1 succeeds.