example:

1 French fleet in Tyrrhenian Sea
1 Turkish fleet in Ionian Sea

Naples and Tunis are both open and there are no units adjacent to either of these SCs.

Now because this is a hypothetical, you are Turkey and are sitting on 17 SCs.

Do you order to Tunis or do you order to Naples? Guaranteed you will both try for one of these SCs...

There is an element of luck involved in this situation. Will France order to Tunis or Naples? You can try to influence the outcome with press. But I would say that a successful win in this situation would require an element of luck.

Likewise many situations in the game present themselves to luck. However luck as a vital role (such as dice roll or card draw) has been removed from the game.

i would convoy and army to Apu...that would be the safest thing to do and doesn't need any luck ^^

:) no luck involved again. Both Turkey and France decide where to move, while God chooses to eliminate the bounce factor.

Regarding the simplified question above that supposedly points out how luck plays a factor. You forget, the name of this game is DIPLOMACY, we write to our opponents and that interaction is what makes this example kind of foolish. If you discuss the options with your opponent, then you want to call it "luck" afterwards, no, you need to accept the situation was on that you helped design and any luck was part of what you manufactured. This game's element of luck is minimal at best!

Tomahaha, that is similar to the point I originally made. Except, that I acknowledge that in this simplified example, luck "may be" involved. However, everything leading to this point was based on skill... Diplomacy and/or Strategy. Only in pure tactical situations, there is luck. And even then, skill might still be a factor. A convoy to Apu, might well be the best solution.

Don't forget about gunboats. ;)
Of course in a Pure gunboat luck plays a much bigger role than in a Classic full press game.
But for the classical diplomacy game with press and DIPLOMACY and more than two players I totally agree with Tomahaha, that diplomacy reduces the luck component a lot.

I haven't read everything here, so please forgive me if I repeat anything already said.
My opinion is that diplomacy is more about diplomacy than luck, hence the name of the game. If you are a central power of course, you need more/better diplomacy to stay alive and eventually prosper, but even if you are like Turjey or England on the classic map, you can't just fight everyone you see. From my experience, this leads nowhere.
I am playing Prussia on the Imperial Diplomacy II map now, and it includes an element I haven't yet seen in any map, namely that two of my home centres are adjacent to Warsaw, and one to Vienna. In this situation, you try to prevent any alliance between Russia and Austria, while trying to work something with them, at least until you are ready to move on one of them, or both.
My point is, the decisive majority of cases in diplomacy variants need careful diplomacy. On the other hand, there are situations purely 50-50%. For example, if you have two adjacent centres and a unit in one of them, and an enemy unit in a neighbouring territory. Sometimes (but not always), such a situation is purely luck, as the attacker has to decide which centre to attack (i.e., will the defender move or not).
Experience is obviously an important factor, both in terms of diplomacy and the knowledge of maps (what happens in general situations, i.e. if Turkey is let out of his corner in classic, that's very bad for everyone else). For these reasons, you cannot depend on luck, and thus better, more experienced players are bound to do better in general.

Gunboat is not Diplomacy, Gunboat is stupid, why oh why would anyone play such a dumb game?

should have read the earlier posts, even those "50/50" luck situations you mention are not so, you negotiate with others and you create your own luck! Is SOME luck involved in this game? Certainly, there is SOME luck involved in Chess as well but to claim this game is "ultimately about luck" as stated at the start of this thread could not be further from the truth. If it is "ultimately about luck" then why do you have some who win so often and some who lose so often? No, luck plays almost no part in this game whatsoever!

If you flip a thousand coins, some are going to land heads over and over and over again. :-\

"Gunboat is not Diplomacy, Gunboat is stupid, why oh why would anyone play such a dumb game?"

Gunboat is a variant - it changes one of the more standard rules than most other variants do, but it's still based upon the same game. It's a great variant if you have considerable time constraints, or if you want to test your tactical expertise rather than your ability to negotiate. It also brings some interesting tactics that aren't present in Full Press - for example, if you want someone to do something in standard Dip you need to convince them to do it via words. In Gunboat, you have to convince them to do it via actions. They'll react according to what they see on the board, so you have to think how to express what you want to via your moves or supports - it makes for some very interesting thinking on how to communicate what you wish to, and whether to use a unit to 'communicate' (by supporting something to show you want to ally, for example) or for your own means.

Anyhow, I know this won't be convincing any gunboat-hater that it's good, so I won't bother saying any more :) The only way to cure gunboat-hating is to have a couple of goes at it - it's really interesting to find out quite how much negotiation there really is in a gunboat, and that's something you only really find by playing it.

Back on topic:

50/50 situations almost never occur in Diplomacy. There are always extra considerations you can take into account, such as what the opponent thinks is the better move, or what the opponent thinks you think is the better move, etc. If you think it is a 50/50 situation you're probably underthinking the scenario.

Take the Classic S01 situation:
French A Mar-Spa
Italian A Ven-Pie

Let's assume A Par has bounced in Bur and can't help.

This initially seems like a 50/50 scenario from France's perspective - France has the options to either move back to Mar, betting on the Italian bouncing him, or stay in Spain, betting on the Italian holding. Guessing wrong in both scenarios has the same outcome - a build denied for France and making him unable to build in Marseilles - and guessing right also has the same outcome, as both would give him a build and enable him to build in the south.

From the Italian's perspective, it is not necessarily 50/50. Italy can choose to either move to Marseilles, betting on the Frenchman leaving it open, or hold, betting on France moving back. However, the outcomes are not the same this time. If Italy guesses right in the first scenario, he gains a build, but also has started a war with France. If he guesses right in the second, he doesn't gain anything but denies France the build, and, although he probably has a very annoyed France on his hands, hasn't started a war. With wrong guessing, he starts a war and doesn't gain anything in the first scenario, and still doesn't gain anything but doesn't start a war in the second.

What the Italian thinks is best will vary from game to game based on the situation. If he has a very strong ally in England and a neutral Germany, he may not care about starting a war as he knows France will not be able to react, and so the first situation would be more appealing, as it potentially gives him a build without any disadvantages. If he doesn't have any commitment from EG, or if the East is looking to be more of an issue, he might be worried about starting a war and so the latter option would be more appealing, as it would potentially weaken his neighbour, so meaning he wouldn't have to worry about his western front so much, without risking a war.


The fact that the better option for Italy changes depending on the situation means that, even though it looks like it's a 50/50 guessing game for France, he can work out what the better option is for him by examining the board to see what Italy would think it is better to do, and then entering orders to counter that. Therefore, it would not be a 50/50 situation anymore - it would be weighted in favour of countering whatever Italy thinks it is best for him to do.

Of course, you then go down the avenue of Italy trying to counter this by thinking as France would, and then it gets complicated, but it still wouldn't be 50/50. A lot of what seems like decisions that would have to be based on chance in Diplomacy can be based on your skill instead if you think about it in-depth.

There are some good points being made to refute the "luck" claims here, but I think that the most compelling one I can think of is that Tomahaha, Raro, Cypeg, and I unconditionally agree upon this.

Argo, try playing a 1v1 game against a skilled player, and use the flip of a coin to determine EVERY move for your units, and allow the skilled player to play as he deems best. I guarantee, you will lose every time. Ergo, skill is the predominant factor, even in a tactics only game.

I agree that rational thought is part of the game, Devonian.

However, there are instances where you're wondering which of many possible moves someone is going to do, and you make a decision to be reserved, balanced, or aggressive in holding, supporting, or moving units.

If anything, randomness is part of skill because you understand that the key to being unpredictable is not making up your mind when it comes to tactics. You strategize general objectives, identify all the possible tactics that could achieve your objective, and then randomize pick tactics among those possibilities so it's impossible to be predicted.

At that point, it becomes a numbers game as to whether or not the opponent coincidentally picked the right tactic to beat yours.

...randomly* pick...

Also, yes, you can predict other beginners who are stuck in their ways who don't randomize tactics, but when you're playing against experts, everyone knows that randomness is key to remain unpredictable, so prediction doesn't work.

If anything, trying to predict the opposition becomes a disadvantage because it lets the opponent slip through your lines from being unpredictable.

Good examples of this often happen in Germany and Italy when playing Classic FVA. You're trying to figure out whether to invade Munich in order to hold it into the future, or how to go around the boot of Italy while pressuring Venice.

Neither player knows when the other player is going to invade or go around, so it comes down to whichever is simultaneously aggressive when the other is reserved, balanced when the other is aggressive, or reserved when the other is balanced. You support when the other holds, move when the other supports, or hold when the other moves.

Argo, if you agree that rational thought is part of the game, then I need to refer back to the definition of luck: "success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions." By definition, when rational thought is used, it precludes the possibility of luck being used.

Of course, there are some situations where rational thought cannot be used. But, as Captainmeme pointed out, these are rare.

You're assuming rational thought comes in one form.

Sometimes, there are multiple forms for strategizing the same rationale. When that happens, multiple people have to simultaneously pick a single rational tactic from a set of rational tactics without knowing for certain the other's in advance.

Luck comes into play like in rock, paper, scissors. Yes, you can rationally strategize among the set of possible rational tactics, but ultimately, it comes down to whether or not you and your opponent were compatible in your favor.

Does that mean all players are equally skillful in rationally strategizing? No. It just means that even among rational strategies, you have to pick among rational tactics.

That said, it's even possible for the most rational strategists to lose out over the long run because in the short run, they were unluckily beat by incompatible tactics, so they look bad. It's even possible for rational strategists to lose to irrational strategists who exercise very lucky rational tactics

Perhaps you would like to propose a your own definition of luck then.

You keep going in circles around the definition I quoted. When I say, use pure luck for one person against a skilled player. You say "rational thought is part of the game."

When I say rational thought precludes luck by the quoted definition. You say, "you have to pick among rational tactics", implying that the tactics would be picked at random.

I am saying rational thought is used, frequently and meaningfully. It can be used to prioritize and maximize the outcomes of possible alternative tactics. It means that luck is not being used, unless an alternative definition of luck is used.

In pure strategy games like this, I think of each person playing the game as a black box agent that takes as input the board state and all press (for Diplomacy), and outputs press at regular intervals and moves for each turn. The luck described here concerns the nature of those black box agents where you don't know the algorithm behind the man converting press and moves he observes into his own press/moves. I take issue with calling this "luck". When you read an opponent's hand strength in poker or the intentions of the opponent in a game like Chess or Go, you're making decisions based on pure skill in calculating the odds of what is going to happen based on how you calculate your opponent reacting to your decisions. As long as the "luck" factor is based purely on the probabilistic reasoning of opponent's choices and doesn't consider any additional probabilistic factors outside of your control, you're not going to reduce the amount of "luck" in the outcome of the game without ruining the opponent dynamic that makes these games so rich.

Argotitan, your entire premise is so naive and simplistic, and based on a conclusions that you arrived at before considering the subject, and now you're dug in on with no facts to support. Your continued use of the term "rational tactics" is rather vague on one hand, and dubious on the other. Diplomacy is not in itself a game of tactics alone, even though many prefer it that way. And even when the game focuses on tactical interplay, it's nothing like rock, paper, scissors at all. That scenario occurs only in a few rare instances in any given game where a player is on the defensive, and cannot hold everything, thus necessitating choices. Guessing right and wrong in these circumstance has nothing to do with luck affecting the game. Any position depending upon chance alone to survive is already beaten, and it was defeated by superior skill through tactical and diplomatic efforts.

Arguments that nation assignment are based on luck are likewise a load of crap. All nations on the standard 7 player board are essentially equal. Players may have preferences not to play Italy, but that in no way means Italy is the weakest nation on the map. Your performance in a game is based on the your diplomatic efforts you invest in it. If you get positioned next to a weak or inexperienced player that's just the way the board draws. It's neither a good thing nor a bad thing. Likewise with NMRs. Just because an adjacent power NMRs does not necessarily confer an advantage to you as is so often interpreted. NMRs are an unfortunate reality of the online game, but they have nothing to do with luck.

Anticipating ALL of the players' behavior through communication, analysis, and creativity is what drives the game. Luck has nothing to do with it.

Devonian, I agree with you on quantifying outcomes. Rational strategies entail playing in a way where the maximal amount of outcomes is in your favor in order to deal with unpredictability. There's also a "worst case scenario" rationality where the goal is to contain or counter another's unpredictability. That way, no matter what happens, you're victorious.

However, quantified maximization can still exist on both sides, and if anything, this is how fair variants are defined. If one side starts with a larger quantity of victorious outcomes than the other, then the map is biased.

Likewise, you can have multiple rational opponents approaching such a map. The victor in that case is the one who randomly picks advantageous tactics. To be clear, I'm not saying the victor doesn't deserve credit for one's victory because one consented to assume the risk of randomness, but it's still luck, not skill.

The matter of skill comes down to whether or not a player chose to commit oneself to quantitative maximization.

Argo, Ruffhaus is right when he says "your entire premise is ... based on a conclusions that you arrived at before considering the subject".

For example, look at your statement "quantified maximization can still exist on both sides". You go on to say that... The victor is the one who RANDOMLY picks advantageous tactics". You are ignoring the fact that there might be a difference in the "quantified maximization". This difference is the variation in their skill. The greater the variation in their skill, the more likely the greater skilled player will win.

If your premise is that all players are perfectly equal, then victory will be randomly divided between players, I might concede your point. But you are not saying that, you are saying the game itself is "ultimately about luck". I will never concede that point.

I agree. Some people can be more committed to quantified maximization than others. As I said before:

"Does that mean all players are equally skillful in rationally strategizing? No. It just means that even among rational strategies, you have to pick among rational tactics.

That said, it's even possible for the most rational strategists to lose out over the long run because in the short run, they were unluckily beat by incompatible tactics, so they look bad. It's even possible for rational strategists to lose to irrational strategists who exercise very lucky rational tactics."

OK, it's clear that Argotitan is talking about battle tactics rather than Diplomacy in the point he is trying to make. I'm pretty sure we all agree that full-press Diplomacy is NOT a game of luck, aside from the obvious attributes of luck such as getting the position you desire, being adjacent to strong or weak players, someone just willing to help you or being surrounded by cheaters, all the other nations cd'ing except for you, etc. etc... you get my point. This is basically the extent of luck in Diplomacy.

I think the title of this thread should rather have been: "Are gunboats and 1-on-1's ultimately about luck", because that is where Argotitan's argument is applicable.

Argotitan's argument mainly deals with the decision of choosing among various tactical options. Although I think it's been boiled down just about as far as it can go, I'll offer my last thoughts... Even when it comes down to a simple choice, there is always room for extra analysis of possible outcomes and how you might incorporate them into future strategic scenarios. "Luck" as you say may play a slight role in your chance of achieving the best outcome for a particular move, but it is your overall strategy that helps you make the right decision, or rather: avoiding possible devastation and leaving room for contingencies (i.e. the "worst case scenario" strategy you mentioned). Perhaps you are giving up too easily with your decisions by reducing these to simple "single" choices in a particular scenario. I've played some long and intense 1-on-1 games, and believe me when I tell you that you can study the board for many hours before something might occur to you that helps you make the right move in a seemingly "guessing" situation.

Consider your statement: "Does that mean all players are equally skillful in rationally strategizing? No. It just means that even among rational strategies, you have to pick among rational tactics."
Yes, you are correct that you have to pick among rational tactics.... but you must PICK THE RIGHT ONE! It is precisely the same point that Devonian gave in response to your post. He was not only saying that your decisions are not random, but that IT IS POSSIBLE to make the best decision out of your choices. The analysis required for this goes far beyond a simple "worst case scenario", and delves into topics such as re-arranging your battle plan mid-game, giving up losing battles (or even "drawing your opponent in") and flanking weak areas while appropriating the precise time-line and resources. A single engagement might have a good or bad outcome, but only average players fight directly all fronts where "luck" can actually make the difference between winning and losing. There's always opportunities to outsmart your opponent. It simply comes down to whether or not you can defeat your enemy.

How on earth do you put "random" and "tactics" in the same line?

Do we have a set of prearranged tactics to click on? no.
Tactics and strategy for each person is unique, and each of us DECIDE what to do, or better we invent moves in order to stay alive, break through etc at the GIVEN situation.
In every WW4 game I played, I have never seen the same stalemate line.

I have advised the best tactical moves to a player for three days in a row only to see that he just did the complete opposite.

Again, there is no luck involved. It is a series of micro decisions that are too complex for people to fathom or explain and so try to find the easy explanation..luck to simplify that complex twisted situation.

EVEN the drawing is not random. If you join 5th in a new game the computer will send you to country X but had you joined 6th then you will be somewhere else entirely.

You discuss tactics as if they are some sort of mathematical equation. The best tactics are based on a bit of guesswork and evaluation of your opponent, when your opponent does something unexpected, it's not "luck", you simply failed to predict his moves, your tactics failed you! Yes, you need to guess what an opponent will do, that is not "luck" it is based on other factors, an educated guess is not exactly luck is it? Luck is pure randomness while estimating and calculating is anything BUT luck! You also influence the opposition orders by writing to him and/or others, you manufacture a situation and take advantage of what is going on around you, this is as far from luck as can be! Boiling it down to a random guess based on the flip of a coin? That sir is not Diplomacy.

Well, ideally, tactics can be reduced to mathematical equations - albeit statistical ones. Decision Theory is a legitimate branch of Computer Science that tackles how to choose the best strategy under uncertain conditions. Baye's equation is used quite extensively...