Diplomacy Academy 7: "What we have here is a failure to communicate"

[@lucasmayer2412]

The problem in this scenario is that Russia is just a bad player. You can read it out of his messages and out of his actions on the board. In my experience such bad players believe that they are really smart and take it personal when you don`t act the way they want. So most of the times it is best to find exits without them because they are pure dynamite. You can see this danger in all of Russias actions: Making threats without any power, breaking agreements but being mad when someone breaks an agreement with them, forwarding correspondence (a very big no-go) I lately played a game where I was allied with a player of a similar calibre. I realized that very soon but I couldn`t break out because it was a 3-way-alliance and I needed the third partner. So I kept my nerves and tried to control him as long as possible and always looked for a position to stab. He continued being the bad player he is (building fleets when armies were needed for the alliance, wanted my units away from his centers but placing his units close to my centers, reacting arrogant and egocentric in his messages, messing up the coordination of the alliance by doing what he wanted and not what was agreed). So when I got the position to stab I did it without the blink of an eye (It was after 7-8 turns, so about 4 years). So what I want to say with that is that I find it really hard to ally with really bad players. You can handle it for some time but you have to look for an exit strategy. So in this regard I like how England approached Russia --> convoying to Nwy, move into StP. Russia was unpredictable so you rather attack him than France (when France is a good guy as he seemed to be)

[@dclark142002]

I think you also missed a fundamental aspect of Russia's priorities in your assessment of his moves in Scandinavia in the early game. There seemed to be a strong RT early, and the priority for Russia had to be his relationship with Turkey. It appears from the paucity of information in his communications with you that he spent most of his time thinking about the situation in Austria. His objective in Scandinavia seems to have been a forward defense, trying to keep you dealing with issues away from a StP he couldn't defend. This would make sense in the context of a collapsing Germany and a strong EF alliance. I'm not sure that a RT / EF context can produce a long-term agreement between R and E that benefits either. Russia wants to head to Germany to get dots that he doesn't have to share with Turkey. England will have to share Germany with France or go to Scandinavia to avoid being the junior partner. What long term incentives were you offering him that would have enticed him to make peace? Why didn't you want to be fighting Russia?

[@DanceScholar]

Good feedback - Russia's priorities weren't discussed much. My take is that as Russia you want to secure one front with your military, and one with Diplomacy. You can't do both. So, when he only has one unit in the north, as England, I'm not expecting a fight - I'm expecting to be sweet-talked. :) It was with that in mind that I suggested we DMZ Scandinavia and run in on Germany. What Russia wouldn't leap at this deal, given a strong R/T? The units that could threaten your northern flanks go away, and (hopefully) get engaged in a protracted struggle against France. In Spring 1902, remember, there isn't enough evidence for either party to conclude "Strong R/T E/F" - though you can of course make guesses. The proposal was far more of a "Lets DMZ Scandinavia so we can both do other things" -the implication being that I would attack France. I'm not going to make that explicit (for reasons the video makes VERY clear I think) but making sense of that is Russia's job. "Why don't you want to be fighting Russia?" is a fantastic question - and I think this game shows the answer nicely. More often than not, Saint Petersburg is a dead end for England, and (as in this case) where it is not, you STILL can't leverage your gains for a win. Knowing that I can _always_ take StPete later, as England it is my strong preference to work towards a situation where I can do something else. Most Russian players insist that I come and take it from them, however. Quite frustrating. :)

[@dclark142002]

Your analysis is logical (as it should be from a former world champion to a 'I've played a few email games' guy). I was very surprised by the stance Russia took, and the provocative nature of his moves and communication. He needed you at least neutral (so he could collapse Austria and gain anything from Germany's demise. But he didn't communicate his goals at all, let alone his needs. He didn't seem to read your potential needs or goals either. It just seems like short term tactics was his preferred communication point....in a situation where the short term moves are much less important than the long term goal. Did he at all try to prop Germany up against you? I haven't experienced a game where Germany collapsed so spectacularly...

[@DanceScholar]

No, Germany was functionally gone by 1902. He mis-ordered his S01 moves and never recovered.

[@bigboyrussia2560]

great vid

[@martijnbouman8874]

I have a few comments on your decision to support an army convoy into Norway when you weren't sure that Russia would keep his word of moving out. You said that you wanted to work together with Russia. But honestly, if I were Russia, I would doubt that when I saw the army convoy. Suppose that Russia was indeed honest and moved from Norway to Sweden. What would he think when he saw that you convoyed an army into Norway without making any mention of it in your previous press? I would interpret that as a stab. I would be much more understandable if that unit was a fleet. Granted, the decision to convoy an army rather than support a fleet into Norway did help with getting the upper hand on Russia. Hence if you thought that you may very well be fighting Russia soon, then yes, the army convoy was superior to supporting a fleet in. However, I think I know a way that would have been way less harmful to your relation with Russia: if you support a fleet in, it is always better to *tell Russia about it beforehand*. You could say: 'Look Russia, I really want to work together with you. I hope that I can trust you to move your fleet back to Sweden. Just to be safe, I will support a fleet of mine into Norway, though.' Think about it. There are two possibilities: either Russia intended to stay in Norway or he didn't. Suppose he intended to leave Norway. He would have been disappointed that you were so distrustful of him that you decided to support a fleet into Norway, but he would be much more understandable if you communicated that you would do so beforehand. The more moves you communicate towards him, the more open and honest you come across. Suppose he intended to stay in Norway. If he heard from you that you would support yourself into Norway, then he would antagonize you,without making any gains, by staying into that territory. Thus, he would decide to change his plans and to move back to Sweden like he said. The outcome would be that he did *not* do a failed stab on you and thus your relation with Russia wouldn't be damaged nearly as much as compared to the situation where the support to Norway was actually needed. Heck, you could even tell Russia that you will support yourself into Norway *and then not even actually do it* if you were clear that you wanted him to move out of Norway and not be dislodged by you. As a last comment: the attack on Norway was unfortunate, but there is an argument to be made to be happy when players prepare for nonexisting stabs of you. These players will learn that you are honest, but that they have a tendency to misjudge you, and hence learn to trust you even in situations where part of their brain is telling them that they shouldn't. These players are great to have around in the endgame.

[@DanceScholar]

You make an excellent point. If Russia had walked back to Sweden, we'd have needed to have a conversation where I explained my decision. The decision to bring force to a point should not be taken lightly. I think your point makes more sense in the context of 1901, though - in 1902, after he has breached trust, I don't feel as much of an obligation to "play friendly" - he he walks out, he walks out, and I'm in a dot I already own, and we can negotiate from there. But if he is trying to pull a fast one (as he was), then I want overwhelming force on the spot, so I can have the upper hand in any subsequent negotiations.

[@martijnbouman8874]

I understand that you didn't feel an obligation to ''play friendly'' after that Russian move into Norway. However, you said yourself that you wanted to try to work with Russia anyway, and then I would think that it is best suited to at least tell him about your moves in advance. Knowing that this would likely result into him backing voluntarily out of Norway anyway, causing no damage to your relationship, I see no reason to convoy an army over rather than using a fleet. Well, I do see one reason: if you wanted to attack Russia no matter what he would do, then yes, an army convoy would be the better choice. But, according to what you said in the video, that is not what you wanted.

[@DanceScholar]

I think it came down to this: I looked at his reply to my question "are we good?" and didn't believe him. If he was lying about walking out of Norway, we were going to fight. If was going to dislodge him from Norway, I wanted to make that retreat to NWG as unattractive as possible, because I couldn't control it. That meant the army. I didn't want him to walk out because I threatened him (because he knew I was forcing it), I wanted him to walk out to demonstrate good faith. If there was no good faith, then there was no working with him. Does that make sense? I did title the video "a failure to communicate ..." :D

[@martijnbouman8874]

That does make some sense to me. In my view, this comes down to how much you want to work together with Russia. I often don't mind if another player would stab me in certain situations if I can avoid these situations from occurring anyway. However, I do agree that a basis of good faith is preferable.

[@evmi231]

You asked for why you didn't stab. Looks like your "ideal" stab would have been spring 1907: NOR - ENG NORW - NAO HEL - Hol Liv - War Mos S: Liv - War Ukr S: Liv - War BAL - Pru Ber - Pru Kiel - Ruhr Warsaw explodes, in the fall you take Bre, MAO, Bel, and MAYBE Sev. Looks good, you're at like 15 centres in 1908 aaand have no friends? If they're smart they'll band together to stop the solo. They hold Munich and Western Med and basically stonewall you? Is that why you didn't stab? Or are you just such a nice guy??

[@DanceScholar]

You've found me out - its that I'm such a nice guy. :) That and not being able to get to 18 from the stab means I'd be getting the same result (a draw) with players I didn't enjoy working with. In the end game, if a stab can't get you the win, why stab? There are plenty of good reasons to stab in the early or mid game to keep that chance for a draw open, but if you're going to get a draw anyway, who cares if it is on 13 or 17 centers?

[@gkrotkov]

@@DanceScholar Following up on this thread; what was Italy's role in negotiations around this time? Was Italy acting totally as France's Janissary or did Italy take a more active role, like vowing to oppose you if you had stabbed? Italy's role in this game definitely interests me, because Italy manages to stay alive despite France definitely having an opportunity or two to eliminate him. Then again, getting to an actual two-way draw is pretty darn hard...

[@bigboyrussia2560]

That russian player makes me so mad

[@DanceScholar]

Oh yeah. :P

[@martinmartin6300]

To ve honest, from a neztral perspective russia should not have any incentive to leave sweden and to go into baltics to go on berlin as both of you were not even in a formal alliance. Here I think you misjudged how he was thinking about it. At this stage, there was no fornal war going on between england and russia besides the foolish capture of norway in the past, which however was talkes down as "well that just happened lets see whether we can still work with each other". The following move of yours taking st petersburg must have have confirmed his sceptism. Definitely, you have implicitly declared war on russia by taking st petersburg. How do you thibk that a russian player would work with you from that point onwoards?