Opening blunders

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

I'm curious if anyone has advise to avoid opening blunders. In my
last two games, I've made mistakes in the first year, which I think will
cost me the game and make them short games for me.

In one game I was Turkey. Russia was silent as to his intents. I
wanted to form an alliance with him, so did not move on Rum. But neither
did he. So no one got Rum, Austria got 2 SCs and is attacking me along
with Italy trying the Lepanto, so I'm in a big bind.

In another, I am Austria in a broadcast-only game. From the beginning
Russia has incessantly sent broadcasts about how I have been trying to
initiate war with his country. I inadvertantly suggested that Turkey
could take Rum and Bul the first year, which gave Russia an excuse to
blame me for being a war-monger. I denied my intents for war, even
admitting my mistake, yet Russia continued to display me in his
broadcasts as an aggressor.
I did not want to be painted as a selfish troublemaker, so my first
moves opened with f tri-alb, a vie-tri, and a bud-ser. Russia play a
war-gal and a mos-ukr. In hindsight I should have protected Gal, but I
made the mistake of thinking Russia didn't want war. I'm not sure what
Italy will do, but I may get no builds this first year as I need to
protect my home SCs.

Any suggestions to improve my play?


--
Aaron Deskins
Graduate Student
Chemical Engineering
Purdue University
16 answers Last reply
More about opening blunders
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    Aaron Deskins wrote:
    > I'm curious if anyone has advise to avoid opening blunders. In my last
    > two games, I've made mistakes in the first year, which I think will cost
    > me the game and make them short games for me.
    >
    > In one game I was Turkey. Russia was silent as to his intents. I
    > wanted to form an alliance with him, so did not move on Rum. But neither
    > did he. So no one got Rum, Austria got 2 SCs and is attacking me along
    > with Italy trying the Lepanto, so I'm in a big bind.
    >
    > In another, I am Austria in a broadcast-only game. From the beginning
    > Russia has incessantly sent broadcasts about how I have been trying to
    > initiate war with his country. I inadvertantly suggested that Turkey
    > could take Rum and Bul the first year, which gave Russia an excuse to
    > blame me for being a war-monger. I denied my intents for war, even
    > admitting my mistake, yet Russia continued to display me in his
    > broadcasts as an aggressor.
    > I did not want to be painted as a selfish troublemaker, so my first
    > moves opened with f tri-alb, a vie-tri, and a bud-ser. Russia play a
    > war-gal and a mos-ukr. In hindsight I should have protected Gal, but I
    > made the mistake of thinking Russia didn't want war. I'm not sure what
    > Italy will do, but I may get no builds this first year as I need to
    > protect my home SCs.
    >
    > Any suggestions to improve my play?
    >
    If someone is silent then nothing is agreed and you take whatever action
    you see fit. Don't waste time/chances by assuming that silence is an
    affirmation.

    Ditto when someone is making noises against you they are verbally
    attacking you. There is no reason to assume they wont do so militarily
    too. At the end of the day you need to attack someone. May as well be
    the person being agressive towards you.

    Of course once you have agreement from someone it still doesn't mean
    they will do what you agreed ;) At that point you just have to decide to
    trust them of not.

    When you are trying to reach agreement with someone remember to consider
    what is right for them. They will want something from the deal too. Also
    try to work out why your idea is better than any other idea - they are
    more likely to agree if they see it is the best path.

    Lastlt use mind control to bend them to your will.

    Dan Marchant
    Design & Development Consultant
    www.obscure.co.uk
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    I think my general problem is that I typically don't like to rock the
    boat too much. Some players come on strong from the beginning, and do
    fine. I however, am typically a more defensive player. Perhaps I need to
    be more aggressive.

    Dan Marchant wrote:

    >
    >>
    > If someone is silent then nothing is agreed and you take whatever action
    > you see fit. Don't waste time/chances by assuming that silence is an
    > affirmation.
    >
    > Ditto when someone is making noises against you they are verbally
    > attacking you. There is no reason to assume they wont do so militarily
    > too. At the end of the day you need to attack someone. May as well be
    > the person being agressive towards you.
    >
    > Of course once you have agreement from someone it still doesn't mean
    > they will do what you agreed ;) At that point you just have to decide to
    > trust them of not.
    >
    > When you are trying to reach agreement with someone remember to consider
    > what is right for them. They will want something from the deal too. Also
    > try to work out why your idea is better than any other idea - they are
    > more likely to agree if they see it is the best path.
    >
    > Lastlt use mind control to bend them to your will.
    >
    > Dan Marchant
    > Design & Development Consultant
    > www.obscure.co.uk


    --
    Aaron Deskins
    Graduate Student
    Chemical Engineering
    Purdue University
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    You sound like a beginner - so welcome to the game.

    There are a couple of things you could try:

    1) Go the "Diplomatic Pouch" and read some of the strategy articles about
    initial moves. You'll find common starting moves for all countries and why
    some of them are chosen. At the beginning, the game is like chess - there
    are standard/favoured openings that have been tried and tested. You might
    as well follow those - regardless of any negotiations with other players.

    2) Much of the game is based on what people say and how they make others
    behave the way they want - that's the diplomacy part. The only way to get
    better at this is through experience. Just keep playing more and more
    games. Eventually you'll find a style that suits you and you'll find ways
    to deal with the loudmouth, the silent but deadly, the untrustworthy, the
    expert, the beginner.

    3) Try some of the No Press games. That way you can focus purely on the
    mechanics of the game, trying different moves for different countries
    without anyone clouding the issue with false statements.

    4) Don't try too many variants until you have a good understanding of the
    standard game.

    PBEM Diplomacy isn't the same as face to face playing, as you don't get
    tones of voice and facial expressions. At the end of the day its only a
    game and as you play more games your reputation will out. Players will find
    out who blusters and who doesn't, who tells the truth and who always stabs
    their allies in the back at the earliest opportunity.

    Hope this helps a bit.

    Don't give up.
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    Aaron Deskins wrote:
    >
    > In one game I was Turkey. Russia was silent as to his intents. I
    > wanted to form an alliance with him, so did not move on Rum. But neither
    > did he. So no one got Rum, Austria got 2 SCs and is attacking me along
    > with Italy trying the Lepanto, so I'm in a big bind.

    In my [in]experience, silence *is* aggression. And even if it isn't, it
    makes for an easy target, because who is going to blame you?

    > In another, I am Austria in a broadcast-only game. From the beginning
    > Russia has incessantly sent broadcasts about how I have been trying to
    > initiate war with his country. I inadvertantly suggested that Turkey
    > could take Rum and Bul the first year, which gave Russia an excuse to
    > blame me for being a war-monger. I denied my intents for war, even
    > admitting my mistake, yet Russia continued to display me in his
    > broadcasts as an aggressor.

    Looking good isn't all it's cracked up to be. Yes, it tends to keep you
    from being called the Big Fat Liar, but that's not at all guaranteed (I
    know this for a fact!), and it doesn't matter how nice a guy you are if
    you're dead.

    > I did not want to be painted as a selfish troublemaker, so my first
    > moves opened with f tri-alb, a vie-tri, and a bud-ser. Russia play a
    > war-gal and a mos-ukr. In hindsight I should have protected Gal, but I
    > made the mistake of thinking Russia didn't want war. I'm not sure what
    > Italy will do, but I may get no builds this first year as I need to
    > protect my home SCs.

    Depending on Germany and Turkey, you can bargain hard with Italy and
    France and then go for the gusto with Alb-Gre, Ser S Alb-Gre, Tri-Vie.
    You have about a 50% chance of not losing a center to Russia, and if you
    bargain hard with Italy he may leave you alone as well. Make friends
    with France as much as possible to control your risk. These moves will
    at least convince the others that you have balls, which could prove
    useful when trying to sign on some allies.

    --
    Will Berry
    Director of Operations, Techwood Con gaming convention
    http://www.techwoodcon.com/
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    "Aaron Deskins" <ndeskins@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote in message
    news:cj1o18$o8f$1@mozo.cc.purdue.edu...
    > I'm curious if anyone has advise to avoid opening blunders. In my
    > last two games, I've made mistakes in the first year, which I think will
    > cost me the game and make them short games for me.

    In general, my advice -- which comes from 10 years of playing this game --
    is that you should minimize your tactical risks in 1901. If you have a bad
    start, you'll be a target until you turn things around.

    In practice, what does this mean?

    * The most important issue is diplomatic. Don't be afraid to tell people
    how it's going to be, and back it up with smart, assertive moves. They'll
    respect you for being straightforward, and respect is a good step toward
    making friends. Play hardball.

    * Get your natural neutral center(s) without being overly aggressive. As
    Germany, for example, I don't care about Belgium. In Spring 1901, F Kiel is
    better used as Swedish leverage on Russia anyway, and I can use A Mun for
    defense rather than sending it on a risky two-turn mission to Belgium that
    leaves my center wide open.

    * Cover key spaces unless you have a very good reason not to. You made a
    mistake as the Austrian, letting Russia into Galicia in the spring. If
    Italy had declared war on you, I could understand A Vie-Tri. But the best
    idea is to NEGOTIATE a bounce in Galicia with Russia. Not only does this
    give you (and Russia) some security, it also puts you on a road toward
    trusting each other, and making friends in 1901 is what the game is all
    about.

    Other key spaces... As Turkey or Russia, for the past eight years I've
    always opened to the Black Sea, usually by arranged bounce. At a tournament
    this year, as Russia, I let a squirmy Turk talk himself out of an arranged
    bounce and he moved into Black while I went to Rum. Stupid. I was under
    pressure the entire game. As Germany, use A Mun to bounce France in
    Burgundy (again by arrangement) or to bounce Italy in Tyrolia (arrangement
    or not).

    * In the first year, not all pieces are equal. By arranging bounces, you
    can use units with little realistic offensive capability to limit the
    powerful pieces of your neighbors. An example: suppose you're Austria and
    it's Fall 1901 and you're set to get two builds. Although you arranged a
    bounce with Russia in Galicia in the Spring, you should also arrange one for
    the Fall. Why? It's stupid to try to sneak into Galicia, because if Russia
    doesn't go there, instead say going to Ukraine, he can just build an army in
    Warsaw anyway. That's instead of building in StP or Sev, meaning, of
    course, that although you attacked Russia first, England and Turkey are the
    ones who get to see his weaker flanks. It's better to arrange the bounce in
    Galicia. You've got an A Bud on the way so you can attack Galicia next
    spring if you want; if the bounce happens, Russia can't build in Warsaw,
    which protects you; it promotes a safe border and trust should you want to
    ally with him. These are all good things, and they happen because your
    diplomacy and tactics act in concert with each other.


    Grant
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 15:21:28 GMT, "Grant Flowers"
    <darthvader@SPAMworldnet.att.net> wrote:

    >It's better to arrange the bounce in
    >Galicia. You've got an A Bud on the way so you can attack Galicia next
    >spring if you want; if the bounce happens, Russia can't build in Warsaw,
    >which protects you; it promotes a safe border and trust should you want to
    >ally with him. These are all good things, and they happen because your
    >diplomacy and tactics act in concert with each other.

    I find that arranged bounces hinder, rather than foster, trust. Yep,
    we're doing what we've said we'd do, but the whole exercise is based
    upon distrust: I don't trust you not to move there if I don't move
    there and you don't trust me.
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    In article <cj1o18$o8f$1@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>,
    Aaron Deskins <ndeskins@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:

    > In one game I was Turkey. Russia was silent as to his intents. I
    >wanted to form an alliance with him, so did not move on Rum.

    and, in a different game:

    > I did not want to be painted as a selfish troublemaker, so my first
    >moves opened with f tri-alb, a vie-tri, and a bud-ser.

    I think that you are being too timid. The text here comes across, and
    maybe your moves come across, as rather fearful and a bit pleading--
    please, please, somebody ally with me! In my experience this makes you
    look like a target, especially in broadcast-only and especially with
    central powers like Austria.

    To survive the opening with Austria (my favorite power) you need a
    solid ally *and you need an enemy*. If you have no enemy,
    you have nothing to offer your ally and nowhere to go yourself after
    the neutrals are gone. This being the case, you might as well pick
    the person who seems hardest to deal with; in your second game, I
    *definitely* would not have tried to make nice with Russia. Yes, he
    was trying to make you look bad, but a counter-tactic is to point
    out that he's a warmaker himself and let's all gang up on him!

    Once you have said something like your proposal of Turkey taking
    Rumania, it can't be unsaid and it's useless to apologize; better to
    brazen it out, in my experience, and try to ally with Turkey.

    I used to lose with Austria a lot because I played to try not to
    lose--this just made me a big red target. My results improved immensely
    when I started playing to win--I took the attitude that I actually had a
    good position (and Austria does, if she survives the opening) and
    proceeded from this position of strength to make alliances and
    beat up the uncooperative. This works particularly well with
    Austria, in my opinion, because most players don't see her as a big
    threat in the opening--if you play France or Russia in the calm
    certainty that you are winning, there is a danger that everyone else
    will think so too, which no nation can withstand.

    Incidentally, I think broadcast-only is very hard; you may find the
    regular game has a less steep learning curve. It's hard to recover
    from a mistake in broadcast-only, because you can't, for example,
    negotiate peace with your attacker in return for a sudden mutual
    advance on his ally.

    In the long run you just have to play a lot, and watch other people
    play. A friend of mine improved her FTF game by what she calls
    "shadowing." After she is eliminated, she asks the other players if
    she can follow them around and listen to their negotiations (promising
    not to say anything, of course). She's generally been given
    permission, even at DipCon, and she says it's enormously instructive
    as well as very funny. A PBeM equivalent would be reviewing the
    few games where full press has been published--you can find some on
    the Dip Pouch web site.

    Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@eskimo.com
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    Thanks for all the replies. I actually tried the below combination and
    it worked! I tried to convince Russia (and everyone else) that I was
    going to protect my home SCs, in hopes that Russia would not waste a
    move attacking me. He instead elected to protect himself against Turkey.
    I ended up gaining 2 SCs. Unfortunately someone thought that cheating
    was going on (how else can someone make moves like these-sarcasm
    intended) and so the GM called the game off. :(

    Oh well- I learned a lot.


    Will Berry wrote:


    >
    > Depending on Germany and Turkey, you can bargain hard with Italy and
    > France and then go for the gusto with Alb-Gre, Ser S Alb-Gre, Tri-Vie.
    > You have about a 50% chance of not losing a center to Russia, and if you
    > bargain hard with Italy he may leave you alone as well. Make friends
    > with France as much as possible to control your risk. These moves will
    > at least convince the others that you have balls, which could prove
    > useful when trying to sign on some allies.
    >


    --
    Aaron Deskins
    Graduate Student
    Chemical Engineering
    Purdue University
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    Yeah, never be afraid of what people think.

    Go with what you think others will do, not what you want them to do.

    In your Turkey example, nothing you can do. You got an idiot for a neighbor.
    It happens, no big deal. Fight the good fight and move on.

    In your Austria example. Russia all but put up billboards saying he would
    attack. You caved and played a meek opening. So, you learned a valuable
    lesson. Never base your moves on what you 'want' people to do, but instead
    base them on what you think they will do.


    "Aaron Deskins" <ndeskins@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote in message
    news:cj1o18$o8f$1@mozo.cc.purdue.edu...
    > I'm curious if anyone has advise to avoid opening blunders. In my
    > last two games, I've made mistakes in the first year, which I think will
    > cost me the game and make them short games for me.
    >
    > In one game I was Turkey. Russia was silent as to his intents. I
    > wanted to form an alliance with him, so did not move on Rum. But neither
    > did he. So no one got Rum, Austria got 2 SCs and is attacking me along
    > with Italy trying the Lepanto, so I'm in a big bind.
    >
    > In another, I am Austria in a broadcast-only game. From the beginning
    > Russia has incessantly sent broadcasts about how I have been trying to
    > initiate war with his country. I inadvertantly suggested that Turkey
    > could take Rum and Bul the first year, which gave Russia an excuse to
    > blame me for being a war-monger. I denied my intents for war, even
    > admitting my mistake, yet Russia continued to display me in his
    > broadcasts as an aggressor.
    > I did not want to be painted as a selfish troublemaker, so my first
    > moves opened with f tri-alb, a vie-tri, and a bud-ser. Russia play a
    > war-gal and a mos-ukr. In hindsight I should have protected Gal, but I
    > made the mistake of thinking Russia didn't want war. I'm not sure what
    > Italy will do, but I may get no builds this first year as I need to
    > protect my home SCs.
    >
    > Any suggestions to improve my play?
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Aaron Deskins
    > Graduate Student
    > Chemical Engineering
    > Purdue University
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    Aaron Deskins <ndeskins@ecn.purdue.edu> writes:

    WHAT??? You made good reasonable moves and the GM accused you
    of cheating?? ANd you're that calm about it?? I'd blow a gasket
    if my GM EVER ended a game because I "guessed right" in 1901!!
    What you did was good Diplomacy!

    Jim-Bob


    >Thanks for all the replies. I actually tried the below combination and
    >it worked! I tried to convince Russia (and everyone else) that I was
    >going to protect my home SCs, in hopes that Russia would not waste a
    >move attacking me. He instead elected to protect himself against Turkey.
    >I ended up gaining 2 SCs. Unfortunately someone thought that cheating
    >was going on (how else can someone make moves like these-sarcasm
    >intended) and so the GM called the game off. :(

    >Oh well- I learned a lot.


    >Will Berry wrote:


    >>
    >> Depending on Germany and Turkey, you can bargain hard with Italy and
    >> France and then go for the gusto with Alb-Gre, Ser S Alb-Gre, Tri-Vie.
    >> You have about a 50% chance of not losing a center to Russia, and if you
    >> bargain hard with Italy he may leave you alone as well. Make friends
    >> with France as much as possible to control your risk. These moves will
    >> at least convince the others that you have balls, which could prove
    >> useful when trying to sign on some allies.
    >>


    >--
    >Aaron Deskins
    >Graduate Student
    >Chemical Engineering
    >Purdue University
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    > Jim Burgess <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote:
    >
    > WHAT??? You made good reasonable moves and the GM accused you
    > of cheating?? ANd you're that calm about it?? I'd blow a gasket
    > if my GM EVER ended a game because I "guessed right" in 1901!!
    > What you did was good Diplomacy!
    >
    > Jim-Bob

    I have to agree here. I GM a lot of newbie games on njudge (really -
    about 50 at a time), and I frequently get newbies writing to me saying
    "Are you sure those people aren't cheating?".

    But 99.9% of the time, there's no cheating going on at all - and even
    if there is, it's not really for me to say. I can list the players, I
    can look to see if players are talking to each other, but most of all,
    I can refer to the judgekeeper, for him to see if the sources of the
    emails are at all similar.

    In the one case where I considered that cheating was probably going
    on, I still just referred it to the judgekeeper, monitored press, and
    let the game continue. No GM should terminate a game without really
    really good reason.

    In no-press, where there is no communication between players, you
    still see a lot of co-ordination between players. You can often look
    at where someone's moved and expect the next set to continue on - and
    that's without consdering the 'luck' factor.

    I would honestly appeal for the GM to continue the game. Refer him to
    me if you want. :) robjfarley at domain yahoo.co.uk. Or I'll set up a
    game, copy the moves that have happened to date, and then the 7 of you
    (or 6 plus a replacement if one has quit) can play the game on.

    RobF
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    Red Dragon gives some good advice for beginners.

    The only one that I wish to offer an alternative to is #3. Nopress
    verus press is often a matter of preference. For some people, myself
    include, the communication is the whole point of the game.

    It is true that a nopress game will allow you to focus on the tactics of
    the game, and I do agree that playing is some of these can be good to
    hone your skills. However, starting with a press game may help you
    learn how much you may truly enjoy the game, and get your hooked. :-)
    So you might want to start with a newbie press game first, where a GM is
    around to show you the ropes.

    Regards,
    Roger

    Red Dragon wrote:

    > You sound like a beginner - so welcome to the game.
    >
    > There are a couple of things you could try:
    >
    > 1) Go the "Diplomatic Pouch" and read some of the strategy articles about
    > initial moves. You'll find common starting moves for all countries and why
    > some of them are chosen. At the beginning, the game is like chess - there
    > are standard/favoured openings that have been tried and tested. You might
    > as well follow those - regardless of any negotiations with other players.
    >
    > 2) Much of the game is based on what people say and how they make others
    > behave the way they want - that's the diplomacy part. The only way to get
    > better at this is through experience. Just keep playing more and more
    > games. Eventually you'll find a style that suits you and you'll find ways
    > to deal with the loudmouth, the silent but deadly, the untrustworthy, the
    > expert, the beginner.
    >
    > 3) Try some of the No Press games. That way you can focus purely on the
    > mechanics of the game, trying different moves for different countries
    > without anyone clouding the issue with false statements.
    >
    > 4) Don't try too many variants until you have a good understanding of the
    > standard game.
    >
    > PBEM Diplomacy isn't the same as face to face playing, as you don't get
    > tones of voice and facial expressions. At the end of the day its only a
    > game and as you play more games your reputation will out. Players will find
    > out who blusters and who doesn't, who tells the truth and who always stabs
    > their allies in the back at the earliest opportunity.
    >
    > Hope this helps a bit.
    >
    > Don't give up.
    >
    >
    >
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    The GM didn't actually accuse me of cheating. One of the players
    periodically would whine about cheating. This was a broadcast-only game
    and he was sure that illegal emails were being sent. This was his first
    time playing online, so I think he was just inexperienced. What broke
    the camel's back was the unexpected moves I sent. So after enough
    complaining by this player, the GM stopped the game and started a new
    one, but made it gunboat.

    It was a bummer, but nothing I can do about it.

    Rob Farley wrote:
    >>Jim Burgess <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>WHAT??? You made good reasonable moves and the GM accused you
    >>of cheating?? ANd you're that calm about it?? I'd blow a gasket
    >>if my GM EVER ended a game because I "guessed right" in 1901!!
    >>What you did was good Diplomacy!
    >>
    >>Jim-Bob
    >
    >


    --
    Aaron Deskins
    Graduate Student
    Chemical Engineering
    Purdue University
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    Aaron Deskins <ndeskins@ecn.purdue.edu> writes:

    >The GM didn't actually accuse me of cheating. One of the players
    >periodically would whine about cheating. This was a broadcast-only game
    >and he was sure that illegal emails were being sent. This was his first
    >time playing online, so I think he was just inexperienced. What broke
    >the camel's back was the unexpected moves I sent. So after enough
    >complaining by this player, the GM stopped the game and started a new
    >one, but made it gunboat.

    >It was a bummer, but nothing I can do about it.

    Well, if you're OK with it, just assume that this means that YOU
    won...... ;-) I do understand, people at the beginning don't
    understand the nature of the game on this point. Most people
    haven't done that many simultaneous movement games.

    Jim-Bob

    >Rob Farley wrote:
    >>>Jim Burgess <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>WHAT??? You made good reasonable moves and the GM accused you
    >>>of cheating?? ANd you're that calm about it?? I'd blow a gasket
    >>>if my GM EVER ended a game because I "guessed right" in 1901!!
    >>>What you did was good Diplomacy!
    >>>
    >>>Jim-Bob
    >>
    >>


    >--
    >Aaron Deskins
    >Graduate Student
    >Chemical Engineering
    >Purdue University
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    Aaron Deskins wrote:
    > I ended up gaining 2 SCs. Unfortunately someone thought that cheating
    > was going on (how else can someone make moves like these-sarcasm
    > intended) and so the GM called the game off. :(
    >
    > Oh well- I learned a lot.

    Yowza. You learned one thing for sure: play under a GM that can
    withstand the pleas of whiny players who can't stand to be fooled.

    --
    Will Berry
    Director of Operations, Techwood Con gaming convention
    http://www.techwoodcon.com/
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    Will Berry wrote:

    > Aaron Deskins wrote:
    >
    >> I ended up gaining 2 SCs. Unfortunately someone thought that cheating
    >> was going on (how else can someone make moves like these-sarcasm
    >> intended) and so the GM called the game off. :(
    >>
    >> Oh well- I learned a lot.
    >
    >
    > Yowza. You learned one thing for sure: play under a GM that can
    > withstand the pleas of whiny players who can't stand to be fooled.
    >
    Perhaps before I play, I'll consult the Diplomacy GM dedication list. :)


    --
    Aaron Deskins
    Graduate Student
    Chemical Engineering
    Purdue University
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games