3-Way Aliances?

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

"Cotton Eyed Joe" <mdginzo@bellsout.SPAMnet> writes:

>Are 3-way alliances pretty much non-existent in Internet Diplomacy? I have
>never seen one work. I guess most newbies read that one document that says
>they are all scams and they believe it to be true. OTOH, I have seen them
>work in FtF games all the time. Just wondering what you guys think about
>it.

>--
>msn Messenger: markg_@hotmail.com

You should realize that there is no such animal as "Internet Diplomacy",
there are many communities out there and many places where three-way
alliances are more or less common. Apparently in the one you are in,
they are not..... but even there I'd nudge at that a bit. Are you
talking about "Western Triples"? Many people really hate Western
Triples in ALL communities. Given the chance to write three way
E-Mails, I don't see why you're getting pushback. Please explain....

Jim-Bob

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

Actually, I'm involved in three separate games, on three different judges,
where there are three-way alliances at work. In each case, these alliances
evolved instead of being in place at the outset. I am a part of two of the
three separate groups, as Turkey in both instances.

I've seen several alliances of this type, and the better ones always appear
to form almost naturally.

In the case of Western Triples (EFG) - these generally form early on and
then one or more of the partners see an advantage in stabbing - particularly
France and England. Unless the players are old team-mates and get extremely
lucky in the power assignment lottery, the starting 3-ways that enjoy the
most success include Russia and Turkey, with either Italy or Austria as the
third party. This is due to the ability to mount a three-pronged attack and
achieve quick growth without infringing on the partners' "turf".
"Mary K. Kuhner" <mkkuhner@kingman.gs.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:cmtquo$nc0$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
> In article <yahkd.4845$WC6.3706@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
> Cotton Eyed Joe <mdginzo@bellsout.SPAMnet> wrote:
>>Are 3-way alliances pretty much non-existent in Internet Diplomacy? I
>>have
>>never seen one work. I guess most newbies read that one document that
>>says
>>they are all scams and they believe it to be true. OTOH, I have seen them
>>work in FtF games all the time. Just wondering what you guys think about
>>it.
>
> I recently got wiped out in a Judge game by a fairly solid
> Western Triple. But I do think that long-term three-ways are a bit
> more unstable in PBeM play than in FTF. I have seen them succeed
> in FTF simply because none of the players have the time and energy
> to figure out how to break them, whereas PBeM gives you plenty of
> time. You also don't have to hide the fact that you're talking to
> the enemy. :-)
>
> I like three-way alliances myself, for the challenge of making them
> work, and will try them in PBeM as well as FTF. If I can get a good
> two-way alliance, though, I'll prefer that just because the threes
> are so darned unstable. (How many of us have lost a game as Germany
> because the Western Triple suddenly went sour? I've even seen it
> happen to England. And in my experience RAT is a fun alliance all
> the way up to Austria's sudden death.)
>
> Two other factors that may affect PBeM:
>
> --the more players in the alliance, the more chance one will suddenly
> go AWOL and ruin things
> --PBeM play tends to be with strangers, whereas FTF is more often
> with known opponents. Sometimes it's easier to ally with someone
> you know, even if he's not entirely reliable, than with a stranger.
>
> Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@eskimo.com

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

I'm involved in a game that should be ending soon with a three way alliance
intact.
Admittedly it did start as a two power working together from the beginning
because
Germany refused to reply to any presses and teh third power wasn't a part of
it until
AR maaged to finish off Turkey and started heading west. Then Italy joined
our two
way alliance to prevent a stalemate line from forming in the Meditteranean.


"Cotton Eyed Joe" <mdginzo@bellsout.SPAMnet> wrote in message
news:z9cld.20129$z3.9098@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> Actually, I should revise what I meant. I meant that a _suggestion_ of a
> 3-way alliance rarely works. naturally, they do occur all the time. But
> the second someone mentions a 3-way alliance to two other powers it will
> never work. This is mostly true in email games, I think.
> The reason for this, I believe, is that newbies tend to read all the
> internet literature and take it for granted that any suggestion of a 3-way
> alliance must be a scam.
>
> <glh1936@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:1100243153.oyE4Qot6Hm+NvZ7EGIg9mg@teranews...
> > Actually, I'm involved in three separate games, on three different
judges,
> > where there are three-way alliances at work. In each case, these
> alliances
> > evolved instead of being in place at the outset. I am a part of two of
> the
> > three separate groups, as Turkey in both instances.
> >
> > I've seen several alliances of this type, and the better ones always
> appear
> > to form almost naturally.
> >
> > In the case of Western Triples (EFG) - these generally form early on and
> > then one or more of the partners see an advantage in stabbing -
> particularly
> > France and England. Unless the players are old team-mates and get
> extremely
> > lucky in the power assignment lottery, the starting 3-ways that enjoy
the
> > most success include Russia and Turkey, with either Italy or Austria as
> the
> > third party. This is due to the ability to mount a three-pronged attack
> and
> > achieve quick growth without infringing on the partners' "turf".
> > "Mary K. Kuhner" <mkkuhner@kingman.gs.washington.edu> wrote in message
> > news:cmtquo$nc0$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
> > > In article <yahkd.4845$WC6.3706@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
> > > Cotton Eyed Joe <mdginzo@bellsout.SPAMnet> wrote:
> > >>Are 3-way alliances pretty much non-existent in Internet Diplomacy? I
> > >>have
> > >>never seen one work. I guess most newbies read that one document that
> > >>says
> > >>they are all scams and they believe it to be true. OTOH, I have seen
> them
> > >>work in FtF games all the time. Just wondering what you guys think
> about
> > >>it.
> > >
> > > I recently got wiped out in a Judge game by a fairly solid
> > > Western Triple. But I do think that long-term three-ways are a bit
> > > more unstable in PBeM play than in FTF. I have seen them succeed
> > > in FTF simply because none of the players have the time and energy
> > > to figure out how to break them, whereas PBeM gives you plenty of
> > > time. You also don't have to hide the fact that you're talking to
> > > the enemy. :-)
> > >
> > > I like three-way alliances myself, for the challenge of making them
> > > work, and will try them in PBeM as well as FTF. If I can get a good
> > > two-way alliance, though, I'll prefer that just because the threes
> > > are so darned unstable. (How many of us have lost a game as Germany
> > > because the Western Triple suddenly went sour? I've even seen it
> > > happen to England. And in my experience RAT is a fun alliance all
> > > the way up to Austria's sudden death.)
> > >
> > > Two other factors that may affect PBeM:
> > >
> > > --the more players in the alliance, the more chance one will suddenly
> > > go AWOL and ruin things
> > > --PBeM play tends to be with strangers, whereas FTF is more often
> > > with known opponents. Sometimes it's easier to ally with someone
> > > you know, even if he's not entirely reliable, than with a stranger.
> > >
> > > Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@eskimo.com
> >
> >
>
>