Play
Multi-Player
Coins
Community
Settings
Help
Community   Maps   Forum   Mail   Ladders   Clans   Recent Games
Sign In | Sign Up
<< Back to General Forum   

Posts 1 - 29 of 29   
Being the defender in a diplo game: 8/9/2016 00:28:20


Davidian
Level 54
Report
This keeps coming up in games and I think people really think they've found a clever loophole by being legalistic, so I'd like to give my take on it.

Here's the issue: in diplos, it's established that if you want to attack someone you must declare and (in most cases), wait a turn to attack.

Now the issue is that some people say "oh if I'm the one defending I don't /have/ to wait a turn, because the rules never said so."

Wow, super clever, who would have thought of that. But if you want to go the ultra legalistic route, let's look at the wiki page on diplos:

"No attacking other players without declaring war on them in public chat so as to give the enemy a fair chance."

If anyone wants to attack, anyone, you must say so. If that is the case, then you must say so and then wait a turn, like most diplos do. However, if you've just been declared upon, declaring back upon them is redundant. So you don't need to say so, but you do need to wait a turn. Because if you ever want to attack, the declaration is necessary, and then the wait is necessary.

One player argued that it should be OK because being the defender you're already at a disadvantage most likely (which isn't always true, but I can see why they argue that), so it's like having a handicap against your attacker, you're able to attack right away.

But the point of a diplo is that warning must be given. Whether you believe people should wait a turn or not, there has to be warning. So those who believe defenders can attack would say "well the attacker gave a warning, so I don't need to", but the point of being warned in the first place is so that its not a sneak attack.

So let's ignore games where you need to declare but don't need to wait. that's outside the scope.

If you are playing a diplomacy where you must declare, then wait, then you go into it understanding that no wars are ever immediate. You tell your enemy, both of you take 1 turn to prepare and shore up alliances, and then you attack. By this understanding, it doesn't make sense that suddenly the defender has the right to blitzkrieg. Yes, a lot of wars are unfair, yes 1 turn isn't always enough to prepare, but this 1 turn grace period is the bedrock of diplomacy games right now. If everyone shared this understanding about defending, why would you ever declare war? you put yourself at an IMMEDIATE 1 turn disadvantage. Who would do that? You would then discourage your players from ever declaring war, when the specter of being a warmonger is already hanging over most heads. That's counter-intuitive. In a diplo, managing to start a war and not being torn to shreds is hard enough, you don't want to give attackers this further disincentive to attack.

And let's remember, if we're being super technical, it does say if EVER you intend to attack, you must declare and wait a turn. So by that logic, you must assume that the aggressor's declaration is warning for you both, making yours redundant (but still having effect), and thus you both must wait.

I didn't mean to make this long-winded, so if anyone feels like reading the tl;dr and weighing in, I'm interested in your thoughts.

Edited 8/9/2016 00:30:16
Being the defender in a diplo game: 8/9/2016 00:30:42


BUFFALO
Level 43
Report
stop
Being the defender in a diplo game: 8/9/2016 00:42:25


Davidian
Level 54
Report
nice reply
Being the defender in a diplo game: 8/9/2016 01:00:41


Alan of Dale
Level 29
Report
stop
Being the defender in a diplo game: 8/9/2016 01:28:01


Davidian
Level 54
Report
man the forum has really gone downhill here
Being the defender in a diplo game: 8/9/2016 02:48:37


[AOE]Orthrus Echo Five
Level 51
Report
Go.

Edit: Not trying to be a jerk to Davidian, I thought your post was quite nice actually. +1

Edited 8/9/2016 02:49:06
Being the defender in a diplo game: 8/9/2016 03:38:19


Jason Vargas
Level 36
Report
stop









then go
Being the defender in a diplo game: 8/9/2016 04:06:33

Destroyer
Level 40
Report
stop
wait a minute
Being the defender in a diplo game: 8/9/2016 04:40:47


Dogberry
Level 54
Report
This post could have initiated an interesting discussion on strategies unique to diplo metagames.

Unfortunately, unless this is moved to the strat forum, nobody is going to look past the spam and take the time to *ahem* stop, collaborate, and listen... and then respond accordingly.
Being the defender in a diplo game: 8/9/2016 05:22:51


Bluepotato
Level 52
Report
Any half-decent diplo will make it clear that both defender and attacker must wait a turn.

tldr your post was useless and longwinded
Being the defender in a diplo game: 8/9/2016 06:37:11


Davidian
Level 54
Report
Blue potato, thanks for the critique, but if you actually read my post you'd see that most diplos do not feel the need to say this...in fact, I haven't seen even 1 do it, and yet there is a growing trend of people interpreting this.

So maybe only 'half decent' diplos avoid this problem, but that doesn't make it not a problem.
Being the defender in a diplo game: 8/9/2016 06:37:37


Davidian
Level 54
Report
@Dogberry

My bad, I probably should have put it there.
Being the defender in a diplo game: 8/9/2016 07:28:05


Daniel
Level 45
Report
Stop

Do not pass go

Do not collect 200 dollarz
Being the defender in a diplo game: 8/9/2016 10:18:30


Kai
Level 54
Report
IT'S TIME TO STOP.
Being the defender in a diplo game: 8/9/2016 10:58:21


Leibstandarte (Vengeance)
Level 40
Report
stop
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
please stop.
Being the defender in a diplo game: 8/9/2016 11:09:52


Lolicon love 
Level 56
Report
Being the defender in a diplo game: 8/9/2016 11:20:50


master of desaster 
Level 64
Report
Everyone waits a turn. Easy as that. "Defenders" have no disadvantage. The claim that they didn't declare war and therefore are allowed to attack is super cheap and can't be taken serious
Being the defender in a diplo game: 8/9/2016 11:31:39

[RE] Lord Kira
Level 46
Report
Agreed, master of disaster, unless the rules say otherwise (as I have seen in one diplomacy game I have played)the defender has no right to attack the same turn (unless, as stated previously, the rules in the game say otherwise).

Also dogberry is correct in what he said, if you wanted this to be taken seriously then you should have brought it to a section related to "strategies unique to diplo metagames" sorry to rehash the point but hopefully this can be a good learning experience for you.

Submitted,

Lord Kira
Being the defender in a diplo game: 8/9/2016 20:22:27


Davidian
Level 54
Report
@master of disaster

Thanks, I'm glad someone sees what I do. I've been encountering this more and more in diplos, and it always takes me aback. It seems like a really cheap, flimsy excuse. You're not always at a disadvantage when someone declares war, so it's not really an argument for allowance in all cases.
Being the defender in a diplo game: 8/9/2016 20:41:31


Dogberry
Level 54
Report
Actually, it is quite a shame there is no dedicated forum for Diplomacy and Role Playing issues. That would really be the best place for this, because while posting this in the strategy forum would potentially decrease the amount of spam it received, it would simply be replaced by so-called elite players complaining that diplomacies inherently lack any strategy.

Edited 8/9/2016 20:41:59
Being the defender in a diplo game: 8/9/2016 21:53:38


Davidian
Level 54
Report
@Dogberry

You're right, and this isn't about strategy so much as the rules of the game, so the only reason to post it there is so it'll be taken seriously.

I don't get why we're discouraged from posting serious topics here, though. Is there not an off-topic board for that reason?
Being the defender in a diplo game: 8/9/2016 22:27:21


Cata Cauda 
Level 57
Report
I have encountered that quite a few times in open diplos too (diplos that are not based on invites, but are in the open games tab). I usually just answer with the argument that every diplo-player knows that both have to wait 1 turn. I have always been supported with that argument so far, because its true and thus never really faced a problem with that.
Since I plan my wars ahead and usually move my armies to the front 2 turns before the war starts, counter attacks are usually rendered useless. (Moving to the front in Turn 1, declaring in T2, Waiting out T3, destroying in T4)

TL; DR

If you plan ahead, and dont attack players that are significantly stronger than you, you usually will win nonetheless.
Being the defender in a diplo game: 8/9/2016 23:48:10

M. Poireau
Level 53
Report
I agree with this: a pre-emptive strike is just as bad as the defender as the attacker.

I think this is yet another reason to get rid of altogether ridiculous and pointless "declaration of war" rules. All they do is cause arguments, and limit the very interesting aspects of *diplomacy* that people are apparently playing for.

If you want a mostly peaceful game, use settings to achieve that. For instance, a very high defensive kill percentage will achieve your desired outcome quite nicely. :)

I've spoken of this before here:

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/160624-diplomacy-dumbies
Being the defender in a diplo game: 8/10/2016 00:15:22

Numberhawk44
Level 38
Report
@ M. Poireau
You have the right idea. Ideally, declaration of war rules would be unnecessary. I've been in several games where a form of this has been tried as an potion to attack the same turn as declaring, but for an rp diplomatic penalty. Unfortunately, all it takes is one jerk with a big country to ruin the whole setup, and usually rp penalties aren't enough to dissuade people from a good attack opportunity. I've even seen this happen in exclusive diplos. Any game made along those lines would have to have a very, very carefully selected list of players.
Being the defender in a diplo game: 8/10/2016 00:27:57

M. Poireau
Level 53
Report
It doesn't sound like you used settings to encourage the type of play you want.

Why don't you want "one big country" to act as a tyrant and invade others? That's an important question to answer. (It doesn't sound bad to me! So, why?)

Using the right setup to encourage that behaviour is all you need.

For example:

Want more of a democratic feel to the proceedings? Include a good number of Sanctions cards.

A group which agrees to take someone down will now almost always succeed.

If you have a large, powerful country which preys on the weak, the little countries can work together and apply Sanctions to the bully.

There are many such "tricks" you can use to get the gameplay you want, without all the weird rules and the arguments, disagreements, and pointless rules debates which come with them.

Edited 8/10/2016 00:28:32
Being the defender in a diplo game: 8/10/2016 00:43:50

Numberhawk44
Level 38
Report
While I still think your point is solid, I would argue that this poses problems of its own.

A central tenet of irl diplomacy is the power large nations hold over little ones. Even coalitions of little states can't stand up to superpowers much of the time.

In addition, these kind of rules would work to eliminate war entirely, which, as I see it, isn't the aim here.
Being the defender in a diplo game: 8/10/2016 01:09:40


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 49
Report
Remove the idea of waiting a turn and keep declaring war in your game. If you need to disadvantage a large country, make it so where you don't need to declare on them.

Had a good game with a large warmonger, ended up making him give me lots of land, and his vassal of Austria, even when I was weaker than him. He wasn't very smart. Point is, warmongers can be ok in diplomacies.
Being the defender in a diplo game: 8/10/2016 01:21:41


Davidian
Level 54
Report
No they can, they can absolutely move it along, but usually warmongering is looked down upon, and thus 1 of the limiting factors of war in diplomacies.

I'm not really keen on the idea of eliminating the wait-a-turn rule, possibly because of my own bias, but I think it's more that it seems like kind of the lynch-pin rule of diplomacies. i do like the idea of gearing the settings to discourage it, that's a lot less micromanaging and stress for the host than having to constantly clarify and intervene based on a series of rules. Thanks for the suggestion M. Poireau.

@Cauta Clauda, I'm surprised you haven't run into any issues. I think...about 4 times now I've had to remind people that both wait, and then they've argued over it with me. I feel like either people are telling eachother this idea as a new tactic, or they just pick up on and try it. A lot of times, no one really disagrees with them, they just go with it. It leaves me somewhat perplexed tbh.

I think I'm going to with M. Poireau's suggestion.
Being the defender in a diplo game: 8/11/2016 01:44:43

M. Poireau
Level 53
Report
Davidian:

If you click through to the link I posted earlier, you'll find a lot of other discussion and suggestion along those lines. Hope it helps!
Posts 1 - 29 of 29   

Contact | About WarLight | Play Risk Online | Multiplayer Strategy Game | Challenge Friends, Win Money | Skill Game | Terms of Service