On my opinion, there is only one type of win, Solo,and only one of type defeat, non-solo. Surviving is only a instrumental goal. Saying that solo isn't the sole purpose kinda break the point of the game.
@LegendaryTactics
3 жыл бұрын
Here here. A solo is truly glorious, and the one true aim of the game. Unfortunately, the designer of the game, Calhamer disagrees with you and I. He designed the game such that stalemates are meant to be integral, and draws are inevitable if played as he intended. But it really does feel like a cheap ending if there are 4 or more people in the draw. I prefer playing to the bitter end.
@MusikCassette
Жыл бұрын
So you are the player I have to unite everyone else against?
@MrJethroha
2 жыл бұрын
I guess I have always had the opposite intuition from you with the diplomacy win conditions. I've always thought that the rules that lead to a solo victory are whats arbitrary and negotiating a good position to end the game in has always been the heart of diplomacy. A person with a majority of centers on the map should be able to conquer the world, but in chess even someone way ahead in material can still accidentally stalemate. There's nothing special about 18 centers that makes it a victory state as opposed to 17 centers. The game is often still stalemated due to the geometry of the game. Complete world conquest is the only undisputable win condition in any strategy game because every player who might dispute it has been eliminated. Diplomacy is unique among strategy board games in that the game more often ends when everyone alive agrees to the end state. The win can go undisputed, even if it's not undisputable. If a negotiated peace can't result in a win, then why should the game be called Diplomacy?
@LegendaryTactics
2 жыл бұрын
Very good points. I'm definitely coming around to see this game the way you do.
@Qossuth
3 жыл бұрын
1. Solo win 2. Draw 3. Elimination SCs only started to matter when FTF competitions ramped up in the 80s-90s. With only 3-4 games being played over a weekend, and usually on a timetable, there wasn't sufficient granularity to produce an overall tournament winner without some additional metrics. But in casual FTF play nobody cared how many centers you had, just whether you got to 18 or didn't. The mentality of most PBM players was that number of SCs didn't matter, just whether you were in the draw or not; a lot of zines used Draws Include All Survivors (DIAS) house rules.
@tasnica2438
2 ай бұрын
I think that some of the most interesting games of Diplomacy result when every player has somewhat different priorities and end goals, but isn't so committed to them that their minds can't be changed. That leaves the most room for compelling negotiations, i.e. trying to convince a player to put stopping a solo over seeking revenge (or vice versa!). If every player wants the exact same thing, and can't be budged, the game becomes a lot more static and predictable.
@LegendaryTactics
2 ай бұрын
Well said
@Sploack
3 жыл бұрын
In my opinion, the "board top" matters mostly (if not only) in a face to face game with a determined end year, in which the largest nation is considered the winner, or it could matter in a draw when there is a SoS scoring system. Other than that, the number of SCs doesn't really matter, unless that number is 18 or 0 (the goal number and the number you want to avoid at all costs respectively). It doesn't matter if you have 1 center or 17 if a draw occurs in a Draw Size Scoring game, there is no consolation prize for the nation who approached the solo the most. Being second place in SCs when another player solos is a taint, not an honour. It means that you, the "leader of the opposition" failed to unite the other smaller nations under one flag to stop the huge empire coming to gobble you. Who knows, perhaps the victor, after they have crowned themselves king of Europe, may show less mercy to their most powerful subject...
@LegendaryTactics
3 жыл бұрын
Indeed. Some argue that having a higher Sc count means you are more responsible for failing to stop the solo and that in fact is a worse outcome. By that measure though, it seems nations should actively want to give away their centers which is counter intuitive to me.
@Sploack
3 жыл бұрын
@@LegendaryTactics You don't have to give away your centers when another player is approaching the solo, but you have to stop taking centers from the other players that are going to help you form a stalemate line (unless there is a tactical reason for taking them). Of course situations may vary, but when I'm approaching a solo I always assume that everyone on the board is going to set aside their differences and unite against me. It does happen that that isn't the case and I get an easy win sometimes, because players can act out of emotion istead of pure tactical reasons.
@LegendaryTactics
3 жыл бұрын
@@Sploack I don't think many nations actively give away centers unless it can help form the stalemate line. Rather, I was just suggesting that when a player solos, it feels counter intuitive to me that the person who came close to the win themselves, or the one with a high Sc count should be scorned moreso than a smaller power who may be actively enabling the solo. So, as you say, it's situational. I think where the debate comes from is whether a nation with 15 centers has ended with exactly the same result as a nation with 1 center. If that's the case, it seems to disinsentivize committed play after you know you can't solo.
@Sploack
3 жыл бұрын
@@LegendaryTactics I see what you're saying. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the 15 center losing power played a better early and midgame, but a worse endgame. Of course it depends on the game and the situation on the board though
@LegendaryTactics
3 жыл бұрын
@@Sploack Well said. I hadn't thought of breaking it down that way. A player who stabbed and lied their way through the early and mid game might find themselves unable to finish strong as a result of their own mischief, so if we take that into account, they've failed from a social and diplomatic perspective too.
@MrSaturn012
2 жыл бұрын
My first game was a bit of a shitshow because we never defined what the accepted win conditions were. Some people were playing for alliance wins, some for draws, and others for solo-wins only. I think solo-win should be the accepted end goal, with the only exception being a three(ish) nation draw towards the end. For when you reach stalemate lines and realize that if any of you try to push, you're sealing your own death sentence. Much more like a stalemate in chess But then again that's a very war-gaming view of it. The game is called Diplomacy, not Tactics. If you're able to organize a board position where everyone is happy where they are (or at least has expanded as much as they feel they are able to), then why not let the game end. It seems fitting
@LegendaryTactics
2 жыл бұрын
Here here. But you're right that the table needs to understand what outcomes you're playing for from the outset.
@MusikCassette
Жыл бұрын
prefered scoring system: each game has a fixed number of points. Solo win: winner gets all the points. Draw: the remaining Player have to find an agreement on how they want to split those points.
@zungrysoft
Жыл бұрын
I'm not sure I agree with either the "strict win or lose" outlook or the "tie means everyone wins exactly equally" outlook. I think of the game more in terms of what you came out with. You may not have "won" if you control only thirteen power centers when the game ends, but you can still say you came out of the game in a better position than anyone else. And maybe signing that peace treaty was a preferable alternative to fighting the other powers that have now ganged up on you. I can understand why the diplomatic end is so difficult for some people to wrap their heads around. Almost every other game in existence has a clear-cut system. You either won, you lost, or you did just as well as the other guy. Who cares whether you won 8 to 7 or 538 to 6? Your number was bigger than theirs and that's all that matters. Maybe it's the difference between the competitive board game mindset and the role playing mindset. When you're playing to win, you either are the best player at the table or you lost. But if you play as if you are actually representing the chief military strategist and diplomat of one of the major powers of the early 20th century, then you should be thinking in terms of whether you've achieved the best possible outcome for your country. And sometimes that means throwing up the white flag so you can keep at least some of your land.
@roowco1
3 жыл бұрын
i personally think both reducing the amount of players and getting sc's should matter, so what about a scoring system that equally values both? would a scoring system like that even be possible?
@LegendaryTactics
3 жыл бұрын
It's really hard to balance this. I just talked to one of the legends of the game, Edi Birsan, and he proposes a different value than I did in this video. He actually says that the solo with 18 isn't the best outcome. Rather, he argues, getting everyone else at the table to concede that you are the best player at the table with a draw, is the best outcome because it means you haven't forced your will onto the other players. They have just acknowledged that you have dominated. WebDiplomacy uses the Sum of Squares scoring system that rewards players with more centers. It's a little complicated though.
@primetime3422
2 жыл бұрын
Maybe even make them feel sorry(Canadian style) for you
Пікірлер: 28