Diplomacy Dojo Episode 8: How to be a Homewrecker (in Diplomacy)30 min read

Intro 0:00  

The Diplomacy Dojo is a weekly discussion, led by Your Bored Brother, about Diplomacy tactics and strategies. Let’s listen in on what our players are discussing this week.

BrotherBored 00:14 

Let’s begin. What brings you here today, Hunter?

Hunter 0:16  

Well, I guess I thought of a few more topics. One other idea may be trying to break up an alliance that’s going against you. I mean, this could be many different examples. Like, for example, maybe there’s an E-F [England-France Alliance]. I noticed this is one thing, like once an E-F form, like if they’re really committed to it, they seem to just keep going with it. Or maybe a Juggernaut, or maybe just Turkey getting attacked by other neighbors. So maybe just advice for breaking up alliances that are attacking you.

BrotherBored 0:43  

So this is very interesting. I think describing how to confront this in the early game situation, is the easier one. And then we can talk about other situations that might arise deeper in the game.

In terms of the tactics and how you want to move your pieces in a way that can help the other players realize that they should stop attacking you, that depends on the power that you’re playing. If you have a power that is strong on defense, such as, let’s say, Turkey, you want to be judicious about which centers you risk and which centers you outright sacrifice as you’re getting attacked; because the centers that your opponents get control of will affect their strategic calculations.

Like, let’s get serious about it.  If the other players are Carebears, that is to say, that they won’t break up their alliance for any reason, they are going to play it as long as possible until one of them backstabs the other but maybe they don’t do, and neither of them is doing it, neither is willing to backstab. There might be nothing you can do other than get some other players to bail you out. I’ll get to that in a moment.

But if the other players are willing to change sides, let’s assume that they are. Let’s assume that they are willing to change sides and that they are making a decision every couple of turns, maybe even every turn about whether the time is right for them to change sides. What you’re trying to accomplish strategically is make one of those powers, one power specifically, much stronger than your other enemies. This may induce them to change sides.

If you have power with some defensive position, you want to make decisions about what’s expendable. For England, that’s any center you might have that’s not on Great Britain. So England’s three home centers, you want to prioritize those usually over anything that’s further away.

For Austria, I think this is very interesting. I would consider Austria’s home centers to be a little more expendable than Serbia. I think Serbia is so important to Austria’s defensive position that losing Serbia can often be the death knell for Austria. So like if, let’s say you’re Austria, and Italy and Russia are coming after you. “Well, maybe, you know Italy, what if I just give you Trieste, what if I just give it to you, dude? I’ll let you have it, anything,” or give Vienna to Austria or something. That can sometimes be enough.

As a central power, sometimes your ability to play that defensive game is not as good, and your way to break up the Alliance might be to try to suicide to one specific player and just start powering them up. Even if it means giving up critical centers, anything, somehow, anything you can do as Austria. That might be, “Oh, I’m going to start supporting Russia’s moves, even while I’m giving away centers to Russia.” Anything to make one specific player powerful, can sometimes break up the alliance that’s going against you. I think about those things often.

I have not—I’ve never gotten a solo win from being as low as one or two centers, but I have recovered, I have recovered from being as low as one or two centers. And it’s usually because I played a really tight defensive tactical game and made the other players take my centers, like, those last couple of centers, from my cold dead hands. I kept blocking, anything I could think of to prevent them from doing it, and eventually, the situation developed where they had an incentive to fight or to backstab each other.

So this leads me to my next point, which is, although you could give up expendable centers quickly in order to shake up the alliance, hold your last couple of centers very dearly. Hold on to them as long as you can; and the longer the match goes on, the more opportunity there is for something to happen. Maybe nothing happens in 1903, maybe nothing happens in 1904, but in 1905, you’re still alive, you’re still in the match, and you know the other players have angered each other, or one of them missed their move or misordered a move, or something happened on a distant part of the board that changed their strategic calculus.

Every turn that goes by gives you a new opportunity to turn the match around, and sometimes you don’t know what that will be. You have no idea of any specific thing that’s going to happen. More time is beneficial. This is important because some players will promise not to finish you off if you become their servant. (Sometimes this is called a janissary, where if you start doing everything they want, they won’t finish you off.) I consider it to be a very risky plan because that will mean moving your pieces out of their defensive position somewhat, and the other players might just finish you off, or the player who you’re listening to might just finish you off. Whereas, if you hold on for dear life, maybe time will just give… The situation will resolve itself somehow, in some unanticipated way.

This is a better plan for a power with a better defense. A country like Italy, or France could potentially mess around for a couple of years. Just waiting for something to happen may not be so good for a country like Germany, which is pretty poor on defense early on.

Those are all tactical things about how to move your pieces that can benefit you when you’re dealing with a hostile alliance.

Another thing you can do: Just outplay them. If the other players are very good, if they’re very wise about their choices, and they are out thinking you, etc., they’ll eventually bring you down. But if you put in effort into anticipating what their moves will be, either with sheer intuition and just trying, getting a read on the players. Or possibly scouting out what their possible moves will be by conversing with other players. I mean, who knows, hey, your England and France and Germany are coming after you. But by the way, Italy and Russia know what France and Germany’s moves are to a degree, let’s say. They could give that information to you, they might do it, especially if you are very discreet and don’t give away how you have made these guesses. And you can block their moves.

You can actually prevent the other players from taking you out. I have played games where I have lasted for years, years against a concentrated alliance that was trying to bring me down, because I just made the counters to their moves. That won’t go on forever. Eventually, they will make the right guesses and overpower you,  but that is a way to fight them. Some powers are better at this than others. I have been, for example, France, and fought England in Germany until 1907 or 1908 without them taking me down.

Another level to it is that you can look for a diplomatic chink in their armor, that there might be one of those players who’s a little bit easier to induce to change sides than the other. It could be that they don’t necessarily trust their ally, or they don’t trust players in general, or they feel like their position has become one that’s very risky.

So how can you instill the anxiety? And sometimes they’re just anxious, and they’re ready to hear what you have to say. It can be something like… Let’s say that you are England, and you’re fighting a France-Germany, and you counter Germany’s moves; imply to Germany that you have countered Germany’s moves because France told you what that would be. It doesn’t have to be true.

Hunter 08:13 

Oh, that, yeah, that’s a good idea.

BrotherBored 08:15 

It plays to their paranoia. I played a match once, where I was France, attacking Italy, and just went all-in on one specific guess. I had nothing. I had no diplomatic information. It was just me looking at the board and thinking about it, like, ” I’m sure this is what Italy is going to do.” I countered it perfectly, and it was a pretty big risk, and it let me capture, I don’t know, Tunis or something. And so, the thing is, Italy’s moves required Italy to have coordinated with Turkey, and Turkey did do those moves.

I actually wasn’t talking to Turkey at all. We were not really on much of speaking terms. But I strongly implied to every player who wasn’t Italy that Turkey had told me what the moves were. Italy got really frustrated and changed sides. Wanted to work with me, actually, the one who was attacking! Because he was convinced that Turkey had told me what his moves were. It wasn’t true. That can be very effective. And that sort of feeds into that other point of advice I gave, which is to defend yourself very well. So you can combine that with “Playing up to their paranoia,” that someone might be telling you the moves.

Another way to get at them diplomatically is to treat them very differently. If there’s one player who you want to power up… the player who you want to make seem scary, (not the player who you want to become anxious) spend some effort talking to that player specifically, get pretty chatty, and try to cozy up with them, even if they’re attacking you. Saying, “Oh, it’s okay, I understand why you’re attacking me. It’s not a big deal. You know, I mean, matches last a long time and maybe there’ll be a reason for you to change sides,” and just keep talking to them.

And talk to others powers, but not really the one that you want to become scared. And make sure to emphasize to the other players that you’re chatting it up [with the “scarier” power]. “Oh, we’re talking all the time! I think I can get him to change sides. I’m pretty sure I can get him to change. He’s talking to me a lot.” The player who you want to—the person in whom you’re hoping to instill paranoia… That could be enough. If they hear from everyone else that the big player, the scary player, is talking with you a lot, that may make them think that that player is about to backstab them or is trying to change sides.

So let’s say you’re Turkey. Italy-Austria is coming after you, and you do that move where you’re trying to cede Bulgaria to Austria; and you’re not talking to Italy very much. You are talking to Austria a lot, and everybody understands that you are talking to Austria a lot. That can get into Italy’s mind space, and be like, “Why is my ally spending so much time talking to our enemy?” That can lead to players changing sides.

Directly telling players that they need to change sides, I personally find not the most effective in high-level games, because most people, most diplomacy players, are pretty tough mentally. And experienced diplomacy players are very difficult to influence. And they know that you’re trying to influence them and whatnot, so they have to come to the idea on their own. The greatest, most effective form of persuasion is for the other person to believe that it was their idea; and that’s why I’m making these suggestions that are not directly stating, “Hey, you need to change sides.” It is about causing the other player to think about things that would make them wonder if they should change sides.

The more distant the connection between what you’re trying to do, how you’re trying to influence the player, and the ultimate conclusion… The further away you are from outright stating it, the more likely you are to actually influence them and the other player will likely not perceive what you’re trying to do. This is important diplomacy because when players are too… when they become too aware, it’s too obvious what you’re doing, not only will they try to counter, or give somebody an opportunity to counter it, but they may defy what you’re asking! Just to do it, you know, they don’t want to do what you persuaded them to do.

Now, there are some players who may be persuaded by just trying to directly ask them to change sides. Players who are beginners in diplomacy are, in my experience, a little willing to change sides because they don’t necessarily know what the idea is of the alliance, or what it’s going to be, or what the consequences are of changing sides too much. That can be a little easier to do to just say, “Hey, you know, let me offer you a better deal! I’m more fun,” anything that they should change sides.

In a high-level game of diplomacy, you’re going to have to offer something really compelling to just outright get somebody to change sides. For example, if you are France, and you’re facing England-Germany. So saying things like, “You’re so dumb,” and “This isn’t going to work out for you,” and “You’re going to face the consequences, Russia is going to backstab you, Germany is going to backstab you, I really think you should change sides.” That is not going to be very effective. But doing something like, “Hey, England, what’s it going to take from me? What concession from me is it going to take for you to change sides? Is there anything I can offer you? What would it be?” Maybe England says, ” I don’t know. I’m not really thinking anything, but do you got anything to offer?” “Okay, England, I tell you what, what if cede Brest to you? What if you take Brest with your fleet? I just give it to you. Is that enough for you to change sides? It’s yours, you can keep your fleet there you have it until well, you know, whatever.” Maybe England will do it. If England hears, “Wow, this French player is bargaining with a very weak hand, that’s pretty good. If France doesn’t have Brest anymore, then maybe Germany really is my biggest threat after that, and I should change sides. Maybe I’ll do it.” Something major like that, something really big to get the other player to change sides.

Let’s say you’re Russia, and England is coming after you, and Germany, and you want to try to get England off your case, you could say like, “Hey, listen, what if I were to park my fleet, the one fleet I have in the North, in St. Petersburg and just leave it there in St. Petersburg, South Coast? Would that be enough for you to change sides?” England says, “No, it’s probably not enough for me to change sides, I’m going to conquer St. Petersburg.” “Alright, what if I straight up to give you St Petersburg? Will that’d be enough for you to change sides? But please take St. Petersburg with the fleet, not with an army. Would you do that”?

Some English players would go, “You know, wow, if I take St Petersburg, Russia is no longer a threat to me, Germany’s my biggest threat after that, Maybe I should, you know, change sides after I have St. Petersburg.” So when you’re dealing with a strong player, an experienced player, and you want to directly persuade them to change sides, you probably need to combine it with some kind of concrete reason why they should deem the other player to be a bigger threat than you. And that’s probably going to involve giving them some very serious concessions, and they may not honor it. They may still come after you, but at least you tried. I think that’s really important to understand because I play a lot of Diplomacy, and I have seen a lot of players waste fifteen minutes of their lives writing a message to me about how dumb I am, and… [laughter] I know that I’m taking a risk by doing this! I don’t think I’m dumb.

Hunter 15:56  

Yeah, that’s probably not a good idea to say that somebody is dumb. That’s not good diplomacy.

BrotherBored 16:02  

They learn that, they pick that up playing against inexperienced players. Because that can be very effective, that kind of emotional pressure, that can work against the player who’s not, you know, it’s their first rodeo, let’s say, and they’re like, “Well, I don’t really know much about Diplomacy.” Maybe they are dumb! That could work. I’m not saying that that doesn’t work ever in Diplomacy, but against an experienced player, that’s very ineffective. But I think players try anyway because it’s worked for them in the past.

What other things are relevant to breaking up an alliance? Oh, okay, an ancient Chinese wisdom, “Use far barbarians to fight near barbarians.”

Hunter 16:42 

Ah, yes.

BrotherBored 16:43

Tell me how you think it can be applied to Diplomacy.

Hunter 16:45 

Well, that’s true. I mean, other countries that are farther away from you, or aren’t your neighbors, you can convince them to attack one of your neighbors.

BrotherBored 16:51  

How will that break up the alliance?

Hunter 16:54 

Well, I guess if somebody who isn’t your neighbor goes after one of the neighbors, they might be busier elsewhere.

BrotherBored 16:59  

That’s right. So for example, let’s say that you’re France, and you’re dealing with England-Germany. And you can convince anybody: Italy, Austria, Russia, doesn’t matter, anybody to send an army into no man’s land to start messing with Germany, or maybe to attack. The fact that that army is menacing Germany may use up so many German units to block it that Germany cannot attack you effective. If one of those players takes a German center, Munich or Berlin, Germany will probably have to spend two to four units to knock it back out again, that will happen.

Okay, meanwhile, what benefit is England getting from the England-Germany’s? Germany is not doing anything, probably, to help England against Russia or against France. In that moment, as France, you say, “England look, I can defend against just you. If it’s just you and the Germany’s over here fighting games for Berlin, you’re not going to make any progress against me, but I would gladly support you against Germany. I’ll support your army to Belgium, or I help you get Holland or something like that.” And some English players will just get bored or tired or whatever, they feel like they’re in a hurry, or they didn’t like German that much in the first place, and they go “Yeah, you know what? Sure, I’ll change sides. Let’s take out Germany while Germany’s messing around.” The concept here is not so much that there’s any specific power, but just that if you distract Germany, by dealing with another player, Germany might become much worse or even useless as an ally to England in the moment, for the time that Germany deals with that.

And there are similar situations you can have. Let’s say that you are Turkey and you’re dealing with Italy-Austria. You’ve got Russia on your side but it’s not that great. If you can get France coming in there to mess with Italy, Italy’s no longer going to be able to help Austria against you, it’s just locking down. Say, “Hey, man, Austria, look let’s make a deal, I help you against Russia and Italy or something.” Maybe it happens and you get Austria to change sides just for the ability to have progress. Some players really think like that, where, “Hm, my Alliance hasn’t made progress for a year, time to change sides.”

Do you have any more thoughts on this subject?

Hunter 19:23  

Yeah, I guess that’s interesting; also, I noticed that this happens rather often also when there’s an English-German alliance; oftentimes some Germany players apparently just don’t actually really do a lot to actually destroy France because they feel like England will stab them afterward or something. So if you’re a French player, you could just point out to England, you know, “Hey, you know Germany’s not really serious about this.”

BrotherBored 19:43  

Right; and do defend yourself maximum against one of the players, and the other players, just don’t really put up many defenses at all, hardly. So this could be something like, as France completely lock down Burgundy, make sure there’s no way Germany can get in, and meanwhile, England’s like getting closer and closer. The German player may get more and more nervous. “Aah! You know, England’s going to start getting the benefit of this alliance while I’m just shut out,” or vice versa. It’s not the same strategy, but it is similar to what you’re suggesting, of showing one of the allies to be useless.

Hunter 20:21

Yeah, that’s true because if they’re not really helping… Okay, I have another question; did you remember that article that was shared with us about England asking France for a bounce on the channel, unless they get Belgium?

BrotherBored 20:35 

I’m not sure I don’t remember it off the top of my head, sorry.

Hunter 20:38  

There was this article, they said they thought it showed how the position of powers could be related to the meta.

BrotherBored 20:44 

Okay, I think I’m remembering.

Hunter  20:47  

Yes, so I think in the article, it says, you know, if England tells France, that they’d like to bounce from the channel or get support to build in Belgium, would France be pissed about that?

BrotherBored  20:57

So let me repeat to make sure I understand; England has issued a Spring 1901 ultimatum: Either agree to bounce me in English Channel, or agree to support me into Belgium in autumn 1901.

Hunter 21:12

I mean, maybe they could say it more politely than that, but… [laughter]

BrotherBored 21:14 

In general, I think demands are not a very effective negotiating posture, especially not in Spring 1901. I think it’s better to talk in terms of options, and in terms of consequences. So to say something like, “Hey, France, if I were to open to Norwegian Sea and North Sea, would you support me to Belgium?” And maybe France will say, “Well, it depends on how things go.” “Okay, I heard you,” and then open to English Channel.

And when France says, “Hey, what the heck, you opened to English Channel!” “Well, you said that you weren’t sure if you would support me to Belgium or not, so I said, ‘Well, I better be ready to support myself so that I can make my own support and move into Belgium,’ since you said you wouldn’t support me.” “Well, I didn’t mean that you should move to English Channel, I would have supported you…” “No, I don’t think so, you said…” Something like that. [laughter]

Because if you talk in terms of if-this conditionals and things like that, then you get a sense of what the other player is willing to do. Some players might say something like, “Oh, if you open to the east, I unequivocally promise I will support your convoy into Belgium.” “Oh, okay, sick!” So I would maybe I would open to Norwegian Sea and North Sea. And I’ll find out real fast if that French player is a liar, because either the French player makes some kind of hostile move, or doesn’t support me to Belgium. That’s valuable information. That player lied that much! Just to prevent me from opening to English Channel? That player will lie over everything. I don’t trust this player at all. That’s good to know. Whereas, if they keep their word, you think, “Alright, well, I can see myself being allies with this player for a long time. You know, they kept their word over something that was important very early on.”

There are similar, similar little things like, you know, you’re Turkey and Italy says, “Hey, I don’t want to see you working with Russia.” “Okay, what does it mean to you, me not working with Russia?” “Well, I think you should open to Armenia.” “Okay, but if I do open to Armenia, what are you going to do?” “Well, I don’t know, it depends.” “Okay, so you’re saying, whether I open to Armenia or not, there’s nothing in particular you’re offering to do or not do. I’m not opening to Armenia, dude. [laughter] I have to do something so specific as attack my neighbor immediately, and what you’re offering in return is, ‘Well, then I’ll consider working with you in the future.’ You know, all right, I know this game, Italy, you will consider working with me in the future whether I open to Armenia or not, you’ll have to “consider” working with me at all times.” This is Diplomacy! Players change sides and whatnot. You’re not going to make up your mind about that just based on that…

I’ve played Diplomacy a few times and Italy and Turkey work together sometimes even when Turkey didn’t open to Armenia, that happens. Making specific demands of what the other players should do, I think that’s unlikely… You could say it another way, just say, “Okay, you know, hey, do you think we could be allied?” “Yeah, I think I can see us working together.” “Alright, what would you want to see from me to show that I’m playing in a way that’s consistent with our alliance?” “Oh, well, you know, I think you, as Austria, you should be bouncing in Galicia.” “So your idea is that I should be bouncing in Galicia, or at least move to Galicia. And that’ll show that I’m ready to work with you.” “Yeah, that’s what I want to see from you.” “Okay, good to know.” But at least I learned what the other player might be willing to do for me in return.

So when the French player says, like, “I don’t want to see you open to English Channel,” Okay, but, well, what are you going to do, if I don’t open the English Channel? Well… Let’s get more specific. I would ask for France—I would say, “Alright, if I don’t open to English channel, then I don’t want to see your fleet in Brest. Can you agree to that deal, that I don’t move in the English Channel, and you don’t build a fleet in Brest? I won’t build a fleet in London, I won’t build a fleet in Liverpool, you don’t build a fleet in Brest, and neither of us move to English channel, can you agree to all that?” And if they say, “Well, no, I won’t agree to all.” Okay, good to know. Because if there’s a French player who demands that you not move to English Channel, but is going to build a fleet in Brest in 1901, then now I’m going to move to English Channel! What are you doing for me?

But if they’ll agree to do that, then maybe not move to English channel and find out; because either the French player keeps their word and doesn’t build in Brest, in which case, all right, well, I’m glad I work with them because they’re pretty friendly. Or they build in Brest just as they promised not to do, and you learn, “All right. So when they asked me not to move to English Channel, they were full of crap. All they wanted to do was just get me to not move there in 1901.” And that tells you a lot about a player, because a player who is willing to tell such blatant lies, just to get you to move one piece a certain way is a player that cannot be trusted at all, in my opinion.

Hunter 26:29  

Could you tell other players in the game that they’re not trustworthy at all?

BrotherBored 26:32  

They usually don’t care. Honestly, most players know that everybody’s lied to each other to a certain extent.

Hunter 26:42  

Yeah, I mean, lying over one piece, though, that’s pretty untrustworthy.

BrotherBored 26:46  

It’s pretty untrustworthy! That’s right. Because they could have just said, “No, I’ll make my decision based on a lot of things.” They could have equivocated, they could say, “Look, if you don’t move to English Channel, that’s very friendly, but I won’t swear to it. I’ll think about it.” And you go, “Okay,” and make your decision based on that.

In high-level Diplomacy games, there are players who make vague things like, “Yeah, I’ll consider working with you,” and you’re like, “Well, you know, fair, they won’t make up their mind.” But when the players make those promises, you usually expect them to keep it.

Here’s a way that I think about lying in Diplomacy. Like, specific lies, “I’m going to do X,” but actually, I just do the opposite. The players’ believing your lies is a resource that you burn out of. You can lie to a player a handful of times in the game, maybe, before they just stop believing you altogether. Ideally, lying to players not at all until maybe you finish them off or go for a solo win or something like that.

In my opinion, the best backstab is one that the player can’t recover from. To lie to somebody over just the one piece implies that the other player doesn’t play like this. That the player takes a short-sighted view, That, like, “What I use my diplomacy for is to influence players to do things this turn.” And if that’s how they think, that’s a player who will just say whatever; they’ll say anything they can think of. They’re not terribly reliable. Now, I am such a player myself, in that I’ll say whatever it is that I can think of! But it won’t be just to get one center, it won’t be just to get one base to move a certain way or other, unless that is like the game-winning move, or something like that.

Because I know that if I’ve manipulated players so blatantly and lied early on, I’m not going to get a position in the match later to be able to win. I’ve already used up all my trump cards, not very smart. So then, I infer from that, that not only is the player ruthless, but also not very good. That is not necessarily… that’s probably the worst. A player who is not an alliance player, and who is not very good. A player who is not very strong, a weak player who’s a loyal ally, that is the best possible ally, a loyal ally but a weak player—great, carry them all the way to the end of the match, backstab them and get the win. That’s the perfect ally.

And the second best ally is a strong player. Because strong Diplomacy players, although they tend to be ruthless, also understand they shouldn’t just backstab their ally for no frickin’ reason and mess up the game. But a weak player who is also very ruthless—disloyal, they’re weak and disloyal—they will backstab you unpredictably. They’ll get you both killed! You know, “Why? Like, what was the point of all this! We’re just going to lose to that guy over there! What were you thinking, dude?” And I don’t want that ally.

Hunter 29:49  

I think England might become a stronger country, though if England players… I don’t think they should make demands, but I think the idea of saying, “Hey France, if I move east, will you support me to Belgium?” or “If I don’t move to the channel, will you not build a fleet in Brest?” Because they should get something in exchange.

BrotherBored 30:09 

Yes.

Hunter 30:10 

Like, the current meta now is just, like, most England players, they just expect to, you know, just move east, without anything in exchange. So it’s like, you know, “If France wants to get three builds, build two fleets and just go after me, no problem!”

BrotherBored 30:24  

I think that’s very wise, that if you are England, and you’re not going to open to English Channel to extract something from France, even if it’s just promises. Then you will learn whether France is going to work with you or not; because if the French player induces you to go east, agrees to give you Belgium, or whatever, and then doesn’t, that is a French player who is going to just relentlessly attack you until you’re gone because they were willing to burn… The reason why that French player was probably willing to burn bridges with you, in 1901, is they had already made up their mind to attack you before you even said hello, because that’s the A plan for France for some people.

Let me… Actually, let me raise this to a more general level, about the value of getting specific promises from the other players, is that you can get inferences about what the players are, or aren’t, thinking strategically, based on whether they’re willing to make promises or not, and whether they keep those promises, or not. Even promises over small things. You may have learned or heard that good Diplomacy players are talking to other players a lot, and they have relationships with everyone else on the board. And you can start getting information—the players telling you, about their intentions or even their specific moves.

Whether they fulfill those promises, or they play consistently with your expectations, or violate those promises: all the time, that’s generating information. Whether they lie or tell the truth, that’s still something. Why are they telling me, or not telling me? Why is it truthful or not truthful? And you can get inferences about what they’re trying to accomplish, even if they would never outright tell you.

So the idea of asking, as England, asking for specific promises from France, is a wise idea. Because it’s part of a bigger wisdom, applicable to Diplomacy, of trying to get specific information from players that is either fulfilled, or not, and then you learn about what the players were lying or not lying. And if you just don’t, if they don’t make specific promises, then what they choose to do with their moves, it’s now ambiguous as to whether, what was the intention behind it?

Hunter 32:45  

I really think England players would be more successful if they did this stuff with France and also probably if they stopped attacking Russia first.

BrotherBored 32:53  

[laughter] I think so too. Alright, maybe I’ll see you next week.

Andre 33:00  

Alright, have a good day.

BrotherBored 33:01  

You too.

Outro 33:09  

If you enjoyed this episode, remember to subscribe and review the podcast. To learn more from Your Bored Brother, and to participate in the dojo, visit the blog at brotherbored.com. Thanks to loyalty freak music for the theme music, “it feels good to be alive too.”