Skip to main content

They Don't Like It Up 'Em! (part 2): When All Else Fails

There are some things to remember that help you play Diplomacy better. Some of them are tactical, some of them strategic; some are about the way you communicate, or negotiate.

Very few of these things are a collective of everything to do with Dip. Knowing how to take action to prevent defeat, and knowing when to carry home your advantage, are two of these.
https://memegenerator.net/

When all else fails

Sometimes aggression has to be answered with aggression, even if it's passive aggression. There are two ways to do this.
  1. On the board: Here, you're going to throw everything at your aggressor. Forget about what's going on elsewhere on the board - it doesn't matter now. Perhaps you are going to lose out by being pig-headed in full-on defence or counter-attacking. But that's the point of it: your oppressor has to see that what she's doing is costing you - and by extension - her. You're on the way out, anyway.
  2. Off the board: By now, you should know that you can't ignore diplomacy. Well, this isn't so much diplomacy as the issuing of an ultimatum or even being deliberately provocative. The ultimatum is about threatening to throw you position away, either to your aggressor (as a way of forcing others to act) or to third power (to force your aggressor to re-think what she's doing). The provocation needs to be targeted, thought through, and looked at more closely.

Causing Offence

There is nothing wrong with being provocative, however you take action. There is a caveat to this, which I'll come to below, but what I mean here is that you need to decide what you're going to do.

You can be provocative by being offensive... but here's the caveat. What you're doing, hopefully, is being deliberately offensive in a managed way. You don't want to be making threats that have nothing to do with the game. You don't want to be abusive; there's a difference between being offensive and being abusive.

Some people will take offence at anything. Call them an idiot and they'll start shouting about it. For others, it's swearing that sets them off. These people need to grow a tougher shell. Closets are cramped places to live your life.

There certainly is no need to be racist, genderist, abusive about sexual orientation, etc. There's no need to be making threats away from, or outside of, the game. There ought to be a limit, a line in the sand. After all, it's a game.

The point of this, though, is that you're trying to throw the player off her game. It isn't being personal, although that may be an aspect, it's about using mind games to achieve an end.

Not everybody will agree that this is a bona fide strategy. They hold fast to being respectful at all times. Fair enough. I tend to avoid this strategy myself, on the whole. But there's no reason everyone has to live within these ethical guidelines. To some extent, you draw your own lines, although I'd hope that sites would have some absolute limits of some kind about this.

Chainsaw Diplomacy

This is a different tactic altogether. I'd like to say I'd thought of it, but I didn't. Paul Walker might not have invented the term either but he did write about it. To summarise what he said:

"Chainsaw Diplomacy is the press equivalent of bareknuckle [sic] fighting. It is press that is deliberately designed to be upsetting and unnerving to the recipient. After reading an effective Chainsaw dispatch, a potentate should be trembling. He should be thinking: "My God! I've got a madman on my hands!" Chainsaw press is irrational, demanding and/or intimidating. It should not even admit of the possibility of a reasonable reply. An effective piece of Chainsaw press should leave the recipient 100% certain that the letter writer is going to do exactly as he says. It's fundamental purpose is to deliver a message which cannot be ignored, even by the most suspicious, and usually with all of the subtlety of a black rose valentine.
"That being said, let me also state what Chainsaw Diplomacy is not. It is not crude. Foul language has no place in any press, including Chainsaw press. It is not insulting - threatening perhaps - but not insulting. Name calling will not serve the purpose of getting your message across. It is not venting your spleen. Chainsaw press may be crafted to appear like an emotional outburst, but it never should be. It is a cool, calculated attempt to acheive [sic] by unreasonable statements, threats and demands, that which you were unable to acheive [sic] previously through reasonable negotiation."
[Walker, P. Chainsaw Diplomacy; The Diplomatic Pouch, Winter 1998 Adjustments]

What 'Chainsaw Diplomacy' is, then, a real last resort. It should be a way to break an otherwise inescapable situation on the board. Walker suggests that it should be published in 'press', messages that can be read by all; I also think it can be part of power-to-power messaging.

What you're trying to do is embarrass a player by showing others what a devious sod she is. You're trying to show that, once she's finished with you, she'll move on to other 'allies'. She's untrustworthy and will stab you just like she stabbed me.

The point of being provocative, whatever tactic you employ, is to break an existing pattern and give yourself a chance that, otherwise, you wouldn't get.

Always control yourself, though. Players are only human; if your strategy leads to you appearing abusive, especially if it seems to unnecessary, you'll build a poor reputation. You don't want that; it will lead to becoming a target in all games.
Heathley Baines (Nibbler)
Editor

The series "They Don't Like It Up 'Em!"
Part 2: "When All Else Fails"
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Powers: England (part 1): Introduction

England is one of the powers that doesn't often raise a lot of enthusiasm among players if they draw her in the game.  This is mainly because, while it is a power that can do well enough, being in an highly defensible position and therefore a power that is likely to keep a decent player in the game until the end, it is one of the more difficult powers to win a game with. In short, she's seen as 'boring'. Well, no power in Diplomacy should be boring to play; you're doing something wrong if this is the case. And England is just as good a prospect to win the game as any other power. Just think outside the box. In this series of posts, I'll be looking at England's position on the board, her opening strategies, her potential alliances, and a strategy that can lead to victory for the English player. https://assets2.hrc.org/ But first, let's look at how the history of Britain may well give some clues to playing England in Diplomacy. Wait - that...
Post a Comment
Read more

How to Play Diplomacy (part 1): Introduction

Diplomacy is a complicated game. Now, there's an understatement! However, when learning how to play it, there is one source which can't be ignored: the creator of the game, Allan B Calhamer. Allan B Calhamer (7 Dec 1931 - 25 Feb 2013) https://haroonriaz.files.wordpress.com/ Having had a break from the blog for a while, thinking about what I wanted to write next and recovering properly from a broken femur, I have decided to come back with a series of articles on playing Diplomacy , but playing it properly. Rather than tips, hints, strategy discussions, etc (there're plenty of those elsewhere on the blog), this is about playing the game the way it was meant to be played. Now, I'll readily admit that this is my opinion. There is always going to be discussion about the way the game ought to be played. I don't claim there's a definitive answer to every aspect of the game, and the way you play is - or should be - somewhat defined by the context in which a ...
Post a Comment
Read more

How to Play Diplomacy (part 2): Origins

Diplomacy  is a complicated game.  Now,  there's  an understatement! However, when learning how to play it, there is one source which can't be ignored: the creator of the game, Allan B Calhamer. http://hybridsrising.com/ In the Diplomacy Archive , there are two articles which deal with how Diplomacy came into being: A Dozen Years of Diplomacy  (1966; First published in Diplomania, issue 12, Aug 1966.) The Invention of Diplomacy  (1974; First published in Games ad Puzzles, issue 21, Jan 1974.) Both articles explain the forces that led to Calhamer creating  Diplomacy and they are, pretty much, repetitive of each other. Although they explain how the game was formed, they also have implications on how Calhamer intended the game to be played. The Influences From A Dozen Years of Diplomacy : At the end of World War II, I came across an article on "post-war planning" which reviewed the European diplomacy of the period 1815-1914 and...
Post a Comment
Read more