Y'all, feel free at any time to set up a 1v1 with me, and I will help teach you the subtle arts of true Warlight. Free of charge.

*smashes FK (like that would ever happen)* WHO NEEDS TEACHING NOW!

Or a 2v2 with me and FK :P

Medium Earth > World Nations 2014

Edited 7/29/2015 03:42:26

Jack handey who is in that game is known for being a sick son of a birch tree and will most likely become a pe. To have fun in diplomacy you need to get invited to games by nice people like only the pie most people in there are nice and we usually have a good time. Ask him for an invite to any upcoming games when he gets back from vacation.

^This

Play games with the diplo clans. GRID diplos, USSR diplos, etc. Try and get on someones friend list and get invited. Our games are usually pretty filtered because all the bad players are blacklisted and can't join ^_^

I've never liked Jack, he whined like constantly the majority of this game https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9003903

I can enter you in some diplo's if you want, they aren't the best but they aren't awful. Also try a level 20 filter.

Nice to see the typical elitism from the pair...

Y'all, feel free at any time to set up a 1v1 with me, and I will help teach you the subtle arts of true Warlight. Free of charge.

*smashes FK (like that would ever happen)* WHO NEEDS TEACHING NOW!

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9191229

I know this is late, but ha, WHO NEEDS TEACHING NOW!

So in other words, they are right where they started and belong?

Good lord. 1 pick per player, 81 armies per pick, 100% luck 1-day boot times and you expect me to play it? Pffffff

Open Game diplomacy games are almost always a failure especially real time. There is always at least one Public Enemy. Half the game gets booted. If it's real time, the ones who don't get booted will surrender because people have stuff to do in their life. There will be on average 1 experienced role player per game, and that is the role player that has not come to sense that open diplomacy games are bad. You spend more time occupying neutrals than anything interesting happening. When a good scenario is set up, there will be ways to wreck it. People don't read the rules, tons of noobs. Even with prereqs - just because someone is over level 20, doesn't mean they're any better than someone at level 10 - especially for diplomacy. There will be people who try to "win" diplomacy games.

Very few people in open games actually realise that diplomacy games are for the experience, and for fun. For recreating historical or fictional events. For making hypothetical, modern world, or futuristic events come together in a super-customisable game, where you can do what you want.

If you do want to have a good time playing diplomacy games - the two best hosts I recommend are Omega, and Pie. (The circles are also not bad :D ) They have a whole host of different scenarios waiting to dish out, and invite a bunch of friends to. People rarely get booted - leaving a huge opportunity for large scale wars, or cold war-esque huge series of proxy wars. The scenarios range allowing many different events to occur. One day you're Austria, the next you're Scotland.

Joining a clan is also a great idea. Inter-clan diplomatic games happen all the time (if you're in any good diplomacy clan :/ ) You are in a place where there are people who are interested in the same game types as you, where you play together without the fear of a Public Enemy, or massive amounts of people getting booted.

(Also this is not to say that strategic games are bad. They're also great!)

'There will be people who try to "win" diplomacy games.'

Hold on... is there not supposed to be a "winner" of diplomacy games? I thought these were supposed to be like the board game Diplomacy, with negotiation and backstabbing so that eventually you rule the world.

I understand there are PE rules and people should follow them, but if someone turns PE and threatens smaller nations so that they also become PE that seems like a pretty sound way to play.

^^^^^

'There will be people who try to "win" diplomacy games.'

Hold on... is there not supposed to be a "winner" of diplomacy games?

Hold on... is there not supposed to be a "winner" of diplomacy games? I thought these were supposed to be like the board game Diplomacy, with negotiation and backstabbing so that eventually you rule the world.

This is what I think, but when I mention this, that diplomacy is all about picking off others one by one, folk say "Oh, no, it's all about the roleplay! Gosh, that's so barbaric." Not all, but some.

In my opinion, diplomacy games are always done best when there are predetermined slots. Agreed?

Due to this, diplomacy games cannot be balanced.

Therefore, if the point of diplomacy games is to win - that makes them an extended lottery, which is not fun. The people who have strong slots have much larger chances of winning, making it unfair against the people who have smaller slots. No it is not all about the role play. There are some strategic wars to a certain extent. Not strategic because it is balanced, but because it takes good negotiation skills to form alliances, and make sure these alliances are trustworthy, and solid. Wars can easily turn tides if an alliance with a country is made, which escalates the war, and makes it more enjoyable.

If you want to win games - play strategically.

I find a big issue is that people distrust big nations. I've had dozen people declare war on me at the same time for being a large nation.

There are "diplomacy" games that are played for fun. They're called intra-clan games.

In a scale from most toxic to least toxic, all sorts of diplos:

Open Real Time
Open Multi-day
All members invited by someone
Clan-only/inter-clans multi-day

There's a reason to this - people get booted/surrender frequently in real-times (naturally, sometime you just can't stay). And as stated, there is a winner for diplomacy, even though that isn't the point of the game. In any kinds of open games, you'll be getting people who do not care about enjoying the game and will only desire to win, which is natural in fact.

Ideally, you'll want to:

>Make sure you are in a clan and have them invite you frequently
>Try to avoid real-times
>When you do play real-times, make sure most/all superpower countries are either you or someone you trust or have seen playing and you know he's good
>Add high prerequisites to your games (I like adding level 5+ to avoid alts and boot rate under 60%, people like Genghis like even bigger ones)

Sometimes, in my posh, rule-intensive multiday diplomacies, I add L6+ and Bootrate under 25%.

But normally, it's L3+ and Bootrate under 50%.

I find a big issue is that people distrust big nations. I've had dozen people declare war on me at the same time for being a large nation.

If you are larger than average on turn 1, then you automatically have gained an advantage and a lesser player must remove you as early as possible. This is because a) removing you will lower the average, making their stake comparatively more powerful than previously, and b) if you are not removed, then you stand to grow at a rate faster than the average. Therefore it is not distrust or even anything remotely emotional; it is simple logic. They must remove you before you can remove them.