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

stop

nice reply

stop

man the forum has really gone downhill here

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

stop









then go

stop
wait a minute

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.

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

tldr your post was useless and longwinded

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.

@Dogberry

My bad, I probably should have put it there.

Stop

Do not pass go

Do not collect 200 dollarz

IT'S TIME TO STOP.

stop
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
please stop.

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

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

@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.

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