The game of Diplomacy I won, I won through an enforceable side contract (which lost me a friend and got me some accusations of cheating, but this is par for the course for a good Diplomacy game). I was Britain; my friend H was France... A lot of people made fun of me for this, including H, but in my defense I did end up winning the game.
I strongly agree with this Newbies' Guide:
You must always play each game fairly to give each player an equal opportunity to do well… don't sign up for a game with your best friend and have an unbreakable alliance from turn one... winning in these situations does not say anything about your skills as a Diplomacy player, only that you can win by cheating (well duh).
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
The games described in the post were online - they're normally played against different opponents each time. The game that's about to start is only planned to happen once.
Only if iteration was a factor, and even then, that argument could be applied to most forms of cheating.
Only if iteration was a factor, and even then, only in a sense that could be applied to most forms of cheating.
It's really only applicable to forms of cheating which can be countered by non-cheaters ganging up on the cheaters. If the cheat causes an automatic win in every game, the scrub argument against its banning doesn't apply.
But I agree, I was assuming iteration. Obviously, the scrubbiness of the rule against unbreakable alliances (and thus the cheatiness of the tactic), would depend on metagame circumstances.