"encountering the right attitude when conducting negotiations'
A true diplomat knows how to get the right attitude

"Ultimately, you have to randomize your tactics to get around the circle."
uhhh no you don't. Yes there are counters to every move, but there is always a all things being equal best more, an all this being equal riskiest move etc.

A rational player will understand the risk reward

We're all just feeding the troll here.

fasces, diplomacy is played by more than just "a" true diplomat.

Likewise, you can't get the right attitude out of another in advance of experience. We're not talking about pure logic here. We're talking about social interactions which require meeting people. You don't know who people are until you meet them.

Some people like assertive approaches. Others like reserved approaches. Some people like artistic approaches. Others like rational approaches. Some people like simple approaches. Others like complex approaches.

If your approach is incompatible from the start, you're automatically at a disadvantage.

I was just going to say that Ruffhaus. If this isn't trolling, nothing we say here is going to make a difference. Argo has clearly already made up his mind.

To Argo - Stop posting here. Go play a 1 v 1 with a "rational player" where you "randomize your tactics" by flipping a coin or using a computer program or whatever and your opponent makes a logical decision based on analyzing the board. Once that's over, come back and tell us how it ended for you.

Well I'm not sure why you believe "a" 1v1 would be a good measure since that's not how you check probabilities, but I'm more than willing to play 1v1s with people if they want.

"I agree that overall strategies matter as well, but when it comes to multiple rational players playing against each other, guessing the right tactic ultimately comes down to the circle of, "If I do this, he'll do that, but if he does that, then I ought to do the other thing, but if I do the other thing, then he'll do this, so if he does this, I ought to do that.""

Based on that statement, we can test your theory in 1v1 games. You play randomly, and your opponent makes logical moves and we see how it ends up. You can play many in a row if you want to test it. However many it takes for you to realize that randomly varying your tactics does *not* increase your chances of winning.

Well that's not how statistics work. Sample size corresponds to confidence. You can play a certain number to satisfy a degree of confidence, but you can't play infinitely to know for certain.

The only way to know for certain is by analyzing the situation at hand independently of the situation itself.

Anyway, I have a live France v Austria game up if you want to play.

If I recall correctly, GvI is accepted as the most "balanced" 1v1 map. Surely you'd want to play as balanced a map as possible to test your theory?

As for statistics, yes, you're right. You can't play infinitely. And you know what? Random moves *might* win a few games here and there. But when "random" moves lose >95% of the time, I'm pretty sure we can all say that it's not a good decision to move "randomly".

Where do you recall GvI being accepted as the most balanced?

95% would just be a particular confidence interval too. It might work, it might not, but it's still not a deductive value.

There was a long discussion about 1v1 variants some time ago on the forums. People play-tested many of them and even had entire tournaments about them. I seem to recall GvI being the standard "balanced" variant.

95% might not be a deductive value, but that's because you'll never get a deductive value. It's impossible to prove either way in this situation. It will always be people arguing over the forums. However, since we can't ever prove anything, confidence intervals are all we have. If a "random" move player loses 19 of 20 times, it's a fairly decent indication that their strategy isn't working. I don't know where you're from, so I don't know if this analogy will fall flat, but if you were playing baseball, and you were caught stealing 19 of 20 times, don't you think it'd be smart to stop trying to steal?

Anyways, discussion time is over. Crank out some GvI games and I'm sure people will oblige you, myself included even though I usually never play 1v1s.

I don't see how GvI is balanced. :-\

Munich can perpetually threaten Venice, and Germany has more neighboring SCs to expand into.

How people came to the conclusion that it's balanced, I don't have a clue.

Perhaps I was wrong. Maybe I remember incorrectly. I really don't feel like searching for a long time through the forums to find out though. Make a bunch of different games then.

From the classic based variants EvT is very ballanced:
http://www.vdiplomacy.com/stats.php?variantID=62
and FvA is not that way off:
http://www.vdiplomacy.com/stats.php?variantID=15

Or you can try Duo or Lepanto on a symmetrical map:
http://www.vdiplomacy.com/stats.php?variantID=22
http://www.vdiplomacy.com/stats.php?variantID=41

I don't see how GvI is balanced. :-\

Munich can perpetually threaten Venice, and Germany has more neighboring SCs to expand into.

How people came to the conclusion that it's balanced, I don't have a clue.

Sorry. Accidental repost.

Yea, I usually host France v Austria, but I've hosted Frankland versus Juggernaut a few times too.

Random moves will win less than .00001% of the time.

.00001% of the time against a player that knows the rules but is not considered "good".

But how are we gonna be totally sure that Argo will be moving "randomely" ( what does that mean, you use dice for each move of just those where certain algorithm could not decide?) I think the best way to test this would be creating a program.

If we trust Argo, he should justify in the game comments each time he believes a move is obvious enough to avoid using dice and his opponent should agree before submitting orders

Using this "logic" what game is NOT "ultimately about luck"? Please are their ANY, explain what game is so we can tear that apart as well.

I've been thinking about that one as well, and I'm not sure there is such a thing anymore. Yes, people can choose whether or not to commit themselves, but once multiple people commit equally, victory depends on luck.

I'm not denying that victors deserve credit because they've consented to assume the risk of getting lucky, but it needs to be understood that beyond commitment, skill is no longer a factor. Once you realize the point where multiple rational tactics can achieve victory, it becomes a matter of compatibility.

Argo, you are so convinced that your original premise is right you can't even see the flaws in your arguments. Tomahaha was pointing out the absurdity of your logic, not agreeing with it.

@Oli I'm not sure I think I remember a thread where they were providng evidence about EvT being very unbalanced in favour of England.

Actually, I found it, I'll quote fasces: ""@fasces: "...EvT does have a set of moves which makes it impossible for Turkey to win"

Is that true? Have you worked it out?"
I tested out my theory, its not 100% true. I was giving my orders to Halt before we finalized to see if it was, and in the end he won.

There were 8 instances in the game where it came down to a 50-50 guess, and obviously since Halt new my orders for all 8 of them, he came out on top.

I don't think its possible for Turkey to win against a competent English player, but its not as guaranteed as I previously thought."

It's interesting, however, that according to statistics, it's the more balanced 1v1 based in classic diplomacy. Because of this, I'd say Argo theory should be tested in a simetrical map like Duo or Lepanto.

In my experience with 1-on-1's, I think G vs. I is by far the most balanced, with F vs. A and FG vs. RT pretty well balanced, meaning that either side can win. Turkey vs England is pretty balanced too, but it's not one of my favorites.

Argo, you said that Germany has an advantage in G vs. I. Not true at all. If anything, Italy has the advantage. If Italy is played correctly by a good player, it is almost impossible to win as Germany.

What makes Italy advantageous?

The first thing that comes to mind is how the only way Italy can get three new SCs in the first year is if it assumes the risk of letting Munich occupy Venice. Venice has to move to Trieste, and Rome has to move to Venice followed by Trieste to Budapest or Serbia with Venice to Trieste again.

In response, Munich can move to Tyrolia, and Tyrolia to Venice. Germany gets three new builds, and Italy has to dislodge Germany out of Venice just to clean up.