Skip to main content

The Ethics of Diplomacy - Part 9: Mind Games

I've separated this from gamesmanship because it is something different.  However, mind games have the same impact on the Dip community as gamesmanship, for very similar reasons.


Mind games are anything that you can do to get under the skin of another player.  They can be irritants, impoliteness or meant to simply build paranoia.

Silence

Sending messages and getting no response is frustrating.  I know - I send a lot of messages and find it annoying if I'm getting nothing back from someone with whom I'm supposed to be working.

Now, what happens when that silence is deliberate?  When someone decides that they're not going to answer messages, or keep their answers to a minimum?  Why would they do that?

Well, it is usually to cause some disruption in your thinking.  If you're concerned that she isn't messaging back, you're going to be concerned about what your plans were going to be.

I know at least one player who hates this, not because of how it makes him approach a game, but because he judges it to be exceedingly rude.  Let's face it: if someone is being silent with you in Dip, then you really ought to be targeting her; that's not the problem.  It's the fact that they have decided to not answer you that's frustrating.

Does the silent treatment actually succeed?  Perhaps.  There will certainly be some players that find it more than a little disconcerting.  If it throws them off their game, then it's worked.

Provocation

If you can provoke a reaction, then you might be able to predict what a player will do.  This doesn't mean just provoking a player to anger, it might mean something more subtle than that.  I've discussed provoking anger under Gamesmanship.  It could have come under mind games, too, of course.  So here I want to look at the more subtle side.

One of the best ways to manipulate another player to do what you want is simply planting a seed.  For instance, if you want Germany to act against France, you might tell him that France is going to stab her.  This is quite a blunt tactic and, honestly, not likely to work.  Germany will look at what you're telling her and look to see what you gain from her turning on France.

Rather than this a more subtle approach is planning how to tip Germany off without seeming that you meant to do it.  This might be, for instance, asking a question as part of sharing information.  Perhaps something like: "Is France really moving north?  She seemed a little evasive with me."

Of course, any good player would still look at what you get by suggesting something.  However, if you can establish a pattern of communication early on, then using that pattern to your advantage is something that can be useful.

Of course, persuasion is better than manipulation.  Understand what they want from a situation and see if you can find a common set of objectives.  But there are times when manipulation is a fair strategy to use, too.

The False Missed Turn

Missing a turn can be disastrous, especially in the mid- and late game.  Why, then, would someone deliberately 'miss' a turn?

First, I should point out that missing a turn, on websites, is going to have a consequence.  It might see you removed from the game immediately on some sites and apps.  On others, it might be that this is your one chance and a repetition will see you removed.  However, on almost any site, it will reduce your consistency level, however that is managed, and this may affect the games you can get into.

Because of this players are unlikely to deliberately miss a turn for the sake of playing mindgames.  What is much more likely is that they'll find a way to not enter orders and still log the turn as completed.

Why?  Because then you can see how players will react to this.  Does it throw them off?  Does your ally try to get in touch with you to check that things are OK, which indicates that she really does need you going forward?  Does an ally use this to attack your position.

However, this is a risky tactic.  At the start of the game, when it may be used most often, it may mean that a player loses the chance to get an SC.  In later stages of the game it may result in key positions being lost.  Not one I'd recommend.

The Deliberate Mistake

This is in a similar vein to missed turns but can be less damaging.  It is when a player deliberately enters a mis-order, an order that can't be followed.

This isn't possible on all sites.  On webDiplomacy, for instance, the interface won't allow it; the only option there is to give legal orders.  On Playdiplomacy the option is possible because it allows you to enter any order you want.

This is truly devious.  It means you can, for instance, not order to support an action on a specific coast, or you can misorder an army to move by convoy rather than by land.  With an appropriate level of annoyance or embarrassment after the 'error' you can carry this off.

And it doesn't mean you have to miss a turns worth of orders for all your units!

THE ETHICS OF DIPLOMACY series:

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

WHAT IS DIPLOMACY? - Part 5: Variants

A variant is a game of Diplomacy where the rules or context are different from the standard game as designed by Allan B Calhamer.  There are three types of variants: context variants, map variants and rules variants. Context Variants Context variants are those games that are played with a wider context.  They may be tournament games, other scored games, or remote format  games.  These aren't often recognised as variants as such, as variants tend to be within the other two types discussed below.  But the context the game is being played in will have an impact on how some players will play the game, and so they are certainly a variation of Dip. Maybe they should be called "variations" rather than variants but does it really matter? Map Variants Diplomacy has been adapted to different maps, or boards.  Not surprising as the general idea of the game, pitting competing powers against each other in a localised region and time in history, can be adapte...

WHAT IS DIPLOMACY? - Part 1: A Brief Intro to Diplomacy

Let's get started by discussing the game itself. The Board The map Diplomacy is played on is based on Europe at the start of the Twentieth Century.  It doesn't reflect Europe literally but is stylised.  Not all the countries are there and some of the spaces are given names that are a little... questionable. The Diplomacy Board The map I've used above is something   like the original board published in Europe.  In the Americas (well, North America, I'm not sure about anywhere outside of USA and Canada) the map was less colourful and more a physical map.  But the spaces are roughly the same. Players control one of seven major powers in Europe: England (yes, not Britain or, even more accurately, the UK) France Italy Germany Austria-Hungary (usually shortened to Austria) Turkey Russia There are 56 land spaces.  34 of these spaces are called Supply Centres (SCs) that, when controlled by a major power, support an army or a fleet on ...

The Powers - Part 6: Walls of Steel

In this series, I'm going to take a brief look at the seven powers in the game of  Diplomacy.   This will be not much more than a brief introduction to each power, looking at their position on the board, their neighbours and the pros and cons of playing them.  More detailed strategy will follow in future posts. The witch in the east.  England and Turkey are often know as the "Witch of the East" and the "Witch of the West" respectively.  They are both incredibly difficult to eliminate, which earns them this sobriquet.  With England, of course, it's because she's surrounded by sea spaces and will - or should - have a number of fleets on the board to protect her.  With Turkey it is that she's always slow to break down.  Even with a Gobbler triple alliance (A/I/R) it takes time. One of the reasons for this is Turkey's position as a corner power.  You can't get in behind her... literally in this case. Turkey's most vulnera...