Robert Bracey
United Kingdom
London
-
I find it an odd claim that Diplomacy has no luck. Let me illustrate with a single example. In spring 1901 Italy plays A Vie-Pie and France plays A Mar-Spa.
Now France has two choices, he can continue with A Spa-Por or he can play A Spa-Mar. Surely this depends upon whether he values Marseilles or Spain more for future terms, he will still be +1 on supply centres?
No, as almost everyone knows if he plays A Spa-Mar to an Italian A Pie-Mar then the two armies bounce at Marseilles; France gets to keep Marseilles and get Spain and Portugal, he is +2 rather than supply centres. Perhaps not a perfect positioning but not a bad one.
So France should always play A Spa-Mar? No. If Italy knew the response move was going to be A Spa-Mar he could do A Pie H. The French army now moves back to Marseilles un-opposed but loses Spain in the process, thus out of position and only +1 on supply centres.
What should Italy do? Well he needs to mix it up, in other words he wants to play it randomly. If he plays A Pie H or A Pie-Mar consistently the French can always respond with a result that gets a +2 supply centres. However, if the Italians play 50/50 (by rolling a die) then 50% of the time the French guess wrong and either fail to take Spain or lose Marseilles.
So in practice whenever France is faced with this position (which is a lot of games) he faces effectively a dice roll. Diplomacy, the game whose dice rolls are hidden.
I'm curious about peoples' opinions on this. Do you think of Diplomacy as a game with or without luck?
-
Jon
United States
Vancouver
WA
-
There a difference between chaos and luck.
-
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
I like to exchange ideas but I have no interest in a pissing contest.
If you want me to review your game, just GM me and send me a copy. Abstracts, wargames and euros equally welcome. No party or dexterity games please.
-
"Luck" is just loose terminology. Diplomacy is a game without random elements apart from initial choice of countries.
-
Randall Bart
United States
Granada Hills
California
Red October
Earth is one of my favorite planets
-
Simultaneity is randomness.
-
Romain Jacques
Canada
Gatineau
Québec
-
When you play rock-paper-scissor, are you lucky or do you outguess your opponent?
-
Eric
United States
Maumee
Ohio
God created Arrakis to train the faithful.
All persons are contained within a single individual, just as all time is in a moment, and the entire universe is in a grain of sand. -Fremen Saying
-
RobertBr wrote:
I find it an odd claim that Diplomacy has no luck. Let me illustrate with a single example. In spring 1901 Italy plays A Vie-Pie and France plays A Mar-Spa.
Now France has two choices, he can continue with A Spa-Por or he can play A Spa-Mar. Surely this depends upon whether he values Marseilles or Spain more for future terms, he will still be +1 on supply centres?
No, as almost everyone knows if he plays A Spa-Mar to an Italian A Pie-Mar then the two armies bounce at Marseilles; France gets to keep Marseilles and get Spain and Portugal, he is +2 rather than supply centres. Perhaps not a perfect positioning but not a bad one.
So France should always play A Spa-Mar? No. If Italy knew the response move was going to be A Spa-Mar he could do A Pie H. The French army now moves back to Marseilles un-opposed but loses Spain in the process, thus out of position and only +1 on supply centres.
What should Italy do? Well he needs to mix it up, in other words he wants to play it randomly. If he plays A Pie H or A Pie-Mar consistently the French can always respond with a result that gets a +2 supply centres. However, if the Italians play 50/50 (by rolling a die) then 50% of the time the French guess wrong and either fail to take Spain or lose Marseilles.
So in practice whenever France is faced with this position (which is a lot of games) he faces effectively a dice roll. Diplomacy, the game whose dice rolls are hidden.
I'm curious about peoples' opinions on this. Do you think of Diplomacy as a game with or without luck?
Is this a gunboat game, or an open communication game?
If it's not a gunboat game (as all Diplomacy games should be) you have to factor in the communication you've had with your opponent so far, and consider him and how he might think you might move? There are plenty of variables that you're considering when deciding on a 50/50 bounce. What will the board look like after? What happens if we don't bounce? What's the safer move for him, or for me? Is he allied with anyone? Am I?
These are not random, they are inherent aspects of the game, and since the major playing pieces are human, and humans do not do things randomly the two of you are going to actually 'select' how you move based on what you think the other might do.
The outcome is not random by any means, it's been built on a mountain of data you and your opponent have poured through to determine how that move plays out.
And to consider if the entire game of Diplomacy can be considered to include 'random' elements based on one tiny example is folly. If my chess opponent performed his moves by rolling dice and moving his pieces at their whim, I'd likely surely defeat him. The same applies in Diplomacy, and while your question is in interesting one, I don't think you can consider your example random without considering the forces that have brought us to 'said' situation - which, if the players are making moves based on board position, tactics, and discussions with other players, none of that is random either.
It's an interesting question you pose, but it's only a cross section of a whole.
-
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
I like to exchange ideas but I have no interest in a pissing contest.
If you want me to review your game, just GM me and send me a copy. Abstracts, wargames and euros equally welcome. No party or dexterity games please.
-
Barticus88 wrote: Simultaneity is randomness.
not using the technical definition
-
Calavera Hermosa
United States
Tucson
Arizona
-
A better what to think about Dip is as a perfect information game. You have access to all of the same information about the game state as your opponents, and no decisions that you or your opponents will make is based on or will have its results decided by a random outcome generator (such as the roll of a dice or the drawing of a card.)
That means the REAL game is being played not between you and the game system, but between you and your opponents' minds. This makes negotiation all the more important in this game, as you gather intel, spread disinformation, create alliances, and bully/threaten/bribe your way into a stronger position. And this is in no way "random." It's arguably not really even chaotic either, since an experienced player (or an experienced observer of human nature) will be able to predict, with a relatively low margin of error, and in some cases even exploit and control the behavior of his opponents.
-
Ryan Powers
United States
Marble
Minnesota
-
MScrivner wrote: A better what to think about Dip is as a perfect information game. You have access to all of the same information about the game state as your opponents, and no decisions that you or your opponents will make is based on or will have its results decided by a random outcome generator (such as the roll of a dice or the drawing of a card.)
I use random inputs to make dip decisions fairly often. Particularly early in the game where you don't necessarily have a real handle on the other players yet.
I can piss off player A or player B. The board position given all the information I actually do have is equally promising in either case. It's early and no real info has been gleaned to differentiate the two players yet. Know what I do? I flip a coin.
This "big decision flip" becomes rarer and rarer as the game progresses. But is occasionally similar in a more tactical sense. Player X has the resources to take space A or B. I can defend one but not both. Both are pretty equal in terms of value to both him and me. *flip*
Works pretty well. In a face to face game you may even be able to work it as an additional angle. I've never actually tried. You may jet be seen as the random influence and ganged up on FtF too. Still if you can't figure out how to use someones ease or unease over seeing you lip a coin across the room, you're not trying very hard.
-
Calavera Hermosa
United States
Tucson
Arizona
-
keethrax wrote: MScrivner wrote: A better what to think about Dip is as a perfect information game. You have access to all of the same information about the game state as your opponents, and no decisions that you or your opponents will make is based on or will have its results decided by a random outcome generator (such as the roll of a dice or the drawing of a card.) I use random inputs to make dip decisions fairly often. Particularly early in the game where you don't necessarily have a real handle on the other players yet. I can piss off player A or player B. The board position given all the information I actually do have is equally promising in either case. It's early and no real info has been gleaned to differentiate the two players yet. Know what I do? I flip a coin. This "big decision flip" becomes rarer and rarer as the game progresses. But is occasionally similar in a more tactical sense. Player X has the resources to take space A or B. I can defend one but not both. Both are pretty equal in terms of value to both him and me. *flip* Works pretty well. In a face to face game you may even be able to work it as an additional angle. I've never actually tried. You may jet be seen as the random influence and ganged up on FtF too. Still if you can't figure out how to use someones ease or unease over seeing you lip a coin across the room, you're not trying very hard.
See, I almost never play online games of Dip, but I can see how this might be the case in an online game, especially against a group of strangers you don't know very well.
In a face-to-face game (and I really am a purist about this and believe the game only ought to be played face-to-face), I can't see doing this as a viable option. At least not if you're interested in winning.
-
-
In a random or luck-based game, replaying the game with the exact same choices from each player can result in a different outcome. Diplomacy is a non-random game, where all players replaying the same orders results in the same outcome.
-
Jeremiah Lee
United States
Ypsilanti
Michigan
-
sbszine wrote: In a random or luck-based game, replaying the game with the exact same choices from each player can result in a different outcome. Diplomacy is a non-random game, where all players replaying the same orders results in the same outcome. Great wording here. I've never come across this way of explaining, and it works very well.
-
Randall Bart
United States
Granada Hills
California
Red October
Earth is one of my favorite planets
-
Jeremiah_Lee wrote: sbszine wrote: In a random or luck-based game, replaying the game with the exact same choices from each player can result in a different outcome. Diplomacy is a non-random game, where all players replaying the same orders results in the same outcome. Great wording here. I've never come across this way of explaining, and it works very well.
Yes. Thank you for a rigorous definition which we can use to show that simultaneity is randomness. Let's play Snakes and Ladders, but without dice. Each time we would roll a die, we each choose a number from 1 to 6. We add together the two numbers and take the result mod 6 as a die roll. We have replaced each random event with simultaneous choices. If we replay the game with the same choices we get the same result. Is this now a non-random all skill game?
-
Jeremiah Lee
United States
Ypsilanti
Michigan
-
Randall, that's a really interesting thought, and I'm glad you brought it up, because it's something well worth considering in this conversation. Does perfect information-simultaneous orders do what we here in the Diplomacy world say it does? Does it remove luck?
It is my opinion that it does. I've been wrong many times, and I'll be wrong many times more, so I'm stating this not as fact, but as my belief.
I believe that having the players willfully choose numbers (not rolling, but choosing, with intent) does make Snakes and Ladders into a perfect skill game. Not an amazingly interesting game, but a skill game.
I have to consider what number you're likely to choose on my turn. Let's say I'm two spaces from a snake, and four from a ladder. Knowing what I do about the way you play, what you've done in this situation before, and what I've done in this kind of situation before, I have to choose the number that will work with the number you pick, in order to get me to the ladder.
In fact, with enough players, you might find alliances forming, and betrayals. It's sounding fun, actually.
-
-
Barticus88 wrote: [q="Jeremiah_Lee"]Yes. Thank you for a rigorous definition which we can use to show that simultaneity is randomness. Let's play Snakes and Ladders, but without dice. Each time we would roll a die, we each choose a number from 1 to 6. We add together the two numbers and take the result mod 6. Is this now a non-random all skill game?
No, it's now a non-random highly chaotic game. You're creating a false dichotomy here where a game is either random or all skill. There are more parameters than that. The opposite of random is deterministic, not "all skill". The parameters you're missing are things like hidden / open information, meaningless / meaningful choice, and so on.
In your example game, players can collude to produce a particular outcome. Let's say it's the Diceless Snakes & Ladders world championships, and the players agree to use a prearranged sequence of numbers in order to fix the match and clean up at the bookies. Is that a truly random result, just like rolling a fair d6 in the regular game of Snakes & Ladders? I would say not.
-
Paul W
United States
Eugene
Oregon
-
Personally, when going into such pedantic detail I tend to refer to games as deterministic or non-deterministic.
A game is deterministic if the change in the game's state can be perfectly known given the actions of the players. If knowing the current game state plus the players' actions is not sufficient to know the next game state, then the game is non-deterministic.
More commonly, deterministic games are referred to as "non-random", which I think is a fitting label for all but the most pedantic conversations. An individual player may not know what the next game state will be given the current game state, but such a game itself has no random factors at all...the next game state is purely a deterministic function of the player inputs. One could assert that the game is random because the players may be choosing their moves randomly...but by that definition *all* games have an element of randomness.
-
Stewart Nairn
United Kingdom
Glasgow
Glasgow
-
fizzmore wrote: Personally, when going into such pedantic detail
Enjoyed reading this thread. Hope there's more to come.
As a pedant I feel compelled to offer my opinion that a detail cannot be pedantic, but that the use of that detail may be, therefore I would say "Personally, when pedantically going into such detail..."
That aside my initial thought was that Diplomacy is a game of pure skill; there is no luck involved. In the original example Piedmont may or may not be ordered to Marseilles. It is Frances job, however, to figure out the Italian, to get to know him, to find out what he is going to do. It is also his job to make the Italian order whatever is in Frances best interest. Achieving these things is a matter of skill rather than luck.
One of the beautiful things about diplomacy is that everything affects everything else. Piedmont's order is important to France, it is also directly affects Italy. How does it affect influence on Tyrolia? Does it make it more, or less likely that the German will move South?Does it make the Med more atractive to the Turk. These will affect Russia around the Black sea which affects Russia in the North which affects affects England, which will affect France. Everything has knock on effects.
A good player, as well as working to figure out what Italy will do, and coercing him to do what is good for France, will be working with the 5 other countries so that which ever way Piedmont moves they will interpret the move in the way that is necessary to prompt them to act in ways that are beneficial to France.
Of course the move could be decided on the toss of a coin (I had never thought of that before), but that doesn't make it a game of luck any more than poker is a game of luck because the cards are distributed randomly. Both games depend entirely on what you do with what you've got, and what you do (if you are going to do it correctly) entirely depends on your skill at reading and influencing the other player.
Diplomacy really is the greatest of games. It is pure game. All of life is in it.
Face to face games can be great fun, with the right people, in the right situation, but if finding a fourth for bridge is difficult then try finding a seventh for Diplomacy.
I think the game, to be played in it's purest form, has to be played by correspondence with loooong deadlines for negotiations. Email is fine, but I miss the romance of postal games.
-
Robert Bracey
United Kingdom
London
-
Interesting responses. I did wonder what people would think of this notion. As somebody pointed out a player can choose to make moves at random, and in fact if the games are anonymous there are a lot of diplomacy situations where two nations are in open conflict and a basic games theory type situation where using a random generation would actually be the best play.
I'm interested to see that the community seems to split on the more philosophical issue of is unknown information randomness. Probability in my mind is simply a way of measuring unknowable outcomes. While some negotiated elements can certainly be predicted, other choices by opponents are uncertain - I don't know until after the choice has been revealed to me, just as I don't know what the dice will say until it hits the table but if we replayed that exact moment in time the die will come up with the same number.
-
Randall Bart
United States
Granada Hills
California
Red October
Earth is one of my favorite planets
-
sbszine wrote: In a random or luck-based game, replaying the game with the exact same choices from each player can result in a different outcome. Diplomacy is a non-random game, where all players replaying the same orders results in the same outcome.
For further illumination on the fallacy above, see Item for Geeklist "Economics Lessons #4: Game Theory" . While it is true the same choices will produce the same result, the same strategy will not, because simultaneity requires mixed strategies.
-
Paul W
United States
Eugene
Oregon
-
Yes, players can choose to play a mixed strategy in the game. Mixed strategies can be played in any game. However, even if they intend to play a mixed strategy, the game of Diplomacy does not allow players to submit a mixed strategy as their move. They must pick a single move, and the next game state is a deterministic function of the submitted moves of the players. Any randomness involved is external to the mechanics of the game itself...if players using some external source of randomness to select their moves for a game makes that game random, then the is no such thing as a non-random game (except perhaps in the trivial case of a game with zero decisions).
-
Paul W
United States
Eugene
Oregon
-
Barticus88 wrote: While it is true the same choices will produce the same result, the same strategy will not, because simultaneity requires mixed strategies.
Well, simultaneity does not require mixed strategies...it's easy to invent games with simultaneous moves where the optimal strategy for one or more players is a pure strategy.
-
Randall Bart
United States
Granada Hills
California
Red October
Earth is one of my favorite planets
-
fizzmore wrote: it's easy to invent games with simultaneous moves where the optimal strategy for one or more players is a pure strategy.
Correct. I meant simultaneity as it is used in nearly any game with simultaneity. That's why simultaneity is used: As a randomizer where the players can't blame dice or cards.
-
Paul W
United States
Eugene
Oregon
-
Mimicking a die roll is rarely, if ever, the design goal behind simultaneous action. Humans are lousy random number generators, and designers know it.
-
Randall Bart
United States
Granada Hills
California
Red October
Earth is one of my favorite planets
-
fizzmore wrote: Mimicking a die roll is rarely, if ever, the design goal behind simultaneous action. Humans are lousy random number generators, and designers know it.
It doesn't mimic a die roll, but it provides indeterminacy. Every dudes-on-a-map game requires indeterminacy.
-
Paul W
United States
Eugene
Oregon
-
Small World more or less disagrees
-
|
|
