Basic Negotiation

Diplomacy is a game of negotiation; agreements, alliances, strategic plans and trade-offs. In this post I want to describe and consider the more common types of agreements made during play. Some of these will be honest offers made with the full intent of being honoured. Others will be clever lies crafted to gain some kind of advantage.

As all the players are your opponents, you might think that the game could be played going it alone. Avoiding the snakes and ladders of international politics might sound simple, the game system encourages players to work together for mutual benefit. Although Diplomacy as a whole is a zero-sum game (more on Game Theory in another post) there are many scenarios within the game where discussing a move with the opponent will allow you to ensure that both of you are better off. The negotiations below should benefit all participants - if they are adhered to.


Neutral Negotiations

Often two (sometimes more) players will need to make a coordinated move to their mutual benefit. A simple example is when both can move a unit into one of two regions, and each region contains a supply center. Without negotiation there is a 50/50 chance that both of you will move into the same region and bounce off, with neither player benefiting. By discussing your moves beforehand, the players can perform a  to ensure that each captures a supply center. This is great for both players as it improves their position compared to the other players in the game.

The example above provided benefits with no risk to either player. Trades are a type of coordinated move where at least one side needs to extend a level of trust towards the other participant(s). A simultaneous trade is where both players agree to a set of actions in the same phase - like "You move out of Norway and I'll move out of Holland". The only mechanism to ensure that either player will honour their side of the agreement is that such moves build up trust, which can lead to further mutually beneficial trades.   

Delayed Trades are very similar but rely on the beneficiary in one phase reciprocating in another phase; e.g. "You support me into Holland now, and I'll support you into Belgium in Autumn". Obviously it far better to be the initial beneficiary in these cases - especially if the other player actually has to give up something valuable as part of the trade. That way you can reap the benefits, then decide if it is worthwhile to carry through with the deal.


A very common negotiation is to create a de-militarised zone (DMZ). This simple agreement, often made between two nations at the very start of the game, is to avoid moving into a region or set of regions. These regions are usually located between supply center regions belonging to each of the nations involved. A DMZ allows the nations involved to move their units away from the separated supply centers, without fear that the other nation can capture those regions in a single move.

DMZs are very important because they allow a nation to concentrate its forces elsewhere on the map. Both nations benefit from such as arrangement, so they are usually easy to organise with neighbours. Its standard practice at the start of a game for me to negotiate DMZs with all my neighbours. At the very least it helps me to know when I am being attacked.

Alliances

Being one player in seven doesn't leave you with a good chance of making much of an impact on the game. That is the reason why many players like to join up with another player or two in order to form a long term alliance more powerful than its parts. These alliances can leverage all the benefits described in this article, especially if the two nations are adjacent. By working together against the world all the participants in the alliance can increase their chance of being the eventual victors.

However, all good things must come to an end, and alliances usually end in tears as one or more members see an opportunity to backstab their allies - usually with multiple simultaneous moves. This can cripple the unlucky target and vault the successful backstabber to victory. Timing of a backstab is critical - too early and you will find yourself alone in a hostile world where no-one will trust you. Wait to long and you will be the one with the dagger sticking out of your back, and your ally will romp to victory.

But not all alliances need to be long term.

At some point during the growth of a nation, they will find themselves coveting the supply centers of a neighbouring country. But waging war in Diplomacy is difficult, and can bog down into a long, impervious front - in a surprisingly accurate representation of the trench warfare of the time! An easy way to break a stalemate is to organise a combined attack with a third player, forcing your opponent to fight a war on multiple fronts. Just hope that that third player doesn't join in on your opponents side!

If you are about to make an aggressive move towards an opposing player's domain, the ideal is to negotiate with a third player to make a simultaneous attack. Your poor opponent will be caught flat-footed and with a little luck will quickly collapse. Sure you might have to share the spoils, but half of something sure beats all of nothing. Just be careful that your ally doesn't spill the beans, allowing your enemy to get the jump on you!

Sometimes two players are forced into an alliance of necessity - perhaps a nearby neighbour has grown fat and able to devour each player one by one. By working together both players can provide enough force to hold the front or even push back and grow together. But they may have a hard time getting over old betrayals when their trust of each other has been broken earlier in the game.

Devious Tricks

Not all negotiations need to be true. One can use lies, tricks and misdirection in order to manipulate the other players to your advantage. Be careful about this kind of behaviour being exposed too early in the game, or it might become difficult to find anyone who can trust you enough to ally with you. This is doubly true when you might be playing multiple games with the same opponents!

The fence-sitting ally is a common negotiation strategy. Make an agreement with Player A to attack Player B, then make the same agreement with Player B to attack Player A. Usually it will be in each player's interest to keep your agreement secret, so that the combined attack will be launched as a surprise. So it is rare for one to get caught out in this.

One particularly devious trick is to look for scenarios where player A could benefit from betraying player B. The phony whistleblower then communicate with player B that you know that player A is about to betray him. Player B will see that there is a good opportunity for this betrayal and might take steps to counter-attack. This could start a war from which you see an opportunity to capitalise, or allow you to predict player B's movements to your own benefit.