Diplomacy in a Nutshell: If you successfully screw someone over, it's a brilliant game which proves with utmost finality one's skill at manipulation. If you are screwed over by someone else, it's an arbitrary game where players can succeed or fail based on petty peeves and personality differences. :)
I'm with Jason on this. You can always come back from a doomed situation, it depends on your diplomatic skills. It's actually an example of a board game where you can come back from 1. Normally, in most board games with player elimination, you can never do that. The one massive negative of this game is that it's virtually impossible to gather 7 players willing to play Diplomacy. I don't even know 7 players willing to play any board game, let alone Diplomacy. Also, this is a game that needs to be played with a group of nerds who take the game super seriously. This isn't just a few hours of mindless fun, a good game of Diplomacy requires every player to be committed to the game. That's never going to happen naturally within your social circle. The only way to achieve the above is join a club or play online, which kind of defeats the point of a board game. You wanna play with friends and family but with Diplomacy, you never will.
Everything you say is true, but in the right setting, with enthusiastic players this is- in my opinion- the ultimate war game. Playing for years at Dip-Cons and lately WBC I have lasted to the end with only two units ( playing one side against the other- switching sides year to year. In 2017 at WBC I made it to the end in two different games growing from two to 4 and 6 by the end. In 2016 I did finish in third place in the tournament.
An excellent illustration of the type of person that *should* play Diplomacy, and the type of person that *shouldn't*. Uhh ... well done, guys? Near the end, when Jason flipped it to Tom's favorite, CE, was hilarious!
When I played this one for the first time back in the 80s, I was amazed that it played without dice. heh It was a pretty novel thing to see a non-abstract game without some sort of randomizer. I was fascinated and instantly had to get my own copy after that first play. :-) I still have that copy (the same one used in this review, in fact) to this day and also have the Deluxe version. Everyone should at least try to experience this one once in their lives, if nothing else.
Oh yes, my top game of all time. I've played MANY games with a wide variety of groups. It's a gamer's game, and you can't hold grudges, but it still shines as a brilliant design. To the critique of player elimination: We tend to have more than 7 players and have people grouped up. We like to keep small countries in the game as they are useful bargaining chips (and can often come back!). If a country is eliminated, they group up with another player and sort of help them out with negotiating. I've never played a game that is discussed with as much relish after the game is actually finished. We discuss epic moves years after games have been played. This happens with many games, but never as often as with diplomacy. I think Jason may be exaggerating when it comes to not having to back stab AT ALL, but a good game player realizes early on that backstabbing must be used VERY sparingly. In the end, this game requires the right group. I have had many of them that work well together. It's a definite 10 in my book.
I played this with co-workers when I worked at a large independent book store in Denver. That made it easy to get enough players. We did a season in a day or two. So we used to negotiate during breaks and in the elevator and various other locations. Great fun and made playing Diplomacy even more fun. Would love to play this with Jason as he seems to have a very good sense of how Diplomacy is played. It seems to me Tom's remarks speak more to the type of people to play with rather than the game itself.
HAHA This video was great. A coworker once made his own online version for us to play and introduced us all to it. We all worked together and we wasted TONS of company hours planning and arguing over this game. What wonderful-yet-awful nostalgia. Really enjoyed your review. Was great to see your banter. Very enjoyable video. Thanks.
I'm completely on Jason's side with this one, since Diplomacy is also one of my all-time favorites. heh It is obviously not for everyone, as Tom displays, but for the people who are willing to deal with the things Tom runs from, it is a killer game. :-) Such fun... and really intense.
I think this is a excellent con game. Toms hate towards player elimination is a bit biased. Sure this is not the greatest game for normal game group plays, because it takes forever to play and has player elimination. But where player elimination doesn't matter? Conventions and online. At conventions eliminated players can go play something else, and online it doesn't matter at all. All games have places, and Diplomacy is awesome at those places.
Thanks guys for this contentious analysis of Diplomacy. I enjoy playing it. The first time I did I was France and Germany was one of my closest friends so I did a Napoleon and as Germany was getting attacked on every side I was supremely faithful. So when it was going under it left room for me to take all his territories. This put the rest of the board into a panic hahaha. The Second time I played it almost broke a couple up. "You never support me in anything" ah the memories.
I've played Diplomacy and Colonial Diplomacy many times and I used it in my World History class all the time. The kids really enjoyed it and to my knowledge no one ever fought over the back-stabbing. A classic game!
My favorite game of all time and is the game that got me into non-mass media boardgaming. I have the version shown in the video. I actually learned on the earlier version with wooden pieces and have played many a games using Play-by-Mail back before Internet or E-Mail were common, including many variants such as fog of war. It took over 2 years for one of the games. I even won a game playing at GenCon back when it was in Milwaukee. The best thing I've found for introducing new players to Diplomacy is to be an 8th player, the game master essentially. I would act as a neutral party. Players would turn their orders into me and I would review them for correctness before anything gets revealed. New players are notorious for messing up their moves. New players also need guidance in what are their options and what kinds of things they should be looking at. I find it actually fun because you end up knowing what all the secret negotiations are if there are a lot of new players. But the hardest part is keeping that straight face and not letting any hints drop if you know something is going to happen. I even ran some games while in the military using the conference maps and seven colored markers. Dots for armies and lines for fleets (from the wooden piece days). People would negotiate throughout their day and turn their movements into me when ready. Every couple of days I would post a new map on the wall on top of the old map where I'd draw straight lines for movement, zig-zag lines for support, and C's over the lines for Convoys so people could look back at the history of the game and see what happened. I also have a couple of people I no longer talk to because of this game. Some people should just not play this game as they cannot separate the game from real-life relationships. I have a Diplomacy T-Shirt that reads, "Diplomacy: Destroying Friendships since 1959." The biggest downfall for me is the player who mid-game decides they don't like the game and just wants to get eliminated. Instead of just quiting and letting their pieces go into civil disorder (holding), they actually secretly negotiate with another player to move out of their home supply centers to let that player just move in uncontested. Completely changes the balance of the game for the rest of the players. But today with a kids and such, I just don't have time to spent all day on a board game or when I do being able to find 6 to 7 other people also able to. Maybe 12 hours for a game of Advanced Civilization, but it is hard to get a game of Diplomacy going...
Veteran diplomacy players don't normally get super angry. If we get angry at all it is at what we perceive as a stupid stab. Smart stabs are appreciated. Yes, the game takes a long time, making it hard to get a group to play. I used to be in the postal Diplomacy hobby (yes, snail mail). We would meet at someone's house on occasion and play games, including Diplomacy. It was good fun. I have played at tournaments (DipCon for instance). The game can be fun, but it requires stamina, a good group of players and enough time. It also requires the ability to negotiate. There are strategies and tactics, but good negotiators will general beat good strategists (we called those people "block pushers"). I have had a lot of fun with the game. I hope people continue to enjoy it. (miss the old version with the original map, AH won't pay royalties on that old map).
_"There are strategies and tactics, but good negotiators will general beat good strategists"_ Actually, good negotiators usually are good tacticians also, because they have experience. With experience, your tactics become close to perfect but your negotiation skills can never be perfect because there are millions of different personalities out there. Also, the quality of your negotiation has variance because your mood affects your ability to negotiate well. But there is only one map and one set of rules so you can reach a point where you make optimal tactical decisions nearly all the time. I'm pretty confident that I play near perfect tactics but my diplomatic skills can rate anything from 3/10 to 9/10 depending on the game and the players.
Meh, people getting mad while playing diplomacy, big deal, it's part of the fun of the game. I like to play and watch the events unfold before me, with me or without me. Its nice to see who you are dealing with, especially when you know the players for years..
At age 11 I started playing role play games, then moved on to join a weekly club. As well as RPGs they played the occasional board game. This was the first board game they played. I was about 12 by then, most others were older. I didn't win 😄 Amazingly I went back afterwards. 😀
This is a fantastic review. Laughed so hard. A great contrast in the type of people who may like the game or not. I viscerally hate the game for all the reasons Tom mentioned. I played once. I was eliminated on the first turn and hung around bored for two hours. Finally gave up on any chance to have fun and went home.
I think I recall a "This American Life" episode about this game.. Jason seems kinda like "Tom, have you played this game?!" Jason should work for the StatevDepartment! 🙂
i liked hearing both of your views on player elimination and hard feelings. you both have good points. i think the diplomacy experience depends heavily on the gaming group. i love diplomacy, but i certainly would not play it with just anyone. as far as elimination is concerned, i side with jason a little more. your survival depends on your "diplomacy" or negotiation skills. but i definitely agree that many people would get frustrated and just give up.
I love how Eric M. Lang integrated the main mechanism from DIPLOMACY in RISING SUN. Both these games are brilliant fun. I agree with Tom though, the player elimination in DIPLOMACY needs to be left out, if they re-print it.
I don't understand people who gets upset over a game. I have played 100's of games and mostly (90/100) people are very friendly. I have made great friends playing this game while lying them straight in the face.
The one time I played it, the players who got knocked out early had far more fun. They got to play lots of other games while those of us still in spent the whole day playing one very slow game.
I am surprised that Tom fell for Jason's straw argument about Cosmic Encounter, but you are never eliminated. If you have 2 or fewer home colonies you lose your alien power, but there is even a rule that if you have *no* colonies, when you retrieve a ship from the warp it goes straight into the Hyperspace Gate. If you have no colonies then by definition all your ships are in the Warp, but you can still continue to play. It may be tough to come back from such a situation, but you may continue to play.
Oh! I did play the Eon version when I was young, but I frankly don't remember if that was true or not. Thanks you for pointing that out. A friend owned the game, so I don't have it for reference. I was under the impression that Tom really liked the FFG version and would have at least brought that up :)
NostraDunwhich I only own the FFG version, so I can't say that for sure about the Eon version, but I have played the Eon version in the past and I also know it is Jason's favorite. heh I could be completely wrong, but somehow it rings a memory. Like Tom, I have never seen it happen in a game. heh
I played a handful of games of this many years ago when I was much younger. It was never one of my favorite games, but I had friends who liked it a lot, so I played it. And then I had like two games of it in a row, each one worse than the other. One of my friends, who was the main impetus behind playing (in other words, without him, the game would never have taken place) had kind of a meltdown, ranting and different people because of the moves they made. I finally said that I wasn't going to play again because it wasn't fun. I never played the game again, and I was asked several times. And I've had a couple of similar incidents with AH's Advanced Civilization, and I stopped playing that game as well. I think it's mostly the length of the game that does it -- people get overtired, maybe, and tempers flare.
if this is played over the internet or via email, would love to read a completely archived game just to see the discussions going on throughout a full game
You can't see the discussions but this guy has dozens of commented games: ruclips.net/user/Triumvir412videos Otherwise, just create an account and see for yourself as a player. I recommend PlayDiplomacy. They have a strong community, they police their games and there's a rating system to keep player interested. If you have never player, I recommend you join a "mentor game". It's a normal game but there is a mentor guiding the players throughout the game. playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=292&t=45634
I have only played TI3 once ( never again ) and I am sure that it had both player elimination or effective elimination. The game I played had 7 players and lasted approx 11 hours. I would rate Diplomacy a lot higher than TI3
I get so tired of all the whining about player elimination. If you're totally out, go play something else. That's the point of games like this, be the last standing. Is that the problem with sports - only two teams play in the final game? Does Tom not understand that the game ends for him when he's eliminated? I can't imagine he sits there for 8 more hours, so I don't get the whining.
Let's assume you car pooled over to a friends that lives farther than walking distance (that way you can't up and leave) and you find yourself eliminated from the game early, what else is there but to sit and do nothing (a good friend might mow the lawn, wash the car, or play hostess for the rest). Sure, someone else could get eliminated and you can play 7 wonders duel, but then again, you didn't come over all excited about getting eliminated to play another game, you came to play diplomacy and now you're out. Also, I'm there to play with my friends and I want everyone to be having fun, so even if it's not me eliminated, my fun goes down as others are sittings around bored. Player elimination is fine, but I'm with Tom, it needs to be an hour or less.
In a social setting, where folks have come a long way to play, games usually go faster - and end sooner. Lots of our club games end when the first player is eliminated, usually 1904/1905 ish. That goes a long way towards making the elimination aspect less relevant.
+Phil If you came to play Diplomacy, then you knew how it worked beforehand and shouldn't be upset about it. It's ridiculous to complain about how a game works if you knew it beforehand. Furthermore, I don't believe anyone is going to play Diplomacy without knowing how it works, if so, you need a better game group because it's ridiculous to invite someone to play a very heavy, very long strategy game without letting them know. In more realistic scenarios, you either get together to play Diplomacy specifically, since you would need to set aside 5+ hours, or you're playing in a game group, where you could easily go play something else. I get that he doesn't care for the mechanic, but it's a valid mechanic and if a game uses it, it doesn't mean it's a flaw. Acting like it just ruins a game session because there's nothing to do for five hours is disingenuous, that's not Ra realistic portrayal of the situation he's actually in. I don't like dice rolling, but I wouldn't say one reason Yahtzee is a bad game is because it has dice rolling. It's a fine game, dice rolling is a valid mechanic, just not one I enjoy. Or going back to your comment, another example would be someone that likes long games would be disappointed if he carpools over and played a game that lasted less than an hour, what a terrible game.
+mgk2020 So you basically said _"this game doesnt suck because everyone knows it sucks"_. Yeah well, if that argument doesnt convince everybody, I dont know what would?
I love this game, but I have to agree with Tom on the pseudo elimination. Yes you CAN come back from 1 center, but another player can also just take your last center and they can wait to do it in some scenarios.
And yes, this game does cause stress and make people angry but that is what makes this game great! And if you play with real friends, you'll still be friends afterwards. You'll just have enemies the next time you play.
I saw that video too, and had someone played like he did in that video (faking real anger) when I was aprt of the game, I am pretty sure an ambulance whould have to show up... Inwould lose it if I was lied to like that, hence I try to stay out of manipulation games...
Dont even need it. He got very emotional in this review already and even used his emotions as only real argument. Its like watching someone breaking things and yelling _"IM NOT ANGRY"_ -> yeah sure, legit as fck m8.
Interesting the different opinions. Tom does come across as wanting a quicker paced game with more rapid gratification. Jason, patient and in it for the long haul. Horses for courses clearly but interesting divide. I guess you really need to identify were you sit before embarking on this one.
thats the biggest problem ive faced, ive played the first 3 hours a bunch but someone ALWAYS gets bored and leaves early. Though to be fair im not sure I actually enjoy the game so im not to hung up when someone else bails
Good review - I've played tournament, social F2F, and email diplomacy for 20 years, and so many of my good friends - lifelong friends - have been made in this game. The emotional aspect of the game is definitely a turnoff for some folks. Not for everyone, but as Jason says, the fact that it isn't a purely intellectual exercise makes it more social, not less.
You could try Game of Thrones: The Board Game. It's with 6 players and takes I think two hours? Depends on how you wanna play it. The biggest differences are: According to a significant number of people (including me) you can claim a two- or threeway win in Diplomacy, while there is only room for one on the Iron Throne. ALWAYS make sure all players know all of the win conditions BEFORE starting the game! In GoT:TBG you can absolutely outnumber or overpower another player's army/unit without help from another army/unit. This is impossible in Diplomacy, as is explained in the vid. In GoT:TBG, when two players enter battle, they must each simultaneously reveal a member of their House whom they will send into the fray. These members add to the power of their respective armies, and some have extra special abilities that help players mess with their opponents' plans.
Yeah, i know GoT. I love the mechnic and the gameplay, but i hate that map. The game board is made so that i feel that evrery game has to be played in a determinated way amnd games feels all the same, unfortunately
Hmmm, then maybe give Smallworld a go? It's way more casual, though. I can't remember which, but there is a version that lets you build a map each time, much like Catan does. If that's too light for you, my only other idea is to delve into the mysterious depths of wargaming. Definitely try at a local gameshop before you buy. That stuff is expensive!
I don't yet own this game. I plan to soon. It's funny. This would probably be the first real game that I like that Tom Vasel doesn't. Most of my games basically comes as a recommendation from Tom. This would break the norm.
Frankly, you're gonna have trouble playing it. Virtually no one plays it. The real way to play the game now is on the internet, you can get a game going very quickly. I recommend you subscribe to PlayDiplomacy (it's free to play the standard 1901 version) and register to a "mentor game" which is a game for beginners with a mentor to guide you though. playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=292&t=45634
I hate Hanabi because I get upset at people who can't remember correctly. I will NEVER play a game like this in a fear that I will shoot someone. Hard pass.
I never played but I had some friends in our old group that did and it makes people literally angry with each other. It holds some interest for me but I think it's best if I take a pass.
Players who get angry are novices. The more you play the game, the more you train yourself to control your emotions. Diplomacy is one of those games that helps you improve your real life skills: negotiation skills, controlling your emotions, game theory, techniques of manipulation, team play etc...
My memory of it is that one wrong move, one person betraying you, one miss rotten order...and that's it! Game over man game over. You may not be eliminated (sadly) but you are not going to win and it's just a matter on holding on (and on and on and on).
Jason is just flat, provably wrong here. I mean, I respect his viewpoint but one example does not a standard experience make. I have personally been in a few game where I am down to low numbers and no one else will work with me even if I offer my help with no conditions. It is effective elimination. Jason is probably playing with other pro players that see value in the small help, but many non-pros play emotionally and will refuse to work with you due to things that happened earlier. (or even out of game) Diplomacy is an AMAZING lifetime experience but I'm not sure I want to play more than once a year or less now that I played a game a month for a few months. It's actually similar feeling to how I imagine a reality show based on alliances like Big Brother or Survivor works.
No, you are flat an provingly not a diplomatically skilled player. Name a single region with a supply center and I can prove you, that it is of significance.
Ironically, diplomacy is exactly what you'll need in reducing the United Kingdom to simply, England! I bet this game was rarely played in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland!
Diplomacy is not really my kind of game. I appreciate what it is, but I don't care for it as the one time I played it, it not only took a very long time, but one of the players (not me) just sat there and watched the rest of us play for the last 3 hours.
I think Tom, you are not thinking strategic enough in the "1 center left" matter. Part of the fun is to figure out how to be useful to others to gain position. I don't agree, that there is a situation where you are completely on an island and not point of interest at all.
I love Jason but he is being way, way too optimistic about this game. I've been in the pseudo-knockout position multiple times which is why I absolutely HATE this game. Diplomacy is my Phase 10!
As to the elimination business: this is essentially a whole lot of whining. Maybe Tom should check out something like Candy Land. Although I remember our family getting pretty pissed off playing that game too. Diplomacy is fun because it is a huge risk/reward situation. Players put a lot on the line and get very excited if their plans work or very upset if they don't. That's why the game is fun! The amount of fun you get out of any game is completely dependent on how much you put in. Player elimination makes the game exciting. If you are emotionally incapable of handling failure, then this game probably isn't for you.
I got this game as Christmas present. I played only one and just for 30 minutes. Everybody refuse to play it! It's only for "professional" gamers! Don't even try to play it with newbie. You can spent an hour only explaining hot to write orders on paper. It's so unknown in my country that I cannot even sell it on ebay. Nobody wants it! I will destroy it one day...
I played this a decent amount when I was younger..I haven't since, there was only really schadenfreude to be found. The main fix I would say is to have different end game conditions; like a player being eliminated or a certain number of SC's if an alliance can agree to a joint victory. I would also say (like in New Angeles) have it so you're just trying to beat one player; so you don't need to steamroll someone you just have to make the game end with you being in front of your target.
There are so many games which do the same thing as Diplomacy, but without the truly horrible combination of player elimination and taking 7+ hours. Prime example of a game which was great when there was nothing else like it. You might admire the beauty of a flintlock rifle, but you'd rather go to war with a Kalashnikov.
Oh so you mean it's not identical to diplomacy? Correct, it's not the same game. To say it's not even vaguely in the same ballpark is hyperbole at best, or perhaps just ignorant. Of course it is. GoT has every mechanic in diplomacy, plus a whole bunch of extra stuff which makes the game faster, and not suck.
So...you get knocked out of a game early. Big deal. Do you not have other hobbies and interests? My usual "gaming buddies" are also my "scale modeling buddies" and "historical miniature buddies." Get-togethers cover all three hobbies. There is NEVER any down time.
Wow that was the most stressful board game review video I've ever seen. I've seen dozens of Tom's videos and they're usually so upbeat. This one makes me want to jump out of the window :/
Jason literally can't listen. Tom: "If you have one unit, you have less to discuss." Jason: "I disagree, if you have one unit you can still win." Tom: "Yes ... but you don't have much to discuss." Jason: "I REALLY disagree, you can still win." For heaven's sake.
Like I said, some people don't like overly intellectual games. This should not necessarily reflect negatively on you, after all there are other things of value in the world than intellectualism. But the fact remains that it is the nerdiest board game ever invented.
@@BlunderCity Wondering why those players, that don't like to play the game and comment that here feel the urge to mention it. As if they have to defend themselves. xD
Horrible game, Jason just gives poor examples on possible solutions that could be used for its many flaws. The one army left leaves you open to attack, if you attack with your one army, what stops your 'ally' taking your country? Avoid this game like the plague.
Like the game all you want but rating Diplomacy a 10 is rubbish. The fact that Jason refuses to acknowledge the inherent flaws of this game just kills his credibility with me as a serious reviewer.
I mean, if they're not flaws for him, I see no reason for him to reduce the rating. While I disagreed with his counter points, I can at least respect them for what they are.
Its quite the irony that Jason Levine likes Diplomacy because of player negotiation, but all he sais during a review or discussion is _"yes. yes. no, mah emotions! if you like the game strong enough, no bad thing will matter"_. Such a shitty argument to have and shitty way to discuss and negotiate with people.
Good lord! The review features the most ugly-assed Diplomacy board that I have seen. If you play F2F, please use the traditional board with traditional colours to make it easy to recognise territory demarcations. If I play (v. hard to find enough masocists) it is via the Backstabbr web interface.
Backstabbr is rubbish because they don't police their games. As a result, there are too many cheaters and NMRs. I do use it as my training ground though because I like the minimalist interface and in terms of ease of gameplay, it's probably the best. But for my serious games, I play on PlayDiplomacy because the community is very strong there.
This is not real. It is a game. If you see someone get shot in television it is not real either. People can play competetive games and be nice people. There is more facets to life than plus and minus.
Diplomacy in a Nutshell: If you successfully screw someone over, it's a brilliant game which proves with utmost finality one's skill at manipulation. If you are screwed over by someone else, it's an arbitrary game where players can succeed or fail based on petty peeves and personality differences. :)
I'm with Jason on this. You can always come back from a doomed situation, it depends on your diplomatic skills. It's actually an example of a board game where you can come back from 1. Normally, in most board games with player elimination, you can never do that.
The one massive negative of this game is that it's virtually impossible to gather 7 players willing to play Diplomacy. I don't even know 7 players willing to play any board game, let alone Diplomacy. Also, this is a game that needs to be played with a group of nerds who take the game super seriously. This isn't just a few hours of mindless fun, a good game of Diplomacy requires every player to be committed to the game. That's never going to happen naturally within your social circle.
The only way to achieve the above is join a club or play online, which kind of defeats the point of a board game. You wanna play with friends and family but with Diplomacy, you never will.
Everything you say is true, but in the right setting, with enthusiastic players this is- in my opinion- the ultimate war game. Playing for years at Dip-Cons and lately WBC I have lasted to the end with only two units ( playing one side against the other- switching sides year to year. In 2017 at WBC I made it to the end in two different games growing from two to 4 and 6 by the end. In 2016 I did finish in third place in the tournament.
Give me One Night: Ultimate Diplomacy. Five minutes of negotiation. Thirty seconds to write. Done.
I would play the heck out of this.
An excellent illustration of the type of person that *should* play Diplomacy, and the type of person that *shouldn't*. Uhh ... well done, guys?
Near the end, when Jason flipped it to Tom's favorite, CE, was hilarious!
When I played this one for the first time back in the 80s, I was amazed that it played without dice. heh It was a pretty novel thing to see a non-abstract game without some sort of randomizer. I was fascinated and instantly had to get my own copy after that first play. :-) I still have that copy (the same one used in this review, in fact) to this day and also have the Deluxe version. Everyone should at least try to experience this one once in their lives, if nothing else.
Hahaha just reviewing Diplomacy made everyone angry.
Well it made Tom angry - to the point where he wouldn't believe Jason about Jason's own experience! Calm Tom, calm.....
this is all i need to know. hard pass
Oh yes, my top game of all time. I've played MANY games with a wide variety of groups. It's a gamer's game, and you can't hold grudges, but it still shines as a brilliant design.
To the critique of player elimination: We tend to have more than 7 players and have people grouped up. We like to keep small countries in the game as they are useful bargaining chips (and can often come back!). If a country is eliminated, they group up with another player and sort of help them out with negotiating.
I've never played a game that is discussed with as much relish after the game is actually finished. We discuss epic moves years after games have been played. This happens with many games, but never as often as with diplomacy.
I think Jason may be exaggerating when it comes to not having to back stab AT ALL, but a good game player realizes early on that backstabbing must be used VERY sparingly. In the end, this game requires the right group. I have had many of them that work well together. It's a definite 10 in my book.
I played this with co-workers when I worked at a large independent book store in Denver. That made it easy to get enough players. We did a season in a day or two. So we used to negotiate during breaks and in the elevator and various other locations. Great fun and made playing Diplomacy even more fun. Would love to play this with Jason as he seems to have a very good sense of how Diplomacy is played. It seems to me Tom's remarks speak more to the type of people to play with rather than the game itself.
HAHA This video was great. A coworker once made his own online version for us to play and introduced us all to it. We all worked together and we wasted TONS of company hours planning and arguing over this game. What wonderful-yet-awful nostalgia. Really enjoyed your review. Was great to see your banter. Very enjoyable video. Thanks.
I'm completely on Jason's side with this one, since Diplomacy is also one of my all-time favorites. heh It is obviously not for everyone, as Tom displays, but for the people who are willing to deal with the things Tom runs from, it is a killer game. :-) Such fun... and really intense.
exactly right
I think this is a excellent con game.
Toms hate towards player elimination is a bit biased. Sure this is not the greatest game for normal game group plays, because it takes forever to play and has player elimination. But where player elimination doesn't matter? Conventions and online. At conventions eliminated players can go play something else, and online it doesn't matter at all.
All games have places, and Diplomacy is awesome at those places.
Finally, my favourite game!
Thanks guys for this contentious analysis of Diplomacy. I enjoy playing it. The first time I did I was France and Germany was one of my closest friends so I did a Napoleon and as Germany was getting attacked on every side I was supremely faithful. So when it was going under it left room for me to take all his territories. This put the rest of the board into a panic hahaha. The Second time I played it almost broke a couple up. "You never support me in anything" ah the memories.
I've played Diplomacy and Colonial Diplomacy many times and I used it in my World History class all the time. The kids really enjoyed it and to my knowledge no one ever fought over the back-stabbing. A classic game!
I just hope those kids use the knowledge they learnt about backstabbing irl.
My favorite game of all time and is the game that got me into non-mass media boardgaming. I have the version shown in the video. I actually learned on the earlier version with wooden pieces and have played many a games using Play-by-Mail back before Internet or E-Mail were common, including many variants such as fog of war. It took over 2 years for one of the games. I even won a game playing at GenCon back when it was in Milwaukee.
The best thing I've found for introducing new players to Diplomacy is to be an 8th player, the game master essentially. I would act as a neutral party. Players would turn their orders into me and I would review them for correctness before anything gets revealed. New players are notorious for messing up their moves. New players also need guidance in what are their options and what kinds of things they should be looking at. I find it actually fun because you end up knowing what all the secret negotiations are if there are a lot of new players. But the hardest part is keeping that straight face and not letting any hints drop if you know something is going to happen.
I even ran some games while in the military using the conference maps and seven colored markers. Dots for armies and lines for fleets (from the wooden piece days). People would negotiate throughout their day and turn their movements into me when ready. Every couple of days I would post a new map on the wall on top of the old map where I'd draw straight lines for movement, zig-zag lines for support, and C's over the lines for Convoys so people could look back at the history of the game and see what happened.
I also have a couple of people I no longer talk to because of this game. Some people should just not play this game as they cannot separate the game from real-life relationships. I have a Diplomacy T-Shirt that reads, "Diplomacy: Destroying Friendships since 1959."
The biggest downfall for me is the player who mid-game decides they don't like the game and just wants to get eliminated. Instead of just quiting and letting their pieces go into civil disorder (holding), they actually secretly negotiate with another player to move out of their home supply centers to let that player just move in uncontested. Completely changes the balance of the game for the rest of the players.
But today with a kids and such, I just don't have time to spent all day on a board game or when I do being able to find 6 to 7 other people also able to. Maybe 12 hours for a game of Advanced Civilization, but it is hard to get a game of Diplomacy going...
It's just not Diplomacy without the wooden pieces, handwritten orders, and manual adjudication.
My favorite board game hands down. Played it for a grade in International Relations class in the 80s.
What's great is that they're both right.
Veteran diplomacy players don't normally get super angry. If we get angry at all it is at what we perceive as a stupid stab. Smart stabs are appreciated. Yes, the game takes a long time, making it hard to get a group to play. I used to be in the postal Diplomacy hobby (yes, snail mail). We would meet at someone's house on occasion and play games, including Diplomacy. It was good fun. I have played at tournaments (DipCon for instance). The game can be fun, but it requires stamina, a good group of players and enough time. It also requires the ability to negotiate. There are strategies and tactics, but good negotiators will general beat good strategists (we called those people "block pushers"). I have had a lot of fun with the game. I hope people continue to enjoy it. (miss the old version with the original map, AH won't pay royalties on that old map).
_"There are strategies and tactics, but good negotiators will general beat good strategists"_
Actually, good negotiators usually are good tacticians also, because they have experience. With experience, your tactics become close to perfect but your negotiation skills can never be perfect because there are millions of different personalities out there. Also, the quality of your negotiation has variance because your mood affects your ability to negotiate well. But there is only one map and one set of rules so you can reach a point where you make optimal tactical decisions nearly all the time.
I'm pretty confident that I play near perfect tactics but my diplomatic skills can rate anything from 3/10 to 9/10 depending on the game and the players.
This is one of my favorite games, but I recognize the it appeals to a very limited audience and I don't hold it against anyone to dislike the game.
I hope the online community of it isn't as toxic now as it was in the late 00s. What a hellscape that was.
Please, don't fight in the war room!
Meh, people getting mad while playing diplomacy, big deal, it's part of the fun of the game. I like to play and watch the events unfold before me, with me or without me. Its nice to see who you are dealing with, especially when you know the players for years..
Tom displayed an incredible amount of patience in this video.
Sarcasm?
At age 11 I started playing role play games, then moved on to join a weekly club. As well as RPGs they played the occasional board game. This was the first board game they played. I was about 12 by then, most others were older. I didn't win 😄 Amazingly I went back afterwards. 😀
Loved the debate. I think it is awesome - I give it a 10 out of ten. Everyone should try it.
This is a fantastic review. Laughed so hard. A great contrast in the type of people who may like the game or not.
I viscerally hate the game for all the reasons Tom mentioned. I played once. I was eliminated on the first turn and hung around bored for two hours. Finally gave up on any chance to have fun and went home.
I think I recall a "This American Life" episode about this game.. Jason seems kinda like "Tom, have you played this game?!" Jason should work for the StatevDepartment! 🙂
i liked hearing both of your views on player elimination and hard feelings. you both have good points. i think the diplomacy experience depends heavily on the gaming group. i love diplomacy, but i certainly would not play it with just anyone. as far as elimination is concerned, i side with jason a little more. your survival depends on your "diplomacy" or negotiation skills. but i definitely agree that many people would get frustrated and just give up.
You weenie, I did play by mail- with stamps- starting in 1980. Took over a year to play but fun even then.
I love how Eric M. Lang integrated the main mechanism from DIPLOMACY in RISING SUN.
Both these games are brilliant fun.
I agree with Tom though, the player elimination in DIPLOMACY needs to be left out, if they re-print it.
I wish Zee were on this one in order to dramatize the "I 've seen grown men cry over this game " a la Apocalypse Now.
2:50 "I have no game that is 2+ hours that has player elimination" ... points at monopoly
I don't understand people who gets upset over a game. I have played 100's of games and mostly (90/100) people are very friendly. I have made great friends playing this game while lying them straight in the face.
After playing Diplomacy a couple of times, Tom thinks he knows better than Jason, who is clearly much more experienced at this game.
The one time I played it, the players who got knocked out early had far more fun. They got to play lots of other games while those of us still in spent the whole day playing one very slow game.
I am surprised that Tom fell for Jason's straw argument about Cosmic Encounter, but you are never eliminated. If you have 2 or fewer home colonies you lose your alien power, but there is even a rule that if you have *no* colonies, when you retrieve a ship from the warp it goes straight into the Hyperspace Gate. If you have no colonies then by definition all your ships are in the Warp, but you can still continue to play. It may be tough to come back from such a situation, but you may continue to play.
I may be wrong, but I think in the Eon version, you can be eliminated in the way Jason said. They may have changed it with later versions.
Oh! I did play the Eon version when I was young, but I frankly don't remember if that was true or not. Thanks you for pointing that out. A friend owned the game, so I don't have it for reference.
I was under the impression that Tom really liked the FFG version and would have at least brought that up :)
NostraDunwhich I only own the FFG version, so I can't say that for sure about the Eon version, but I have played the Eon version in the past and I also know it is Jason's favorite. heh I could be completely wrong, but somehow it rings a memory. Like Tom, I have never seen it happen in a game. heh
I love this series :)
Dimplomacy - Destroying Friendships Since 1959
I played a handful of games of this many years ago when I was much younger. It was never one of my favorite games, but I had friends who liked it a lot, so I played it. And then I had like two games of it in a row, each one worse than the other. One of my friends, who was the main impetus behind playing (in other words, without him, the game would never have taken place) had kind of a meltdown, ranting and different people because of the moves they made. I finally said that I wasn't going to play again because it wasn't fun. I never played the game again, and I was asked several times.
And I've had a couple of similar incidents with AH's Advanced Civilization, and I stopped playing that game as well. I think it's mostly the length of the game that does it -- people get overtired, maybe, and tempers flare.
if this is played over the internet or via email, would love to read a completely archived game just to see the discussions going on throughout a full game
You can't see the discussions but this guy has dozens of commented games:
ruclips.net/user/Triumvir412videos
Otherwise, just create an account and see for yourself as a player. I recommend PlayDiplomacy. They have a strong community, they police their games and there's a rating system to keep player interested.
If you have never player, I recommend you join a "mentor game". It's a normal game but there is a mentor guiding the players throughout the game.
playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=292&t=45634
I have only played TI3 once ( never again ) and I am sure that it had both player elimination or effective elimination. The game I played had 7 players and lasted approx 11 hours. I would rate Diplomacy a lot higher than TI3
I get so tired of all the whining about player elimination. If you're totally out, go play something else. That's the point of games like this, be the last standing. Is that the problem with sports - only two teams play in the final game? Does Tom not understand that the game ends for him when he's eliminated? I can't imagine he sits there for 8 more hours, so I don't get the whining.
Let's assume you car pooled over to a friends that lives farther than walking distance (that way you can't up and leave) and you find yourself eliminated from the game early, what else is there but to sit and do nothing (a good friend might mow the lawn, wash the car, or play hostess for the rest). Sure, someone else could get eliminated and you can play 7 wonders duel, but then again, you didn't come over all excited about getting eliminated to play another game, you came to play diplomacy and now you're out. Also, I'm there to play with my friends and I want everyone to be having fun, so even if it's not me eliminated, my fun goes down as others are sittings around bored. Player elimination is fine, but I'm with Tom, it needs to be an hour or less.
In a social setting, where folks have come a long way to play, games usually go faster - and end sooner. Lots of our club games end when the first player is eliminated, usually 1904/1905 ish. That goes a long way towards making the elimination aspect less relevant.
+Phil If you came to play Diplomacy, then you knew how it worked beforehand and shouldn't be upset about it. It's ridiculous to complain about how a game works if you knew it beforehand. Furthermore, I don't believe anyone is going to play Diplomacy without knowing how it works, if so, you need a better game group because it's ridiculous to invite someone to play a very heavy, very long strategy game without letting them know. In more realistic scenarios, you either get together to play Diplomacy specifically, since you would need to set aside 5+ hours, or you're playing in a game group, where you could easily go play something else. I get that he doesn't care for the mechanic, but it's a valid mechanic and if a game uses it, it doesn't mean it's a flaw. Acting like it just ruins a game session because there's nothing to do for five hours is disingenuous, that's not Ra realistic portrayal of the situation he's actually in. I don't like dice rolling, but I wouldn't say one reason Yahtzee is a bad game is because it has dice rolling. It's a fine game, dice rolling is a valid mechanic, just not one I enjoy. Or going back to your comment, another example would be someone that likes long games would be disappointed if he carpools over and played a game that lasted less than an hour, what a terrible game.
+mgk2020
So you basically said _"this game doesnt suck because everyone knows it sucks"_. Yeah well, if that argument doesnt convince everybody, I dont know what would?
No, I don't think I said anything of the sort, but thank you for trying.
Someone needs to record an "Every game is awesome, every game is cool when you're Jason Levine" parody theme song for this show.
A game that requires 7 players, takes 10 hours to play, and has player elimination...
Why did nobody think of this sooner!?
Meh, just play via text/email. It would be like a Fantasy Football game in a way as it's extended over a season to a year.
I love this game, but I have to agree with Tom on the pseudo elimination. Yes you CAN come back from 1 center, but another player can also just take your last center and they can wait to do it in some scenarios.
And yes, this game does cause stress and make people angry but that is what makes this game great! And if you play with real friends, you'll still be friends afterwards. You'll just have enemies the next time you play.
having seen jason play resistance i dont buy him not getting angry
I saw that video too, and had someone played like he did in that video (faking real anger) when I was aprt of the game, I am pretty sure an ambulance whould have to show up... Inwould lose it if I was lied to like that, hence I try to stay out of manipulation games...
Dont even need it. He got very emotional in this review already and even used his emotions as only real argument. Its like watching someone breaking things and yelling _"IM NOT ANGRY"_ -> yeah sure, legit as fck m8.
Blimey - I'm new on here but if that review was Jason getting emotional what's he like when calm?
Interesting the different opinions. Tom does come across as wanting a quicker paced game with more rapid gratification. Jason, patient and in it for the long haul. Horses for courses clearly but interesting divide. I guess you really need to identify were you sit before embarking on this one.
Games that make people feel emotions are the best.
This game fascinates me. But I don't know 6 people who will play it for a whole day.
thats the biggest problem ive faced, ive played the first 3 hours a bunch but someone ALWAYS gets bored and leaves early. Though to be fair im not sure I actually enjoy the game so im not to hung up when someone else bails
Plenty of online options, or F2F clubs around the world where folks will commit to the full game.
Good review - I've played tournament, social F2F, and email diplomacy for 20 years, and so many of my good friends - lifelong friends - have been made in this game. The emotional aspect of the game is definitely a turnoff for some folks. Not for everyone, but as Jason says, the fact that it isn't a purely intellectual exercise makes it more social, not less.
Is there a diplomacy-like game but shorter?
You could try Game of Thrones: The Board Game. It's with 6 players and takes I think two hours? Depends on how you wanna play it.
The biggest differences are:
According to a significant number of people (including me) you can claim a two- or threeway win in Diplomacy, while there is only room for one on the Iron Throne. ALWAYS make sure all players know all of the win conditions BEFORE starting the game!
In GoT:TBG you can absolutely outnumber or overpower another player's army/unit without help from another army/unit. This is impossible in Diplomacy, as is explained in the vid.
In GoT:TBG, when two players enter battle, they must each simultaneously reveal a member of their House whom they will send into the fray. These members add to the power of their respective armies, and some have extra special abilities that help players mess with their opponents' plans.
_"all of the win conditions"_ ? As far as I know, getting most castles is the one and only condition to win this game? Did I miss something?
Correct! I meant the multiple win conditions in Diplomacy :) ie solo/double/etc victory
Yeah, i know GoT.
I love the mechnic and the gameplay, but i hate that map.
The game board is made so that i feel that evrery game has to be played in a determinated way amnd games feels all the same, unfortunately
Hmmm, then maybe give Smallworld a go? It's way more casual, though. I can't remember which, but there is a version that lets you build a map each time, much like Catan does. If that's too light for you, my only other idea is to delve into the mysterious depths of wargaming. Definitely try at a local gameshop before you buy. That stuff is expensive!
Ha just the review is stressful. 😜
"STIR THE CAULDRON OF HATE!"
I don't yet own this game. I plan to soon. It's funny. This would probably be the first real game that I like that Tom Vasel doesn't. Most of my games basically comes as a recommendation from Tom. This would break the norm.
Frankly, you're gonna have trouble playing it. Virtually no one plays it. The real way to play the game now is on the internet, you can get a game going very quickly. I recommend you subscribe to PlayDiplomacy (it's free to play the standard 1901 version) and register to a "mentor game" which is a game for beginners with a mentor to guide you though.
playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=292&t=45634
My secret: "I'm always angry"
"Your anger is delicious!"
This is the first time I see how this game plays. Seems like the Game of Thrones board game is a derivative of this game.
I hate Hanabi because I get upset at people who can't remember correctly. I will NEVER play a game like this in a fear that I will shoot someone. Hard pass.
Sounds like you should pass on every game tbh.
WHAT?! I don't believe Jason could get frustrated!
I never played but I had some friends in our old group that did and it makes people literally angry with each other. It holds some interest for me but I think it's best if I take a pass.
Players who get angry are novices. The more you play the game, the more you train yourself to control your emotions. Diplomacy is one of those games that helps you improve your real life skills: negotiation skills, controlling your emotions, game theory, techniques of manipulation, team play etc...
My memory of it is that one wrong move, one person betraying you, one miss rotten order...and that's it! Game over man game over. You may not be eliminated (sadly) but you are not going to win and it's just a matter on holding on (and on and on and on).
That's not at all true. You can make many mistakes are still win. in fact, even in games where you win, you will likely make multiple mistakes.
Wow, video quality is so bad here for some reason. Using an old camera?
Jason is just flat, provably wrong here. I mean, I respect his viewpoint but one example does not a standard experience make.
I have personally been in a few game where I am down to low numbers and no one else will work with me even if I offer my help with no conditions. It is effective elimination. Jason is probably playing with other pro players that see value in the small help, but many non-pros play emotionally and will refuse to work with you due to things that happened earlier. (or even out of game)
Diplomacy is an AMAZING lifetime experience but I'm not sure I want to play more than once a year or less now that I played a game a month for a few months. It's actually similar feeling to how I imagine a reality show based on alliances like Big Brother or Survivor works.
No, you are flat an provingly not a diplomatically skilled player. Name a single region with a supply center and I can prove you, that it is of significance.
Ironically, diplomacy is exactly what you'll need in reducing the United Kingdom to simply, England! I bet this game was rarely played in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland!
I've been knocked out of Cosmic Encounter before my first turn...
Nice farmers tan
Tom just gave us a 23 minute case study of why *he* can't enjoy Diplomacy. :-)
Diplomacy is not really my kind of game. I appreciate what it is, but I don't care for it as the one time I played it, it not only took a very long time, but one of the players (not me) just sat there and watched the rest of us play for the last 3 hours.
I think Tom, you are not thinking strategic enough in the "1 center left" matter. Part of the fun is to figure out how to be useful to others to gain position. I don't agree, that there is a situation where you are completely on an island and not point of interest at all.
Player elimination in an 8 hour game lol. Major pass.
Oh Jason, lol. Youre too positive for your own good. Thats why we love you.
Everything Tom said is true, tis why we like diplomacy hahaha
This is an old review... but if you see this comment... Tom -> listen to Jason!
If you like poker, and One Night Ultimate Werewolf this game can be for you!
I love Jason but he is being way, way too optimistic about this game. I've been in the pseudo-knockout position multiple times which is why I absolutely HATE this game. Diplomacy is my Phase 10!
That's because you don't know how to react in that situation. You must learn to play the vassal state.
Yes...
As to the elimination business: this is essentially a whole lot of whining. Maybe Tom should check out something like Candy Land. Although I remember our family getting pretty pissed off playing that game too. Diplomacy is fun because it is a huge risk/reward situation. Players put a lot on the line and get very excited if their plans work or very upset if they don't. That's why the game is fun! The amount of fun you get out of any game is completely dependent on how much you put in. Player elimination makes the game exciting. If you are emotionally incapable of handling failure, then this game probably isn't for you.
I'm glad you enjoy the game! I'm not sure the opposite of Diplomacy is Candy Land, though. There are THOUSANDS of amazing games out there.
If you watch the whole video, you will notice Toms arguments about elimination, which had nothing to do with _"risk/reward"_ or _"excitement"_.
If the game causes a lot of stress and anger, do we really want to teach it to high school students?
Corey Redmon yes, why not?
I got this game as Christmas present. I played only one and just for 30 minutes. Everybody refuse to play it! It's only for "professional" gamers! Don't even try to play it with newbie. You can spent an hour only explaining hot to write orders on paper.
It's so unknown in my country that I cannot even sell it on ebay. Nobody wants it! I will destroy it one day...
I played this a decent amount when I was younger..I haven't since, there was only really schadenfreude to be found.
The main fix I would say is to have different end game conditions; like a player being eliminated or a certain number of SC's if an alliance can agree to a joint victory.
I would also say (like in New Angeles) have it so you're just trying to beat one player; so you don't need to steamroll someone you just have to make the game end with you being in front of your target.
LOL who here for the World War One Debate.
There are so many games which do the same thing as Diplomacy, but without the truly horrible combination of player elimination and taking 7+ hours.
Prime example of a game which was great when there was nothing else like it. You might admire the beauty of a flintlock rifle, but you'd rather go to war with a Kalashnikov.
There is no game like Diplomacy. None. Zero. If you think (incorrectly) there is, name one.
Game of Thrones: The Board Game.
I don't think you know your board games as well as you (incorrectly) think you do.
Game of Thrones isn't even vaguely in the same ball park. If you think it is you haven't played Dip remotely enough to understand it.
Oh so you mean it's not identical to diplomacy? Correct, it's not the same game.
To say it's not even vaguely in the same ballpark is hyperbole at best, or perhaps just ignorant. Of course it is. GoT has every mechanic in diplomacy, plus a whole bunch of extra stuff which makes the game faster, and not suck.
No, I mean it's not even slightly similar.
Tom doesn't get it. World War 1 wasn't fun either!
This isn't even World War I. Most Diplomacy games finish before 1914.
Man i'd be stoked to place the game a 1/4 of the times Vassel has... sucks he hates it so much. **Edit- dislikes it so much
So...you get knocked out of a game early. Big deal. Do you not have other hobbies and interests? My usual "gaming buddies" are also my "scale modeling buddies" and "historical miniature buddies." Get-togethers cover all three hobbies. There is NEVER any down time.
Wow that was the most stressful board game review video I've ever seen. I've seen dozens of Tom's videos and they're usually so upbeat. This one makes me want to jump out of the window :/
Jason literally can't listen.
Tom: "If you have one unit, you have less to discuss."
Jason: "I disagree, if you have one unit you can still win."
Tom: "Yes ... but you don't have much to discuss."
Jason: "I REALLY disagree, you can still win."
For heaven's sake.
Jason didn't answer the point, but Tom is wrong. If you have one unit you have to work even harder to negotiate your way back into the game.
I hope I never play Diplomacy. Still have no interest in even trying it.
I caved and played once. Easily among my 2 least favorite games. There was nothing enjoyable about this.
@Matthew Sanchez
It's a game for people who like using their brain. Perhaps that's not your case.
@BlunderCity: Haha, classy.
Yeah, i also have zero interest in playing this game.
Like I said, some people don't like overly intellectual games. This should not necessarily reflect negatively on you, after all there are other things of value in the world than intellectualism. But the fact remains that it is the nerdiest board game ever invented.
@@BlunderCity Wondering why those players, that don't like to play the game and comment that here feel the urge to mention it. As if they have to defend themselves. xD
Horrible game, Jason just gives poor examples on possible solutions that could be used for its many flaws. The one army left leaves you open to attack, if you attack with your one army, what stops your 'ally' taking your country? Avoid this game like the plague.
You just don't understand the game.
@@BlunderCity Maybe he feels intellectual and not liking the game gives him the urge to confess that it is a "horrible game" ;-)
Player elimination for masochists
Like the game all you want but rating Diplomacy a 10 is rubbish. The fact that Jason refuses to acknowledge the inherent flaws of this game just kills his credibility with me as a serious reviewer.
I mean, if they're not flaws for him, I see no reason for him to reduce the rating. While I disagreed with his counter points, I can at least respect them for what they are.
_"The fact that Jason refuses to acknowledge the inherent flaws of this game"_
Really? How so? He comprehensively addressed the criticism.
Its quite the irony that Jason Levine likes Diplomacy because of player negotiation, but all he sais during a review or discussion is _"yes. yes. no, mah emotions! if you like the game strong enough, no bad thing will matter"_. Such a shitty argument to have and shitty way to discuss and negotiate with people.
Good lord! The review features the most ugly-assed Diplomacy board that I have seen. If you play F2F, please use the traditional board with traditional colours to make it easy to recognise territory demarcations.
If I play (v. hard to find enough masocists) it is via the Backstabbr web interface.
Backstabbr is rubbish because they don't police their games. As a result, there are too many cheaters and NMRs. I do use it as my training ground though because I like the minimalist interface and in terms of ease of gameplay, it's probably the best. But for my serious games, I play on PlayDiplomacy because the community is very strong there.
I loathe this game. The whole idea of manipulation of other people frankly disgust me...
This is not real. It is a game. If you see someone get shot in television it is not real either.
People can play competetive games and be nice people. There is more facets to life than plus and minus.