Inscrit le: 25 Sep 2017
Lun 5 Fév - 08:44 (2018)
Our group is having a disagreement in our interpretations of the "spirit" of the rules of Diplomacy, and how long-term alliances affect gameplay. I was wondering if anyone had any advice on potential resolutions, including gameplay variants.
Basically, our last game was dominated by a long-term three-way alliance (Rus/Aus/Ger), and the other four countries were defeated pretty handily by this alliance (in the end, one member of the alliance pulled a big backstab for a solo win).
The issue (and our group is split about 50/50 on this): some of the group (generally players who were not part of the alliance last game) believe that the rules allow for long-term alliances too easily; that the formation of three-way alliances is going to happen far too often. They feel that this doesn't make for a fun game, and have proposed a rule change banning three-way victories.
The other side of the group feels that this rule change would discourage alliance-forming and cooperation in general, making the game more one-on-one adversarial and backstabby. They feel that the cooperative aspect is an important and fun part of the game, and don't want to disadvantage strategies that rely on it.
Have other people run into this concern? Does anyone have any interesting rules variants that would address it? One proposal in our group was to ban three-way AND solo victories -- so the three-way juggernauts aren't going to happen, but bilateral cooperation is required, so that the backstab-to-cooperation ratio is sort of maintained.
I didn't find the right solution from the Internet.
Creative Content Example