I’ve had a number of conversations lately about the idea of the team competition in Diplomacy. Some of the preeminent North American players, I’m thinking of one in particular, have argued that the game of Diplomacy doesn’t really lend itself to a team tournament. And certainly on the obvious level such players are right. As a North American, the team competition has never been as big a deal at the tournaments I’ve attended as I understand it to be in Europe. Unlike most of my compatriots though, I’ve always felt a little bit like I was missing out on something.

But first, a little bit of perspective. When I was in high school I didn’t play baseball and soccer (both of which I really enjoyed playing as a child and still do today) because it got in the way of running track. Although track is largely an individual’s sport, you score as a team. It occurred to me the other day that the team competition in Diplomacy is essentially just like it is at a track meet. All the players compete largely individually, but they score collectively. I may win or lose my race personally, but collectively we win and lose as a team. When my team won the state track championship, I responded to it personally, even though I personally didn’t even qualify to race in the state meet. Many of my teammates who did get to race on the last day still didn’t score any points. Most of us though, still took the success as something to go home proud of.

Some may argue that it’s foolish to take pride in your team winning if you yourself had no part in the victory, but it seems no less foolish than giving out medals to all the members of a world championship sports team, including those members who didn’t actually play in the game. And still yet less foolish than cheering for a team you’re not even on! It’s far from a perfect analysis, but I don’t think the comparison to Diplomacy is completely out of line.

First and foremost, a Diplomacy tournament is a social event. It’s about hanging out, making new friends, reacquainting with old ones, and then stabbing them all in the back at the first opportunity! I believe that the team tournament can add to this if people want it to. Some of our best friendships in life are born out of rivalries. Winning bragging rights for the next year because your club beat mine somehow seems a lot more meaningful than bragging that you came in 14th, and I came in 21st out of 100 players. If either is worth buying your opponent drinks over, I’d think it’s the former!

Secondly, I think we all know that Diplomacy is as much about psychology as it is about tactics. Some players play on this very well, and win their games more because of their ability to move the other players than because of their ability to move the pieces on the board. What’s the psychological impact of knowing your opponents history? What’s the psychological impact of being on a board with a guy who looks up when someone yells “Hey Champ!” from across the room! Once you accept that this is a meaningful part of Diplomacy, it becomes an interesting question to ask how one can use the fact of a team competition, and the fact of various individuals membership on various teams, to influence the other players in the game. If anyone could master this skill, I’d love to hear about it, but I dread having to play you!

Thirdly, Diplomacy is also a game of cost/benefit analysis. Should I risk making an enemy by going for another supply center, or let him have it and hope that I’ll have a useful ally later? Should I try to grow quickly and make myself indispensable to the draw now, or grow slower, go for the big stab later, and hope that I have a shot at the solo? Should I attack the more skilled opponent first, and assume that I can handle the weaker one later; or should I work with the more dangerous partner because he’s a more effective ally? (Until he stabs me!)

The team event adds more dynamics to this list when you think of Diplomacy as a game of cost/benefit decision making. Should I attack a player because he’s on a rival team? If I do, I might doom us both, leaving the team competition up to my teammates. Does that put us in a better or worse position in the overall tournament? This dynamic becomes vastly more significant if the team event isn’t limited to just one round, but runs over the whole event.

At the World Championships in Denver, the teams will take their top so many scores from the whole weekend and combine them. Should I go for the solo, though I risk a 5-way draw to get it, or should I take the sure 3-way that I can get if I stick with my current allies? More than this, is it logical for some of your players to adopt one strategy and some the other? Does it matter who from what other teams is on the board with you?

Obviously, these are some of the same questions that we are asking ourselves in individual games anyway. However, the consequences of our answers are quite different in this different competition. I don’t have the answers to these questions in either case, but I’ll bet some of you with more experience than I have some insights. Drop us a line at the Pouch and let us know what you think about team tournaments.

  Matt Shields
(chirchill@diplom.org)