Diploma...fia?

[mith]

An idea I'm trying to get ironed out.

Standard Diplomacy map, 7 powers, with a twist. Each of the powers is assigned a Mafia role. There are 2 Mafia, 1 Cop, and 4 Townies.

During each even winter phase, the Mafia get to assassinate one other power's leader. It *can* be one of their own, if they like. That country is put into civil disorder for one year (all units hold). The Cop gets to investigate one other power and find out if they are part of the Mafia alliance. The Cop does not get a result if he is assassinated.

Notes: Does the Cop get a guilty result on both Mafia, or only the power chosen to carry out the assassination?

During each odd winter phase, the Town/UN/whatever gets to execute a power's leader for war crimes. They are *not* told the alignment of the power, because again, that power is in civil disorder for one year, and then comes out of it. If the Cop is lynched, he doesn't get to investigate the following winter.

Votes are cast in secret (that is, you can say whatever you like in public, but vote a different way, and no one else will be told that). The Mafia only have one vote between them, and the power coming out of civil disorder does not have a vote. In order for there to be an execution, a majority of votes must be cast for the same power.

Notes: If there is a 50-50 tie, are both executed, or neither?

Discussion can take place in public or in private.

Winning conditions: The Mafia wins if they control 18 SCs at the beginning of a winter season *between them*. The Town wins if both Mafia powers are eliminated from the game (then, and only then, is it revealed that they were Mafia). However, any Town power can also try for a solo win (normal 18 SC victory condition), in which case the other members of the Town do not share in the victory. There can not be a draw voted on before both Mafia powers are eliminated. However, after they are both eliminated, a draw is not automatically declared (secret votes again) in the event that someone thinks they have a shot at a solo. All Town powers share in a Town draw, regardless of whether they are eliminated.

Comments? This game is not likely to be attempted any time soon, but whenever I decide I'm capable of modding it, it will probably be a joint mafiascum/GL game, in order to get a nice variety of hardcore Mafia players, hardcore Diplomacy players, and anywhere in between.

[Flying Dutchman]

I would join, most definately.....

[Dragon Phoenix]

Expect next... diplorafia...

[PolarBoy]

Vote: Italy

, Who else?

Or how about Gay Themed Ninja DiploRAFia Combat? It's the ultimate in psychological gaming.

Seriously thogh, this sounds quite intriguing.

[Wacky]

I had an idea like this a while back (well, with diplomacy and mafia but a bit different on how the rules merged), and I think I concluded that such a game would take around half a year, which is much longer than my attention span.

However, any Town power can also try for a solo win (normal 18 SC victory condition), in which case the other members of the Town do not share in the victory.

There are a few problems that need to be ironed out as well, which is that town powers don't really have much of an incentive to do anything, whereas the mafia have a pretty big incentive to do so. The incentive for town here is to get a solo win, but solo wins are definitely hard. Originally I figured that by adding a "for you to win, so-and-so needs to be eliminated as well as the mafia" might work, but that is still a bit too hard unless they are adjacent.

Have you considered public voting?

What about not having full communication but like regular Mafia, town only being able to communicate in-thread?

Also:

There can not be a draw voted on before both Mafia powers are eliminated. However, after they are both eliminated, a draw is not automatically declared (secret votes again)

Notes: Are roles revealed once a power is eliminated? (I think you're implying no, and I'm not sure if that is such a good idea - non-role-revealing-games, like blind-games, tend to die or at least annoy its players a lot) Does being eliminated stop Cop from investigating anymore?

Finally, there is a slight problem with that though - it's going to be pretty obvious who the solo-player is - it's the guy with the most supplies. That is going to make it hard for him to win.

Oh, and some diplomacy games (e.g. on dip2000) allow multi-way draws which exclude living players, that could work.

DiploRAFia sounds interesting. I shall think on it..

[mith]

The incentive for town here is to get a solo win, but solo wins are definitely hard.

They're hard in normal diplomacy, but that *is* the goal of the game. Smaller-than-seven-player-draws are just a concession to the fact that wins (solo is actually redundant here, a draw is not a win in normal diplomacy) are unlikely.

The idea here is to give the town an incentive to look out for themselves rather than *just* the town as a whole. More realistic, really, while in Mafia we might sacrifice townies left and right, in reality the only reason the town-powers are interested in eliminating the mafia-powers is for their own survival.

Have you considered public voting?

I have. The problem with public voting is that if the Mafia have two votes, it seems quite unlikely they'll get lynched early on. Of course, maybe that's good, because then it gives the town some voting patterns to look for. In other words, I'm not married to the private voting idea.

What about not having full communication but like regular Mafia, town only being able to communicate in-thread?

Might be interesting (this is called gunboat in diplomacy for those who care ). It takes out some of the strategy though, IMO. You have to plan and stuff with the other players, but without really knowing who to trust (more so than in normal diplomacy; one can *generally* depend on allies to play out of their best interest, but here, you can't be sure whether their interest lies in eliminating the Mafia (and they might think you're one of them!) or eliminating everyone else).

Mostly, I think it would just tilt the game too far in the Mafia direction.

Bah, time for class, I'll finish in an hour.

[mith]

Notes: Are roles revealed once a power is eliminated? (I think you're implying no, and I'm not sure if that is such a good idea - non-role-revealing-games, like blind-games, tend to die or at least annoy its players a lot) Does being eliminated stop Cop from investigating anymore?

I suppose they could be, but I prefer that bit of doubt. Normally I'd agree, but this is not Mafia, this is a combination. I think revealing an eliminated Mafia power makes the Cop role too strong. Could be wrong, though.

Being eliminated does stop the Cop from investigating. Being assassinated or executed stops him from investigating that winter.

Finally, there is a slight problem with that though - it's going to be pretty obvious who the solo-player is - it's the guy with the most supplies. That is going to make it hard for him to win.

Like I said, it's hard anyway. However, I disagree on two points. One, because of good tactics, the player may have put himself in a position to being close to a solo (maybe the town is sure that the Mafia is about to be eliminated, and he happens to be the one doing the eliminating, which makes him strong enough for a well-timed stab to victory); otherwise, the strongest player isn't necessarily going to vote for no draw. Two, it might be in the best interests of a lesser-player to make everyone else think the stronger is going to solo. For example, see GL Diplomacy 5, where I spent most of the game convincing Germany and Italy that England was too strong (and made sure he was always slightly more threatening than me), and then in the final year I went from 11 SCs to a winning position.

Obviously it's *hard* to solo, but that bit of doubt adds a realistic flavor, I think. Maybe the "all town powers share in a draw, whether or not they are eliminated" should be changed to "all town powers share in a draw, unless they are eliminated". That gives more incentive to looking out for yourself.

Oh, and some diplomacy games (e.g. on dip2000) allow multi-way draws which exclude living players, that could work.

Terrible idea in diplomacy; as the game's creator points out:

The notion that all players sharing in the draw share equally reflects in part the considerable and logical difference between survival and elimination; anyone who has survived into the draw might conceivably win if the game went on, but no one eliminated can do so.

Some people have objected that a player having 10 units is entitled to more credit than one having only one unit when a draw is agreed upon. One answer to this notion is that draws are agreed upon; consequently any player who objects to equal credit for the smaller powers can refuse to agree, for a few moves, while he proceeds to knock out the smaller powers, and more than one larger power can agree to so proceed before voting the draw. Now, if it is still impossible to get rid of those tiny powers, they must have something going for them within the game which is operating to ensure their survival: possibly a position in which it is very difficult to knock them out, or a friendly power holding them up, or a situation in which the would-be attackers cannot agree on which of them should get the territory; whatever the reason is, the tiny power has achieved survival within the game.

Giving equal credit to all those sharing in the draw also encourages the smallest power to fight for the draw, instead of giving up without a fight. If they give up without a fight, the larger powers may not get a draw either, since the leader may benefit from their collapse and win.

I don't think it would be any different in this version, particularly since the *main* objective for the town is to eliminate the mafia-powers, and once this is achieved, a surviving power should be rewarded (unless they then allow a solo).

[PolarBoy]

I don't know that there is necesarily a strong incentive to go for a solo win. It is hard, after all, especially when one realizes that a two-power cabal is a guarantee within this system. Naturally if they are too obvious their expansion should be cut short by voting, but one can safely assume that the mafia have a slight advantage over any given townie in purusing domination of the board.

I don't think that that matters. This obviously turns a players thinking in the direction of locating and eliminating the mafia. Significantly easier when one considers that the mafia are outnumbered 5 to 2. If the game started with the town knowing who the mafia were, the town would win with certainty. So the odds at least look good.

Anyway the town has a huge individual incentive toward self defense, as any one(or two) of their neighbors could be mafia. Just like in a normal diplomacy game, you don't know who you can trust. This defense should cause some conflict which should get players wondering who's who which should confuse the issue of who belongs to the axis of evil which should create a pretty neat post-world-war game.

A bizarre possibility just occured to me though. In a way it could be considered the towns best interest to NMR for the first turn. This way the mafia reveal themselves by mobilizing their troops, and the 5 good powers can use the UN and their own troops to eliminate them in short order. If the town adopts this strategy, the Mafia must as well, in order to blend in. This gives the cop infinite time to locate the mafia.

At this point a gambit is the mafia's only hope to win the game. One of them must claim cop. Even if he is not believed and the real cop is, it should create significant upheaval to force the townies to defend themselves more actively, thus allowing the mafia to blend in. At this point though at least one mafia member will probably be eliminated from play. On the other hand such upheaval might also create the possibility of putting a player in such a position that he can try for a solo win.

Backing up to where I said the mafia could claim cop, the town could simply ignore cop claims, sticking to their original credo that "aggression is evil". This would prevent anything from ever happening. But that just creates a stalemate, so it really isn't a winnning strategy without the cop.

So there's probably a better strategy for the town than doing nothing. I figure self defense will be more effective than collective security.

[Wacky]

Backing up to where I said the mafia could claim cop, the town could simply ignore cop claims, sticking to their original credo that "aggression is evil". This would prevent anything from ever happening. But that just creates a stalemate, so it really isn't a winnning strategy without the cop.

That is why I think there needs to be some incentive for doing things, and a pretty strong one at that. I'm not sure if the vague and very unlikely possibility of a solo win is going to motivate people enough.

[shadyforce]

It looks really cool. Merging 2 of my favourite games together is really inviting, but I don't think I have the time to play it should it start. Looks cool though.

[PolarBoy]

Wacky, the explicit conclusion of the quoted portion was that the town would do something. I suppose I can't speak for everybody, but it would take some pretty hopeless odds to get me to aim for a stalemate from the first day of a mafia game or a 7-way draw from the first year of a diplomacy game.

The town moving in 1901 is akin to voting on day one in a mafia game even though you might lynch a townie.

Now I suppose it introduces a sort of "Happily ever after" possibility that the mafia will not move for fear that the town will not move to fake them out, but then the town could move to fake out the mafia in exactly the same way, which would make this a case of ro-sham-bo, but all of this is hinged on the town acting as a cohesive body, which seems unlikely in a ro-sham-bo setting. In all likelihood the town would fake itself out and defeat the purpose of trying such a strategy in the first place.

Take note that the town cannot eliminate even one member of the mafia without mobilizing their troops.