Number of words: 2,352<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It\u2019s spring, 1902. I receive a text. It\u2019s France, thank God. My Russian army is cornered by a four-front assault from England, Germany, the Ottoman Turks, and finally, cruelly, Austria-Hungary, a nation I believed to be my ally and whose leader had just video-called me to discuss our ongoing alliance face-to-face. It was all a ruse. Unbeknownst to me, they had been organizing a joint assault behind my back to take me off the map, and now, it was working. Perhaps I should have seen it coming. After all, we\u2019re playing a Diplomacy tournament through an app called Backstabbr.
I tell France the whole story. They\u2019re under the command of three-time Diplomacy world champion Andrew Goff, 42. If anyone can help me, he can. Goff inquires about the terms of my (prior) alliance with Austria-Hungary before he implores me to negotiate individually with my attackers. He suggests moves and promises I could make to turn them against one another. \u201cKeep talking,\u201d he tells me. It\u2019s my only choice.
Easy for him to say. Goff is cruising toward victory as the French, chatting affably with everyone, making subtle deployments against Germany, and maintaining steadfast alliances with two of his neighbors\u2014one of whom will support Goff with their final, dying moves. I take the champion\u2019s advice. I focus on flipping the Ottoman Turks to my side, but as I do, I keep trying to work out Goff\u2019s winning formula. Why is he helping me?
This is the gaming world\u2019s greatest contest of deception and duplicity, but so far as I can tell, Goff only carries two weapons: congeniality, and the truth.
Diplomacy has carried a prestigious reputation among board games since its creation in the 1950s. It counts JFK and Henry Kissinger among its historical enthusiasts, and it\u2019s so beloved today it has its own fan magazine. The premise of this strategy game is simple: Up to seven players control a pre-WWI nation and compete for conquest of Europe. There are two types of pieces\u2014armies and fleets\u2014which can typically only do three things: move, hold still, or support another piece to move or hold (fleets can also convoy with armies to move them across bodies of water). You deploy your forces across the board and contest for the map\u2019s 34 special territories, called supply centers. Occupying these allows you to build more armies and fleets, which increases your capability each turn.
Everyone takes their turn at the same time in Diplomacy. But the real action happens in between turns, when players negotiate with each other to determine what tactics they will take.
For example, if during a turn Goff and I both try to move into Norway with a single army and no support, our forces will cancel one another out and we\u2019ll both have to retreat. But if during the prior round of negotiations, Goff had convinced another country\u2019s fleet to support his army, their sum forces would defeat mine and Goff would prevail. There is no random chance in Diplomacy. You need to cajole and collude with other players to achieve your ends. You either win outright by occupying more than half of the game\u2019s supply centers (top-level players call such a win \u2018a solo\u2019), or win jointly with a few other players in a negotiated draw, after discussions calcify and the board stagnates. Most Diplomacy games end in a draw.
For its emphasis on interpersonal dealings, Diplomacy has become notorious as \u201cthe game that ruins friendships.\u201d That\u2019s because there are no rules requiring anyone to be honest during negotiations. Players can tell bald-faced lies, forge and fracture alliances, and strike and counter-strike game-changing deals. Fans have leaned into the game\u2019s sinister reputation. Today you can play in public Diplomacy tournaments like The Boston Massacre and Carnage, where players so frequently betray each other the community has developed a shorthand for the act: a stab (for \u201cbackstab\u201d). Every year, a player at the Diplomacy world championship wins the coveted \u201cGolden Blade Award,\u201d for the best stab of the tournament.
Yet sitting across the board from Andrew Goff, considered the greatest Diplomacy player in the world, it seems you\u2019re neither facing the world\u2019s best liar, nor the ultimate snake in the grass. After our game at the long-running Diplomacy tournament Dixiecon (where he won not just our game, but every game he played in), I asked Goff about any major falsehoods or betrayals that helped him in his victories. He paused to think, then said in his soft-spoken way: \u201cWell, there may have been a few deceptive omissions on my part but, no, I didn\u2019t tell a single outright lie the entire tournament.\u201d
Goff doesn\u2019t seem to take a ruthless or mendacious approach to the game. Rather, he treats his relationships with other players like he\u2019s a campaigning politician. He\u2019s careful, considered, and\u2014on his face, at least\u2014always well intentioned. He says Diplomacy isn\u2019t about twisting arms to gain what he wants now; it\u2019s about building diplomatic capital he can leverage or cash in further in the game. \u201cDiplomacy is ultimately about building trust in an environment that encourages you not to trust anyone,\u201d he says.
At the time of our interview, Goff is residing in the charming country town of Benalla, Australia, two hours north of Melbourne. As CFO of a linguistics startup called Sleigh Group, his day job combines strategy and communication, natural for someone who\u2019s amassed decades of high-level Diplomacy play.
Goff played his first Diplomacy game with high-school friends on a rainy day in 1992, when he was 14. He competed in his first tournament two years later, but it didn\u2019t go well. \u201cI walked in thinking I was a pretty good Diplomacy player, and walked out thinking: \u2018No, I am not,\u2019\u201d he says. \u201cI had a lot to learn.\u201d
Goff says in those days he was a cockier player, charging his way through games with a stubborn, all-out-attack style of negotiation. \u201cI would either win completely or fail spectacularly, and it was usually the latter,\u201d he says. \u201cI think my reputation back then was that I was either on your side or I was going to nuke your game.\u201d
Goff says his more relational strategy developed as he matured. He realized, he says, that lying in Diplomacy is usually counterproductive, especially when used for immediate or short-term gains. Double-crossing someone might help you build another fleet or shore up a front, but the moment you\u2019re exposed as a traitor, you will struggle to build beneficial, trustworthy, and information-rich alliances with other players.
Perhaps this is dubious coming from Goff, someone who might be perceived as a master manipulator, but Siobhan Nolen, president of the North American Diplomacy Federation, aligns with the champion\u2019s reasoning. She says despite Diplomacy\u2019s notoriety, most of the world\u2019s elite players eschew lies during games. Reputations linger at global tournaments. \u201cIf you\u2019re not trustworthy, then nobody\u2019s going to want to work with you,\u201d she says. \u201cYou can be the best player in this game, with all the right tactics, but if no one wants to work with you, you can’t win. Top level players pick their moments to be ruthless.\u201d
Dixiecon organizer David Hood agrees, but he says Goff\u2019s style is remarkably convivial even compared to his most competitive peers. According to Hood, many successful Diplomacy players have assertive and commanding styles of play, and strong tendencies to whip out Golden Blade-worthy stabs, but not Goff. \u201c[He] is on the far side of the spectrum of aggressiveness. He\u2019s sort of Mr. Reasonable and Mr. Rational,\u201d Hood says.
Nevertheless, by his own admission, Goff can become a ruthless liar if he sees an irresistible advantage in the outcome. \u201cI\u2019m no paragon of moral perfection,\u201d he laughs. \u201cAt elite-level play you see a lot of subtle alliances, but the threat of a stab is often much more powerful than an actual stab.\u201d
Goff\u2019s top rival, two-time world champion Doug Moore, says Goff\u2019s measure and composure set him apart from other elites. He\u2019s not reactive; he\u2019s responsive. \u201cHe doesn\u2019t yell, he almost never has to lie, and he rarely has to threaten,\u201d Moore says. \u201cRather, he listens. It is his superpower.\u201d
Moore explains a great Diplomacy player must excel at three skills. First, they have to be a wizard in short-term tactics, able to chain clever turn-by-turn moves. Second, they must master long-term strategy, and position units in a way that both anticipates dangers and allows opportunities. Finally, great players must be high-caliber diplomats. \u201cCan you persuade people to do what you want? Or can you confuse things so other players make mistakes?\u201d Moore asks.
Moore says Goff is astounding in his tactical and strategic approaches (every Diplomacy expert I spoke to expressed awe at Goff\u2019s foresight), but Goff\u2019s master ability is the name of the game: diplomacy. To Moore, Goff provokes his opponents to share\u2014or overshare\u2014their plans with a combination of his genuine kindness and innocent-seeming open-ended questions: What is your plan to work with me? What\u2019s the plan long-term? What will we do together next turn? The answers to these questions often expose potential threats to Goff\u2019s endgame, so Goff heads those off accordingly. Likewise, Goff\u2019s diplomatic approach nudges his allies toward committing to a plan, which gives Goff more insight into the mechanisms at work behind the scenes. The game becomes more predictable, and thus, more manipulable. \u201cWhen you\u2019re working with Andrew, you know he almost always keeps his promises,\u201d Moore says. \u201cYou\u2019ll find you want to follow through with a plan you created at his behest… it\u2019s very disarming.\u201d By the time you know how to stop Goff, he\u2019s already laid the groundwork to hinder you.
It\u2019s clear Goff leans into his affability. He sees the value in being someone opponents want to work with. Yet I wonder how much of his manner in a game of Diplomacy is a calculated adaptation of his real-life persona. Would he even admit if it was?
But his rivals say Goff\u2014or Goffy, as he\u2019s known in tournament circles\u2014remains friendly even after the game wraps. He lingers in postgame chats, discussing the nuances that shaped the battle with his opponents, and dispensing advice to new players. Is it all for the sake of future diplomatic capital?
I suggest to Goff that his amiability might be another means to an end: more Diplomacy glory. He laughs.
When I relay Moore\u2019s assessment that Goff builds his success on provocative genuity, Goff first insists Moore is the true best player in the world at the moment, but then considers the evaluation. He agrees in principle, but offers some clarification. \u201cThis may sound counterintuitive, but I usually make deals where the other person gains slightly more than I do.\u201d By itself, he admits such a deal would make for a poor strategy, \u201cbut if I\u2019m making three of those agreements, I have the diplomatic capital. Everyone is working with me, and not with each other.\u201d
In our game, Goff was the first player to speak, initiating the conversation before our group had even started playing. He broke the ice by introducing himself to all the players, beginning private chats, and making small talk. Goff\u2019s not being overtly disingenuous, but he admits \u201coften the negotiations start before the actual negotiations start.\u201d Indeed, after the game, he explained: \u201cI started feeling the players out as soon as the board was announced. A lot of it is just banter, but banter can give you a sense of who people are and what their motivations might be.\u201d
In our game, Goff says his banter provided two key pieces of information: 1) Germany, who was guarded and aggressive in negotiations, was difficult to trust, and a likely candidate to attack him early. 2) Italy, on the other hand, was agreeable and receptive, so probably worth joining in a long-term alliance. \u201cYou\u2019d be surprised how often people pick their allies not on some immediate tactical concern, but on the person they\u2019d like to talk to for the next six hours,\u201d he says.
Goff\u2019s genuineness has a puppetry-esque effect. Melissa Call, another tournament player and one of Goff\u2019s oldest friends in the hobby, says Goff \u201cwants everyone on the board to feel comfortable with him,\u201d to the point where he will suggest moves to other players. Of course, Call admits you might eventually find those moves \u201cwere not necessarily in your best interest.\u201d Goff\u2019s stabbed you without touching the knife.
Even Goff\u2019s in-game tactics can disguise his long-term ends. In our game he made the unusual move to defer building additional armies and fleets after capturing a supply depot, opting to grow his forces later instead. It seems this was a quintessential Goffy move: Delay an escalation, assuage his allies, and deflect attention from his opponents. Goff admits the strategy is misleading, but he avoids the word \u201clie.\u201d To him, this is a \u201cdeliberate deception.\u201d
Sometimes in Diplomacy, losing players can pick the terms of their defeat. If you\u2019re being attacked on multiple fronts, you can decide which front to defend, in effect choosing which of your opponents capture your supply center. Siobhan Nolen says Goff\u2019s attitude often makes him the beneficiary of such circumstances. \u201cIt hurts less to lose against somebody like Andrew,\u201d she says.
After I lose against Goff, in which the surprise assault forces me to retreat while he pushes for territory as far as the Balkans, the two of us debrief. Naturally, I find myself revealing more than he does. I allude to my poor performance as Russia, but Goff stops me. He points out how several of my moves surprised and foiled my invaders, even as I withdrew. He says my negotiations and strategy ultimately turned my attackers against each other, so when I was left with just one supply center, I was able to win back a second and position myself to take a third as the game ended. \u201cEven if it was for nothing, there\u2019s strength in being able to stick it out, keep talking, and search for ways to improve your position,\u201d Goff tells me. \u201cYou\u2019ll get a reputation that will make tournament players think twice about attacking you next time. You should be proud.\u201d
And I was. We finished talking (or, in light of future games, perhaps negotiating?) and I thought to myself: Yes, I\u2019d like to lose to this guy again.
Excerpted from https:\/\/www.popularmechanics.com\/culture\/gaming\/a34043608\/winning-diplomacy-strategy-andrew-goff\/<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"