Diplomacy is a strategy game created by Avalon Hill that resembles its simpler but more popular cousin “Risk. However, Diplomacy more heavily features a social element at its core; it forces players to negotiate, form alliances, and more by speaking directly to each other. While Diplomacy is more commonly played as a board game, I am currently playing an online version that is more akin to correspondent’s chess than a realtime version found here. Diplomacy is a far better point of comparison to my prototype of “Hidden Agendas” than Risk is, as Risk carries some social elements but is not a main staple of the game. Both Hidden Agendas and Diplomacy involve territorial expansion, allocation of resources, and strategic movement. I hope that the final version of Hidden Agendas will be able to incorporate all three of these principles as well as Diplomacy does. The unrestricted social element of Diplomacy allows for whatever social exploitation, bluffing, taunting, and negotiation as players desire; trying to play the game without utilizing these elements would leave you at a significant disadvantage. I believe that the target audience of Diplomacy is on the older side, as well as players that are very experienced with its mechanics; it contains somewhat mature themes and requires a large amount of strategic thinking and multitasking, something that younger players may have a disadvantage with.
Throughout the several days of my still ongoing online game, I quickly discovered that the chat feature was one of the most valuable resources that I had available to me. I was proposing alliances and trades somewhat early, and falling back on the adage of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Even though there have been a relatively low amount of moves that have taken place, I can already feel that my alliance with the player who is controlling the Spain/France region may not last very long, and although they have supported my actions in the past, I am beginning to lose faith in the strength of our relationship. I am hopeful that there will be an epic betrayal or combining of powers that I will be able to bear witness to, as an event like that would certainly be the highlight of the games experience.
I would like to somewhat replicate this feeling of tension and uneasiness in Hidden Agendas, but perhaps with a more lighthearted tone. The idea of a “secret objective” is a inherently social aspect of games such as mine and Diplomacy, and the forced “second-guessing” of other players’ intentions, moves, or apparent strategy makes a more compelling and engaging social dynamic. I suppose my goal is to ensure that no move a player makes in Hidden Agendas carries an immediate and obvious intention.
That being said, I am not envious of the sometimes horrifically slow pace of Diplomacy. Although I am mentally trying to imagine each move being connected diachronically, I can still see that just one game of in-person Diplomacy could take hours. While the slow and methodological playstyle fits theme of waging war across Europe, I would like to aim for a far shorter and replayable timeframe for Hidden Agendas. I think ideally a full game should never take more than an hour, encouraging multiple rounds to be played at once, new strategies to be quickly changed and iterated on, and new secret objectives to be experienced.
Playing Diplomacy has been very valuable; the social nature of the game is not forced through the rules, but is accepted by every player as a key component of the optimal strategy. I would like to implement this style of social game into my own, although I am not sure of exactly how I will achieve this yet. I think there is great value in having a game create such social moments without expressly forcing or requiring them to happen; they feel far more organic and genuine than games that are designed to be “icebreakers” or other such social bonding games. I think the strength in allowing players to choose how they interact with each other themselves fosters a better game experience.
