Zen and the Art of "Throwing"

The act of “throwing” has sparked significant debate in the world of Imperial Diplomacy, both in the abstract on the main server and in various game servers as a response to some players’ actions. My goal in this article is to define the term, provide a summary of the issue, and give my own opinion on the topic.

Definition

I believe that throwing can generally be defined as “a player deliberately aiding another player’s chances of victory at the expense of their own position and center count.” This action is not explicitly prohibited by the ImpDip Player Guide. There is incredible nuance in application of this definition based on the game’s year, board situation, and player interactions.

Arguments For/Against

The main argument I see from those opposed to the action is that a feeling that it compromises the competitive spirit of the game; to have someone actively working against their own win condition feels unfair to players striving to achieve victory that aren’t benefiting from the throw. Frustration arises when you are having a great game that is limited or cut short by one player giving another player their centers on the other side of the map where you have limited agency.

Interestingly, player agency is also the main concern for those that express support for throws. Players that feel they are not able to realistically join an Impunity often come up with alternative goals for themselves to accomplish in the game. This gives them a sense of investment in the game, encouraging them to finish and not sub out of a losing position. These goals can be meme moves, keeping their capital at the end, and relevant to our discussion – aiding an ally or harming an enemy by strategically giving away their own centers. Throws and threatened throws can also be a key component of a player’s diplomatic strategy in navigating the social component of ImpDip.

Opinion

Moving from summary to opinion, throwing is more endemic in the ImpDip variation than the base game due to the increased size of the board and number of players. Banning or penalizing throwing players would be difficult to enforce and might generate more controversy than the current status quo. While I attempted to define throwing, more realistically they are determined by “you know it when you see it,” but everyone sees things differently. I believe throws in some form or fashion and accusations of throwing will always be present in Diplomacy.

Personally, I find throws to be an intriguing dynamic of the game. In my experience the possibility of throws makes the endgame more interactive for all powers on the board and can lead to some novel alliances. Board leaders that are methodically advancing to victory in the final years have to deal with more challenges which encourages more diplomacy and deals.

A rankings system that rewards players based on their VSCC progress helps mitigate throwing to some extent. For competitive players this provides an incentive to control as many centers as they can at the end of the game. But this does not eliminate throwing; some players will not care about rankings or determine that other motivations outweigh a ranking loss for a particular circumstance. A player may also decide that throwing a few centers to accelerate the game’s conclusion would result in them having a higher VSCC% than if the game continued for several more years.

In my opinion, the best defense against the abundance of throws seen in ImpDip is relying on strong in-game communication between powers and general community discouragement of the most egregious throwing. Something I’ve learned through two games of ImpDip is the importance of establishing at least some relations with more remote powers on the board, otherwise you can be at a severe disadvantage in the late game “global diplomacy” discussions. Sharing memes or exchanging intrigue with powers you do not directly interact with on the board can make a big difference when that person is in a position to throw; they can be more likely to hesitate or reconsider if their throw has a negative impact on someone they’ve established rapport with. Talk with people!

Conclusion

As far as general community discouragement – I think we all know ImpDip can be a game of tough choices and we should be respectful of that. A colonial power disbanding an entire area in front of a board leader may make you want to scream “Throw!” but that may be the best option for that power to maximize VSCC and keep control of their capital. Another example is a power choosing to fight on one front while leaving another area underdefended, “letting” another power take those centers more easily. Recognizing that tough choices have to be made in the game that may not always be beneficial to your position can help the community identify and discourage the truly frustrating throws where a power is simply feeding their centers to another power.

In conclusion, this is a tricky topic to discuss with a range of opinions present in the community. We all want this game to grow and for people to enjoy playing ImpDip, as well as foster a respectful and inclusive group of players. By considering players’ perspectives, analyzing in-game incentives, and fostering a culture of respectful competition, we can enhance the ImpDip experience for everyone.