Diplomacy - EP Chapter 2 - Issue 297 From: nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca (Nick Fitzpatrick) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1992 13:29:01 +0000 Issue #297 of Chapter Two of the Electronic Protocol By Nicholas Fitzpatrick (nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca) October 20, 1992 (1992 10 20) Distributed via: rec.games.pbm rec.games.board bit.listserv.dipl-l diplomac-l ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Electronic Protocol Games played on the Diplomacy Adjudicator ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have exceeded the 50k limit for this issue. If this (silly) limit is still causing anyone problems, please tell me. **** TABLE OF CONTENTS **** PART ONE - Opinions, Letters, and Editorials: Letter from Danny Loeb Hall92 - Hall of Fame game Youngstown duplex games Game ounce controversy (continued from EP chapter 2 issue 295) Game dppd comments (Danny Loeb) Danny Loeb on "The value of a kill" rec.game.diplomacy vote PART TWO - Summary of all moderated games on the Judge: List of game openings List of EP games on the judges For more info about the Washington judge For more info about the Electronic Protocol For archives List of diplomacy adjudicators List of gamemasters PART THREE - Report from the Battle Front Meter EOG report Fontenoy 1919 statistics ***** PART ONE ***** Abbreviations used in this issue: DL = Danny Loeb EK = Erik Klien JF = Joel Finkle KL = Ken Lowe (jdr) NF = Nick Fitzpatrick MN = Mark Nelson *** LETTER FROM DANNY LOEB *** The following letter, while somewhat related to the ounce controversy, is perhaps more appropriate to be singled out for separate reading. It is in reference to the last issue. Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 11:41:52 +0100 From: loeb@organon.greco-prog.fr (Daniel LOEB) >*** LETTER FROM MARK NELSON *** >NF To me insisting on DIAS is like insisting that in the game of chess, that >a game must be played to completion. I am not sure I have ever seen a listing >of a high-calibre chess game that was not ended when someone resigned. There is a big difference. In Chess, if the game ends in a checkmate. That means that the losing player either didn't see a checkmate 2 plies away, or thought there was a chance his opponent wouldn't see the checkmate 1 ply away. This never happens against ever reasonably aware chess players. On the other hand, against a winning 2-player alliance in diplomacy, there is suspense until the very last move, since it is the last move which is the most ripe for a backstab of the whole game. In other words, the game theoretic value of Diplomacy is rarely determined significantly before the actual end of the game as it is in chess and other 2-player games. >MN GMs who refuse to recognize draws agreed by the players are guilty of >misconduct and (a) shouldn't be GMing and (b) certainly shouldn't GM >games in the future. My question is this: since Ken feels that he has the >right to decide the result of the game without consulting the players, >what is the point of having players in his games? Mark should not malign Ken in this way. The simple fact is that Ken Lowe is probably the most popular GM in the history of Diplomacy. No one else runs so many games so efficiently. He imposed the draw in OUNCE not for himself, but in order to encourage people to be more competitive. I'm in favor of that. If you are not, then you need not play in his games. (Of course in an earlier message you say, you would be happy to play in my games if I was likely to impose a victory on you when you were willing to settle for a draw....) >MN Finally, there is the DIPLOMACY AZ which is available on all good judges. >This doesn't give you advice on how to play diplomacy but contains a wealth >of fascinating tidbits about the game of diplomacy. Recommended! I agree. It is a great source of info! Thanks Mark! Yours, Daniel Loeb Editor's Note ------------- I agree with Danny, while we might disagree with Ken's specific decision in the game ounce, it is quite clearly a decision that follows Ken's long term philosophy. I believe there was at least one piece by Ken Lowe on the same subject, in this very magazine BEFORE the ounce controversy. Ken has probably done more for Diplomacy on the Internet, certainly for automated Diplomacy on the Internet, than anyone. The time commitment to keep the judge running is very high, and just from the number of question I get, I don't envy Ken the job. *** HALL92 - HALL OF FAME GAME *** The game hall92 is underway on the judge. 42 observers have signed on, and we have discovered a new limit in the judge, a limit of 50 players, masters and observers per game. No more observers can join, unless someone wants to try and convince Ken Lowe into increasing the limit. However the judge has been quite sluggish this week, especially around 4-5 PM EDT. I wonder how much hall92 is responsible for this. Meanwhile, the observers have set up a sub-game. They are selling "stock" based on the hall92 players. For more information contact Dan Shoham (shoham@ll.mit.edu). DO NOT DISCUSS STOCK TRADING OVER THE hall92 PRESS CHANNEL. (I have repeatedly threatened the observers with banning observer press). As all observer press is available to the players, if the use the HISTORY command, I have decided to publish this here, where the players might see it. For the Spring 1901 results, commentary has been provided by Danny Loeb and Joel Finkle. Diplomacy results hall92 S1901M Commentary by Danny Loeb The first annual championship game HALL92 has just started. The Spring 1901 moves were preceded with a very lively discussion of whether observers could play a stock market game based on the results of the diplomacy game. In the end, the stock market game was allowed to continue but on a private mailing list where it hopefully will not effect the regular game which the players had signed up for. (Perhaps someone would like to organize a real stock market variant?) In any case, Spring 1901 moves are out. Here they are with comments taken from the OPENING MOVE bank which I maintain along with comments by Observer jjfink@skcla.monsanto.com, the DIPLOMACY A-Z by Mark Nelson, and the Player's Guide to Diplomacy. >From the openings, it looks like everybody's reading the books. >Nothing imaginative or innovative here. Indeed, all the openings were among the 2 most popular available for that country. No one wanted to go out on a limb in a big game like this one! >My guess is: Eng/France/Italy (maybe), Russia/Turkey are the only >solid alliances being set up right now. Here are the victory probabilities calculated solely on the basis of the completed games using that opening: A:15.7% E:23.9% F:19% G:14.1% I:9.1% R:34.8% T:21.3% Better put your money on Russia, huh? *** AUSTRIA *** Austria: Army Budapest -> Serbia. Austria: Army Vienna -> Galicia. (*bounce*) Austria: Fleet Trieste -> Albania. TOTAL: 33 Win:2(Emerald,Ajax), Draw2:1(Inch), Draw3:1(Horse), Rank 3rd Loss:14, Ongoing:13, Abandoned:1, Unknown:1 (1a from player's guide, Balkan Gambit, Gal Variation) >Balkan gambit, Galician variation, rather common. And it worked. BALKAN GAMBIT (1.0) <MB:Jun80> The family of openings F(Tri)-Alb, A(Bud)-Ser. This is a true gambit, since the player is giving up much of his ability to defend his home centres against Italy (and, to a lesser extent, giving up some Austrian influence in Rum) in exchange for the virtual assurance of gaining both Gre and Ser. (2.0) <RE:89-90> A name given, like most, by Richard Sharp, to a particular group of Austrian opening moves in Spring 1901, all of which share in common the order A(Bud)-Ser (and usually F(Tri)-Alb). The name explains it all: a `Gambit' is a move that risks loss in one area for a hopefully better chance of gain elsewhere, in this case the Balkans. It is a commitment by Austria to taking up two centres in the south (Serbia and Greece) and is thus generally regarded as anti-Turkish. There are several variations, mostly involving A(Vie), of which the Trieste, Budapest and Galicia versions traditionally account for a significant proportion of Austrian opening moves - indeed, Balkan Gambits are widely regarded as the only `sensible' alternative to the 'Southern Hedgehog' (qv). Notice should also be taken of the so called "Houseboat" variation of the Balkan Gambit, in which F(Tri) Holds instead of moving to Albania. (3) <MN:Jan92> The Balkan Gambit is most commonly defined as *any* Austrian opening which includes the moves A(Bud)-Ser & F(Tri)-Alb. In the 1960's it was common to see the Budapest variation (A(Vie)-Bud), an attempt to take three centres. In the early 1970's Italy often opened A(Ven)-Tri and accordingly the Budapest variation lost favour with the Trieste variation gaining in popularity (A(Vie)-Tri). The Balkan Gambit is a risky opening: if both Italy and Russia attack Austria in Spring 1901 it is unlikely that Austria will live to tell the tale. A commonly seen variation is the Galician (A(Vie)-Gal) which offers Austria some defense against most hostile openings. In the 1980's Italy has moved towards opening A(Ven)-Tyr, A(Rom)-Ven. Accordingly some Austrian players have used the rarely-seen Tyrolian variant A(Vie)-Tyr which, if Russia is friendly, gives Austria a strong position provided Italy has opened to Tyr and not Tri... Postal play has, on occasion, seen the Bohemian variant but this has nothing to commend it to Austrian players; even if England/France/Italy & Russia have all agreed to attack Germany... Finally in the early 1970's the A(Vie)H option attracted support from Don Turnbull, I presume as a result of FTF experience as this opening has not (to my knowledge) been played in a British postal game. BALKAN GAMBIT, GALICIAN VARIATION (1.0) <MB:Jun80> The Balkan Gambit with A(Vie)-Gal. When it succeeds, you have two units on Rum, plus the threat to War which may well distract A(Ukr) away from Rum ---but risks Tri. If it fails, you have shielded two home centres from attack, and are in a decent position to limit further mischief from any Italian A(Tri). AUSTRIAN OPENING 1a: "This is virtually _the_ opening for Austria. It is followed by F Alb-Gre, A Ser S F Alb-Gre gaining two centers. Austria should make no other opening without sound and sufficient reason. Here the burden of defense is left mostly to A Vie. What the Austrian player does with that unit depends on whom he distrusts most....." "1a: Here the object of distrust is Russia. The moves defends against (A War-Gal) which would threaten Vienna and Budapest. If (A Vie-Gal) succeeds, it may still defend Vienna or Budapest (if Italy slips into Trieste). More importantly, it offer the anti-Russian option of (A Gal-Rum, A Ser S A Gal-Rum). If Turkey is friendly (F Alb-Gre) may still succeed. Austria thus has the possibility of 3 builds! The Fall 1901 moves (A Gal-Ukr) is also possible. It's devastating for 1902." *** ENGLAND *** England: Army Liverpool -> Yorkshire. England: Fleet Edinburgh -> Norwegian Sea. England: Fleet London -> North Sea. (Opening 1: Variant, Northern Yorkshire Variant) TOTAL: 35 Win:2(Xray,Mystery), Draw2:2(Quartz,Snorri), Draw3:1(Tuba), Rank 2nd Draw4:1(Topple), Loss:9, Ongoing:14, Abandoned:3, Unknown:3 >Northern Yorkshire variant. Still common. No surprises, but shows >probable cooperation with France. YORKSHIRE OPENING (1) <RE:89-90> There are two common English opening fleet combinations: the Northern Opening (F(Lon)-NTH, F(Edi)-NWG) and the Southern Opening (F(Lon)-ENC, F(Edi)-NTH). Each has a "Yorkshire variation" in which A(Lpl) is ordered to (surprise, surprise) Yorkshire, though in his book, "The Game of Diplomacy", Richard Sharp uses the phrase exclusively in reference to the move when used in conjunction with the Northern Opening. As such, it is the only move to guarantee England a build in 1901, since A(Yor) can guard London against a sneaky French assault through the Channel, and one fleet can support the other into Norway if Russia opens with A(Mos)-Stp. The opening vies in popularity with the "Churchill Opening", another version of the Northern Opening in which A(Lpl) is ordered to Edinburgh, from whence it can be convoyed onto the continent by either of the two fleets (most likely A(Edi)-Nwy or A(Edi)-Bel). (2) <MN:Mar92> The only way to absolutely *guarantee* England a build in Winter 1901 it to open A(Lpl)-Yor/Wal, F(Lon)-NTH & F(Edi)-NWG and the order F(NWG) SF(NTH)-Nwy. Note that it *may* be important which way you support into Nwy. If Russia orders A(Mos)-Stp in S01 and A(Stp)-Nwy in F01 then you need to support the fleet in NTH into Nwy in case Germany orders F(Den/HEL/Hol)-NTH cutting your support. ENGLISH OPENING 1: "This is England's best opening, sometimes called the "Churchill Opening" (after Sir Winston's plan to invade Norway in World War II). The army is sometimes stationed in Yorkshire (instead of moving to Edinburgh) partly to guard London in the case of French perfidy. If so, its offensive role is then much more limited. From Edinburgh, it can be convoyed by either fleet. It thus has the choice of going to Norway or to the Continent. It can also be convoyed to Norway by one fleet and support by the other. This openign is viewed as primarily anti-Russian. It can also be anti-German. One powerful Fall move is (A Edi-Nwy, F Nth C F Edi-Nwy, F Nwg-Bar) threatening Russia even more directly." *** FRANCE **** France: Army Marseilles SUPPORT Army Paris -> Burgundy. France: Army Paris -> Burgundy. France: Fleet Brest -> Mid-Atlantic Ocean. (Player's Guide Opening 2, Maginot Opening) TOTAL: 35 Win:2(Juteland,Hector), Draw2:1(Xenon), Draw6:1(Normandy), Rank 2nd Loss:10, Ongoing:16, Abandoned:2, Unknown:3 >Maginot. Looks overly conservative, since Germany DIDN'T attack, but >still makes Germany nervous. Peaceful with England, hostile to >Germany. Hmm... With England, they can stand Germany off in Belgium, >but is it worth it? MAGINOT OPENING (1) <MB:Jun80> F(Bre)-MID, A(Mar) SA(Par)-Bur is the most popular French opening. This assures that France can have a say in all three of her bordering neutrals, and, if there is A(Pie), Mar can be guarded without risk to Spa. The mere threat to Mun usually pins down the German army, making Bel and Ruhr more accessible in F01. See English Maginot. (2) <RE:89-90> A strong French opening featuring the Spring 1901 orders: F(Bre)-MAO, A(Mar) SA(Par)-Bur. It assumes an understanding with England over the English Channel, and though it must be regarded as anti-German, the opening still allows France the opportunity to take three neutral centres in Autumn (with A(Bur)-Bel, A(Mar)-Spa and F(MAO)-Por). Naming it after the Maginot Line has emphasized its defensive qualities, but there can be no doubt that the opening poses a direct threat to Munich, and may signal a frontal assault on Germany by an Anglo-French alliance. This is both a strength and a failing, as it exposes France to a stab from England and is likely to cause maximum offense to a neighbor who is not usual an initial threat to France. However, it does assure the French player of a say in Belgium's future (a useful bargaining chip even if France cannot take the centre himself) without leaving Burgundy unguarded - and still allows him to take both the Iberian centres in 1901. FRENCH OPENING 2): "This is a more powerful defense against Germany [than (1a) F Bre-Mid, A Mar-Spa, A Par-Bur"] because A Par-Bur always goes. France can thus be assured of Spain and Portugal no matter what Italy does. However, her fleet is relegated to a weaker position in Portugal. Munich and Belgium are also threatened." *** GERMANY **** Germany: Army Berlin -> Kiel. Germany: Army Munich -> Ruhr. Germany: Fleet Kiel -> Holland. (Player's guide Opening 1a, Blitzkreig Opening, Hol Variation) TOTAL: 45 Win:2(100andup,Orange), Draw2:1(Quartz), Draw3:1(Jade), Rank 1st Loss:16, Ongoing:21, Abandoned:1, Unknown:3 >Blitzkrieg/Holland. Looks like Germany is in for a long battle. BLITZKRIEG OPENING, HOLLAND VARIATION (1.0) <MB:Jun80> F(Kie)-Hol, A(Ber)-Kie, A(Mun)-Ruh. The second most popular German opening. Compared to the Den form, this trades German influence in Scandinavia for a stronger hand in Belgium, plus a slightly stronger defensive position. GERMAN Opening 1a: "This is the basic opening where England is an ally, Russia is neutral, and France is the objective. Even so, nothing has yet been done to antagonize France directly. A Ruh can go to Bel with F Hol's support or defend Munich if the French move to Burgundy. In the latter event, F Hol-Bel still denies the center to France. F Hol could also support an English unit into Belgium." *** ITALY *** Italy: Army Rome -> Apulia. Italy: Army Venice -> Tyrolia. Italy: Fleet Naples -> Ionian Sea. (Player's Guide Opening 1, Lepanto) TOTAL: 21 Win:1(Dday), Loss:10, Ongoing:10 Rank: 2nd >Classic Lepanto. Is Italy cooperating in the destruction of Germany? >Otherwise that army looks kinda foolish sitting in Austria with no >backup. LEPANTO (1) <MB:Jun80> An Italian anti-Turkey opening: A(Rom)-Apu-Tun, via F(ION). S02: F(ION)-EMS, F(Nap)-ION. In F02, the army is convoyed to either Smy or Syr. Alliance with Austria is essential, with a standoff in BLA in S01 very desirable. Popularized by Edi Birsan, it is probably the best known "named" opening. (2) <MN:Apr92> I would say that Edi invented this opening as well as popularizing it. (See Key Lepanto, qv) ITALIAN Opening 1: "This is the so-called Lepanto opening, designed to carry Italian power into the east rapidly. This was the first opening ever to be discussed in depth in an article. Edi Birsan's work on the subject is still considered a model effort. In subsequent seasons, Italy orders: Fall 1901: A Apu-Tun, F Ion C A Apu-Tun, build F Nap Spring 1902: F Ion-Eas, F Nap-Ion, A Tun H Fall 1902: A Tun-Syr, F Ion & F Eas C A Tun-Syr This is an attack on Turkey is alliance with Austria. It is often enormously effective. Turkey can block it by building F Smy and ordering F Smy-Eas. However, Italy can order F Ion-Aeg instead, threatening a convoy into Bul, Con, or Smy. The order A Ven-Trl is not favored in many quarters (the alternatives are A Ven H or A Ven-Pie). Of the alternatives, the first is too passive and indicates distrust of Austria; it does, however, have the advantage that A Ven H, A Apu S A Ven, F Ion-Tun in Fall 1901 saves Ven if Austria puts two units on it and still allows Italy to build. The second alternative needlessly antagonizes France. It can be used, however, if there is an Anglo-French alliance for sure and Italy wants to help Germany. A Ven-Trl is positive and powerful. It allows A Trl-Mun if there is an Anglo-German alliance threatening France. This will bolster the French defense and help keep the West stalemated. A Ven-Trl may also stand off a German sneak attack from Munich. It also gives the possibility of A Trl-Boh (and thence to Gal), adding to Austria's defensive line if this is necessary. On no account should Italy stab Austria. The short-term gains may be all right, but the long-term price is not something Italy would wish to pay." AUSTRIAN ATTACK (1.0) <MB:Jun80> Russia's second most popular opening: A(Mos)-Ukr, A(War)-Gal, F(Sev)-Rum, generally means that Russia is confident he has a Turkish ally against Austria. A drawback is that the fleet in Rum is poorly placed. *** RUSSIA *** Russia: Army Moscow -> Ukraine. Russia: Army Warsaw -> Galicia. (*bounce*) Russia: Fleet Sevastopol -> Rumania. Russia: Fleet St Petersburg (south coast) -> Gulf of Bothnia. Player's Guide Opening 1, Austrian Attack TOTAL: 30 Win:3(Swift,Somme,Manhattan), Draw2:1(Osijek), Rank: 1st Draw3:1(Tiberius), Loss:6, Ongoing:17, Unknown:2 >Good old Austrian Attack. Another yawn. RUSSIAN OPENING: "(F StP(sc)-Bot) is the only reasonable opening for that unit. The alternatives, to Finland or Livonia accomplish nothing. Put the fleet in its proper place: on water." Opening 1: "Russia must usually choose between a northern or southern strategy. This means putting her eggs in the appropriate basket. Here she is allied with Turkey against Austria. If there is a stand-off in Galicia or Rumania, there will be support for the same order in the Fall." *** TURKEY **** Turkey: Army Constantinople -> Bulgaria. Turkey: Army Smyrna HOLD. Turkey: Fleet Ankara -> Constantinople. (Player's Guide - Opening 2 Variant) TOTAL: 40 Win:5(Furlong,Dragons,Koursk,Acre,Conan), Draw3:1(Mod), Rank: 2nd Draw5:1(Portnoy), Loss:19, Ongoing:11, Abandoned:1, Unknown:2 >Opening 2 variant. Looks like a steamroller setting up. TURKISH Opening 2: "The intent here is, in the Fall, F Con-Aeg, A Smy-Con (or H) for a western push. If Russia treacherously ordered F Sev-Bla, Turkey can still defend. F Con-Ank, A Smy-Ank will hold all her home supply centers and leave Ankara open for the build of a fleet." Danny also writes: Since JUDGE has a limit of 50, why don't you start publishing the HALL92 results in Electronic Protocol? (ED: I think I just did! :-) In that case, only active gamblers, the players, yourself, and genuine alternates would remain logged in. (ED: I have decided to maintain first come first serve. Anyone else can use the HISTORY command) By the way, I assume that only the highest ranked players will be considered as possible alternates. (ED Yes) I suggest that a list of commentators be formed among the observers, and we take turns commenting on the results in EPC2. (However, put me at the end of the list; I've already had my turn!) One other suggestion regarding HALL93. (1) Hall93 shouldn't start until after Hall92 is finished. (Otherwise the best players will be overburdened by 2 simultaneous tournaments.) (2) A solo HallNN winner should automatically qualify for future HallNN games regardless of his actual ranking. Joint HallNN winners should be given preference in case of ties in their rankings. (ED: If there is a solo winner, I will support this, though with 6.0 points for a win, I expect he would qualify anyways!) (3) Eric Klien's game WIN92 has been over a year in the making. I suggest that it not be run, since the HALL93 game better fill its function. The game started neatly and efficiently with the best players around. Moreover, it has attracted an enormous interest from the Diplomacy community. (ED: This is up to Eric) Actually, 3 suggestions, but who is counting! *** YOUNGSTOWN DUPLEX GAMES *** In issue 293 I talked about the first duplex Youngstown game. This is essentially a 5-player variant of Youngstown, where each player plays two powers. An extensive End of Game report on the first duplex game (duplex)! appeared recently in DIPL-L. I am not going to repeat it here, but if anyone wants a copy, please ask me. I asked if anyone knew of anything similar. Mark Nelson wrote: From: amt5man@sun.leeds.ac.uk Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 11:53:51 BST There is a diplomacy variant called WOOLWORTH which is set on a slightly modified regular board. There are ten powers, each player has two: one public (which everyone knows) and one secret (which no-oneknows). Victory criteria is a majority of the sc's in the game between your two powers in any combination. (In this game a majority is 24 scs: so 24-0, 12-12-, 6-18 are all OK splits) The idea behind Woolworth has been used in several other games. Technically speaking your youngstown games should be called: Youngstown (Loeb/Judge version) (Woolworth Option)! Mark PS At last! We now have ftp and telnet across the internet! I've done no work today, I've been to busy exploring the universe! Editor's Note ------------- I haven't heard much from Mark since he wrote that, he must be off exploring the Internet. Send us a postcard Mark! *** GAME OUNCE CONTROVERSY (CONTINUED FROM EP CHAPTER 2 ISSUE 295) *** More on the ounce controversy. Here are some more letters. First off, we have the first public comment from a player! Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 01:21:59 -0400 From: Allan Flanagan <allan@gfx.engga.uwo.ca> Ounce's France here... I noticed the letter in 295 but I wasn't aware of any massive discussions on the topic. I kind of agree with Ken's ruling. Russia had really won about 2 or 3 turns before we ended it. Russia had obvious centers it could take and was clearly the winner. The game was not designed to have multiple winners, a stalemate only happens rarely and I think it is unfair to have this artificially created. Letting ties of this nature happen would promote groups of people going from game to game killing everyone off. Were's the diplomacy in a game were two or more of the players have such agreements to kill of everyone else? Eric Klien writes on some of the material that was in the last issue: From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 20:08:58 PDT JD "If I were in a game, and was one of two survivors, and I and the other survivor wanted to agree to a draw, but our GM vetoed, the official EP line would be that the GM could not veto that draw." Correct. NF "Technically either Eric of I could overrule him, however, according to our rules, someone would have to appeal to us, as no-one has done so . . . ." Just write to the two players involved, I'm sure one would like to officially appeal to us. I know I have received letters from at least one of them. NF "If we should allow these 17-17 draws, where one power is obviously able to win or not, is another question." The Diplomacy rules definitely allow DIAS draws even when one power is able to win the game. They don't allow non DIAS draws, but I think this is a mistake on Avalon Hill's part. The old rules used to allow non DIAS draws. The reason that I like non DIAS draws is that they help speed up games. For instance, if a country has 16 supply centers and is near a win, I think others should be allowed to surrender to it before it reaches 18 supply centers. Eric Klien Eric Klien writes on Danny Loeb's comments: From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 22:17:20 PDT DL "There is a rule against CRAZY (goofy) play. This rule is in general very lightly enforced and has never in my knowledge been applied to DRAW voting." I only included this houserule for extremely strange play. Like suiciding out starting in Spring '01. (This happened in the second game played in ELECTRONIC PROTOCOL.) DL "For some people, voting for any non-DIAS draw is CRAZY. If such an interpretation of the CRAZY rule is intended then this should have been specified before the game started." Right. DL "Nevertheless, the point is mute since as far as I know, the loser has not appealed the decision." They would be willing to appeal if we gave them this option. DL "However, what would be the effects of an NNSD rule. If the players REALLY want a draw, and are thwarted by NNSD, then they could slowly move their units to a real stalemate situation and claim a draw." Exactly. DL "Another alternative would be for all players to leave standing orders (all hold) with the GM. The GM could then play the game by himself for the rest of eternity." Not really. My houserules allow the GM to not accept standing orders if the GM believes this means that the players have lost interest in the game. DL "Nevertheless, an NNSD rule if announced beforehand, would serve as a psychological hurdle that would prevent players from believing so much in these unstable 2-way draws." If announced beforehand, that would be O.K. Especially if the majority of players in the game had voted for such a rule. DL "On the other hand, NNSD rules suddenly imposed after the game is over do not serve much of a useful function." Exactly. DL "Other than observers, ex-players are the most easily motivated reserved player pool." True, I am just worried about strange crossgame alliances where the person plays his current country in a certain way knowing that he will soon have control over another country. DL "This should be allowed, certainly if no one objects." I agree if no one objects this could be allowed. DL "Instead, I suggest that we have a democratically elected RULES COMMITTEE that would deliberate on such questions and publicize their decisions." I would be willing to have open debates about any rules changes. They happen so rarely now that it would be going overboard to develop a committee to handle them. DL "Eric should read DIPL-L and EPC2 and remove any duplicate material in EPC1 or at least replace it with the briefest of summaries and information on how to find out more." I'll try not to post any more chapter one's to DIPL-L that contain duplicate information. I'll just post such chapters to rec.games.pbm and my private mailing list. Eric Klien Danny Loeb writes about Mark Nelson's (issue 295) and Erik Klien's (above) comments: Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 11:25:09 +0100 From: loeb@organon.greco-prog.fr (Daniel LOEB) MN There are two reasons why re-entering games is frowned upon by ethical GMs. Suppose I am playing Germany and you enter the game as France. I diplome with you and tell you what my strategy is. Sometime later you come back into the game as Italy. You know what my strategy is because I have already told you. Are you going to use this knowledge which Italy (as a power) has no reason to know? Of course you are! The same could happen if you had told your strategy to a non-player confidant. However, I will admit that a player shouldn't jump back into the game. He should have a cooling off period during which he should overcome any old grudges he carries, and any secrets he carries will have passed their useful lifetime. (Note however it is legal for a player to divulge all his secrets after being eliminated, perhaps as the penalty for having eliminated him.) Moreover, the surviving players should all have veto over any new entry into the game. Thus, in your example, Germany could veto the reentry of France into the game. (Similarly for your 2nd question.) MN All games that have players re-entering them are irregular and (IMHO) unsuitable for serious ratings. (Begs the question, how serious do you take ratings?) I don't take the game too seriously. But isn't more fun to play when there is a lot of suspense. And there is the most suspense when everyone is trying to attain the same goal. By fixing high ratings as a common objective, I think we increase the interest of the game. MN The GM is under an obligation to apply the house-rules. House-rules ensure that players know in advance under what conditions the game will be played. Why should players attract stigma as dropouts because of unethical GMing? Ken Lowe WAS applying the house-rules as he interpreted them. I was simply asserting that players have SEVERAL alternatives when they differ with the GM over his rulings. Moreover, there is no stigma from dropping out, when it is done with adequate warning and an appropriate replacement is found and briefed. MN It's good diplomacy by the player who would come 2nd to convince the other player to settle for the draw. I agree. It is always good diplomacy to induce your opponent to make errors. MN This is drivel and utter nonsense. The players might be allied in two games, the circumstance might be right. Players who *enter* a game with the intention of *allying* should be suspended, but you would have to prove that they had entered the game with that purpose. I am not complaining about players who HAPPEN to be allied in 2 games. I am complaining about a play (here, settling for a 2-way draw when a win is evident) which can ONLY be justified in reference to the other game. Each player was the right to regard each game as a separate unit. Otherwise, I'd be obliged to follow the play, and press in every game in which my opponents were playing. Do you really want to play like that? MN Is it CROSS-GAMING to say that "I know that abc is a reliable ally" or that "def never writes letters" or "ghj is good tactically"? No, I don't call that cross-gaming. MN Do you know what an ARMOURED DUCK is? I believe this is someone who retaliates for a stab in all the games he is in. I find this idea repugnant and illegal. MN Consider this case. Suppose these players are allied in 3 games. By showing that he can be trusted by accepting a 2=draw in game A Player P gains the trust of Player Q in the other two games. He then stabs Q in these games and wins them both. Net result is 2 wins and one draw. Is this good play or poor play? What happens if 3 more games come up after that. Will you decide not to stab in the 2. If this keeps on going on, no one will ever stab. This then become a MAFIA which enters game after game and in machine like fashion wins without any diplomacy. Not much fun is it? Actually, the dangers of cross-gaming being what it is. I would be in favor of the creation of a NO CROSSGAMING flag in diplomacy game. This would prohibit any 2 players signing up from being or becoming players in any other game on this judge. It would also perhaps prohibit any pairs of players who have been in a draw together, or who are from the same site. At first glance, one might wonder if there is anyone left after eliminating so many potential players. However, I think there would be... especially for standard diplomacy games. Ken, would this be possible? Easy? EK Just write to the two players involved, I'm sure one would like to officially appeal to us. I know I have received letters from at least one of them. Which one? Please keep me informed of any new developments. EK The Diplomacy rules definitely allow DIAS draws even when one power is able to win the game. They don't allow non DIAS draws, but I think this is a mistake on Avalon Hill's part. The old rules used to allow non DIAS draws. The reason that I like non DIAS draws is that they help speed up games. For instance, if a country has 16 supply centers and is near a win, I think others should be allowed to surrender to it before it reaches 18 supply centers. I am against non-DIAS draws. But I would nevertheless allow players to concede to a solo victory after the winner explained to the losers a strategy by which he couldn't be defeated. There is no sense in making the players go through the motions. (This happened in a game JULIAN WEST won... I forget which....) EK I only included this houserule for extremely strange play. Like suiciding out starting in Spring '01. (This happened in the second game played in ELECTRONIC PROTOCOL.) If you want this rule only be applied in Spring 1901, you should have said so explicitly. This is not the first time with which you objected to the employ of this rule (cf: Iron Cross). I don't you are very comfortable with your "discretionary" rule in the hands of other people. DL: "Nevertheless, the point is mute since as far as I know, the loser has not appealed the decision." EK They would be willing to appeal if we gave them this option. Why haven't they been given this option? In fact, who are these players? Are they in other game together.... EK If announced beforehand, that would be O.K. Especially if the majority of players in the game had voted for such a rule. Rule changes are never adopted by majority rule. They are advertised as conditions under which a proposed game will be played. The dangers of allowing a majority of players to make arbitrary rule changes should be obvious. EK True, I am just worried about strange crossgame alliances where the person plays his current country in a certain way knowing that he will soon have control over another country. DL "This should be allowed, certainly if no one objects." EK I agree if no one objects this could be allowed. The player would have to be psychic to know that another player would CD shortly after he himself was eliminated. Has this been a problem in the past? If so, then a mandatory cooling off period, and vetos should solve the problem. EK I would be willing to have open debates about any rules changes. They happen so rarely now that it would be going overboard to develop a committee to handle them. The reason there have been no debates in the past is that the changes were never well announced, and not at all announced before they went into effect by which time the point was mute. I agree that the committee need rarely act, but by merely existing it acts as a safety valve, and promotes discussion. Yours, Daniel Loeb loeb@geocub.greco-prog.fr *** GAME DPPD COMMENTS (DANNY LOEB) *** NF As an aside, I was compiling the new Hall of Fame the other day, and I noticed an interesting statistic, dppd is the only non-press Standard gunboat to finish in a draw! So I guess Turkey and I can both pat ourselves on the back for being the first to pull of this feat. (Though a draw was pulled off in the non-press Youngstown game speed, but it is a lot easier to get a draw in a Youngstown game . . . ) I was a bit taken by surprise when the draw was first proposed, since nothing in the house rules covers such a situation. Obviously, care must be taken to not allow draw proposition to become a channel of communication with which to replace the otherwise prohibited press. I decided to announce myself any DIAS draws the players might propose. Votes were sent directly to me. I didn't give vote count, but simply informed the players when the decision became unanimous. I worried about what I should do if the players didn't agree on a draw for the game was heading to a stalemate. True a stalemate line is hard to hold when players can not communicate. Nevertheless, the line in question didn't involve much coordination. If it had come to this, I decided that I would observe the game for a full game year after the stalemate had really come into force. If the defending forces repeatedly submitted the moves allowing them to holding the line against all comers then I would have called the draw. How have other people handled this sort of situation? Editor's Note ------------- For the record, there has been another draw, in the game boadicea. The result will be correct in the next Hall of Fame, however it was a 2-way draw, and Jamie (the GM) said that he believed that two minor powers voted for the draw because they were bored with the game. DPPD was a 3-way draw, in a complete deadlock. As one of the players in the game, my strategy, once England stabbed me, was to move my units to stop an English win at all costs, and I ignored the Turkish units coming into my territory, hoping he would realise what I was trying to do, and help. I was lucky, he did! (I was playing France). *** DANNY LOEB ON "THE VALUE OF A KILL" *** Danny Loeb writes in response to Joel Finkle's article of issue 295. Re: *** THE VALUE OF A KILL *** I agree that the kill is of enormous potential. In fact, Joel omitted one of the best side effects of the kill. By eliminating your enemies must dangerous unit, you may turn him into a friend. For example, after Turkey takes Sevastopol (or England takes St Pete) with a fleet. Russia should be convinced that he can not retake the center in the near future, but on the other hand, he is no danger of further attacks. In fact, he is left with 3 well-defendable supply centers. He could therefore make peace with his attacker. In another example, the game ``Tokugawa'', I was playing Austria to Mike Hall's Turkey. After a long alliance, he had only 2 armies. One was in Africa and the other was being moved through my territory to the German front. In a stab, he moved to Vienna. The following turn, I gave up an additional center to kill his army. In this way, he was left with no well placed armies to use against me. My coastal supply centers being few in number, he then decided to make peace with me. The game ended in a 5-way stalemate. Yours, Daniel Loeb loeb@geocub.greco-prog.fr *** rec.games.diplomacy VOTE *** The Usenet vote for rec.games.diplomacy continues. For a copy of the CFV please contact me (nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca). I can't comment on the vote at this stage, due to Usenet restrictions. The vote ends October 31, when I will submit the results to the net. I have NOT sent out acknowledgements to anyone, so if you have not received one, you are among the hundreds ;-) of my faithful readers. ***** PART TWO ***** **** LIST OF GAME OPENINGS **** Moderated Replacement Openings include: cow, gnat, tick, volt, diablos, sumatra, timor and sinister. Unmoderated games openings include: mars, zoom, bali, gord, (belch is proceeding NMR for 'interests sake' zen has been terminated once, and is unlikely to resume) Unmoderated Australian judge openings: twinkles Signups available for the following moderated games in formation: senlac, boyne and pressure baldric and silly at Australian judge. (tegner for Swedish speakers only) **** LIST OF EP GAMES ON THE DA **** --- EXPLANATION --- Here is the monthly update on games played on Judge. Each game is represented by a line of data (followed possibly by a line of comments --- please send me comments I can use if you are a GM!). The games are sorted according the variant rules which are used. Also if you have an EP number, and I don't, please send it to me. Column Explanation ------ ----------- (1) Name of game including a "#" if game is "private" or "unlisted" (2) Electronic Protocol number (and Chapter) if available. (3) Name of the GM (see list of GMs below). (4-10) Updates on game in chronological order (most recent on the right) The updates for a game in formation indicate the number of players needed to start. For example, -5. The updates for a game in progress indicate the season (F for Fall or S for Spring), the last 2 digits of the year, and the phase (M for movement, B for builds, and R for retreats). All this is possibly followed by the indication of the number of replacement players (-1), temporary replacements (T1) needed, or needed later on (*1). I welcome short one or two line statements from ANY of the the players of the following games, especially those managed by Ken Lowe. --- LIST --- Name EP# GM Feb04 Apr03 Jun30 Aug26 Sep15 Sep29 Oct20 ------- --- -- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- STANDARD RULES infinite 166 Ken F02M ? F08M F09M F10M F11M karat 185 Ken S01M ? S05M F06M F07M F08M meter 187 Ken S01M ? S08M S09M S10M Over End of Game report below (with comments from players) newton 188 Ken S01M ? S07M S08M F08B F09M pint 190 Ken ? S06M-1 S07M S08M F09M quart 191 Ken ? F06M-2 S07M F07M S08M rad 205 Ken ? F04B-1 F05R F06M S07M second 206 Ken ? S06M F06M S07M S08M ton 207 Ken ? S03M-2 F04M S05M S08M unit 208 Ken ? S05M F05M F06M S06M volt 209 Ken ? S04M F04M S05M F05R-1 watt 210 Ken ? F02M-3 F02B S03M F04M ant 211 Ken ? S04R S05M F05M F06B beetle 212 Ken ? F04M F04B S05R F05B cicada 213 Ken -3 F03M S04M F04R F05M dragnfly 214 Ken S03M S03R-1 F03B S05M earwig 215 Ken F02M F03M F04M F05M fly 216 Ken S02M F02B S03M F03B gnat 217 Ken F02M S03M F03B S04M-1 hornet 218 Ken S01M S02M S02R S03M inchworm 219 Ken S01M F01M F02M F03B junebug 220 Ken S01M S01M S02M S03M locust 221 Ken -1 F01M F02B S04M moth 224 Ken S01M S02M F03M pillbug 227 Ken S01M F01M F02B spider 228 Ken S01M-1 F01M-1 F02M tick 229 Ken S01M S01M S01M-1 wasp 230 Ken S01M S01M F01B antelope 232 Ken -5 S01M S03M beaver 233 Ken F01M S03M cow 234 Ken S01M S02M-1 dog 237 Ken S01M S02M elk 240 Ken -7 F01M ferret 241 Ken F01M gorrilla 246 Ken S01M hedgehog 247 Ken S01M iguana Ken -3 baldrick Bob -7 -5 This game is on the Australian judge, players are asked to list the game before joining. (ie has grey press, etc) cheetah 225 desper S01M F05M F06B F08M F10M Nasty stab by Italy of Austria croatia 148 Nick F03M F06M F10M F12M F13R F14B S16M Most advanced standard game on judge. E and F crush T. 17-17? diablos j_oregan -5 S01M F01M F02M F02B-1 fall Gummi ? S02M S03M F04M grass karl S01M S04M S06M-2 S07M F07B F08M German language game. RT steamroller schleagt zu. Ita -> 1. E. weit verstreut. hall92 200 Nick F01M Hall of Fame game. Judge has reached observer limite of 42! Observer press can be obtained with HISTORY command. kaiser Karl -3 F05M F07B S08M S09M S10M marengo 129 Scottb S09M F11B S14M S14M S14M-2 F14R F15M Oldest standard EP # in Chapter 2. peregrin 236 Casmacin -6 S01M F01B tegner Per -3 Swedish language game. Endast svensktalande. ulm 235 Marty -6 S01M F01M womble n0kernic F02M F03B F13M Only Adelaide University Comp. Sci!!! (Face to Face?) wren 223 Casmacin F01B S03M S04M S05M STANDARD GUNBOAT - Identities of players unknown. dppe 239 Loeb S01M F05B S08M S09M S10M F11M Last remaining game against the Bordeaux Diplomat. Turkey is heading towards victory. New DPP games near the end of the year? eldritch j_oregan S02M S04M S05M F05B F06M pressure Josh -4 White PARTIAL press - like standard, but anonymous (judge first?) sarajevo 195 Desper F03B F04M S06M F07M R/T Juggernaught with A collusion. F waits for stab. sinister 244 Starkey -7 -7 S01M-1 An Evil game for Evil Players *Please* read press help! trafalga 243 Marty -7 -5 S02M STANDARD GUNBOAT ROUND-ROBIN - Each player plays all 7 powers in 7 games. game 2 174 Jamie F05M F06M F07M F09M game 3 175 Jamie F07R F08R F09M F10R game 4 176 Jamie F02B S03R S04R F06M game 5 177 Jamie F01M F02M F04B YOUNGSTOWN RULES (10 players) Extended map including Asia and Africa. dien 124 jdr S11M F11M F15M F18M S19R S19R F20M giggles dwisemanF08B S10M S12M F13M S14M S14M S14M Local ERIM game timor 160 nick -10 F01M S05M F07M F08M F09M S10M-1 The hunt for Chris continues! YOUNGSTOWN GUNBOAT GAMES celebes 197 nick -8 F03M S04M F05M F06R Super warp 36h deadline, 72h grace, 7 days a week. luzon 192 Marty F04M-2 S05M F05M F06M F07R Warp speed. 24h deadline, 72h grace. mindanao 231 Marty -6 -4 S01M S01M S02M shuppan 245 Josh -8 -5 S01M A White Press Gunboat!! sumatra 182 nick F05B F07M F08M F09M F09B-1 Warp speed. 24h deadline, 72h grace. sunda 171 nick F05M S07M-1 S08M-2 F09M F10B Warp speed. 24h deadline, 72h grace. CHAOS RULES (34 players) Regular map. Each SC is owned by a different player. avalon NONE -20 Any-site. fontenoy 114 jdr F09M F10M F15M F17B F18R F19M F20M Munich leads alliance towards victory iona 169 jdr S01M F02M S06M F08M S09M S10M S11M Paris stabs Norway---now under siege. Ankara stabs Con in his capital! zenith NONE -11 F00B*2 F01M F01B F02M Any-site. GREAT BRITAIN RULES (7 players) Britain starts with 6 SC's but all armies! hastings 139 loeb S05R F07B S16M F19M F20M F21B F23B England (with 6 fleets!), France, Turkey push back G. senlac Matt -7 -6 -7 1898 RULES / GUNBOAT GAME corsica 222 dmb S00M F00M-1 S01M F01M S03M boyne Marty -6 -6 -3 silly Matt -7 This game is at the Australian judge solo 242 Josh F00M MACHIAVELLI RULES - An economic variant of Diplomacy marketed by Avalon Hill. sober andre F54M F55M S56M U56M-1 F56B A gunboat Machiavelli Variant without Loans and special units. **** FOR MORE INFO ABOUT THE JUDGE**** For X: Send Y to JUDGE@U.WASHINGTON.EDU: ------ --------------------------------- (*QUESTIONS ABOUT A CERTAIN GAME*) More detailed information about a game: LIST <name-of-game> History of a game: SUMMARY <name-of-game> Detailed Recent History of a game: HISTORY <name-of-game> Regular updates for a certain game: OBSERVE <name-of-game> <password> Copy of variant rules: GET INFO.<name-of-variant> or GET PRESS or GET GUNBOAT (*GENERAL QUESTIONS*) General information HELP Update of the list of games above LIST More detailed list LIST FULL To be informed of all game changes OBSERVE CONTROL <password> Default house rules GET EP.HOUSE.RULES Other information: Contact me (nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca) or Ken Lowe (jdr@u.washington.edu) or your game master (see list below) **** FOR MORE INFO ABOUT THE ELECTRONIC PROTOCOL **** To solve Email problems, contact one of the email wizards: swb@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu, andre@hern.stonemarche.org eisen@cs.jhu.edu, eisen@jhuigf.BITNET, or wcw27974@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu Other information: Contact Eric Klien (eric_s_klien@cup.portal.com) **** FOR ARCHIVES **** 1) Use the HISTORY command for recent game result. (see above) Use the GET command (especially GET FLIST) to receive JUDGE related files. 2) Contact the archivists, jlitvin@hfglobe.intel.com/John Litvin, 3) Anonymous FTP Machine: Directory: Contents: Milton.U.Washington.Edu /public/misc judge source, postscript maps FTP.FU-Berlin.DE /pub/misc/diplomacy variants, hall of fame, postscript maps, articles, judge source (slow!) 137.248.151.12 /pub/incoming/Ep-Chapter Old issues of EP. **** LIST OF DIPLOMACY ADJUDICATORS **** COUNTRY ADDRESS KEEPER USA judge@u.washington.edu jdr@u.washington.edu Australia judge@gu.uwa.edu.au ?@gu.uwa.edu.au South Africa judge@shrike.und.ac.za ?@shrike.und.ac.za **** LIST OF GAME MASTERS **** Bob Blanchett s1029708@giaec.cc.monash.edu.au David M Bowen dmb@bigd.cray.com dmb@sequoia.cray.com Marty Brumm marty@pc1504.Chemie-Uni.Marburg.de Dave Cebula cebulad@physics.orst.edu Rick Desper desper@math.rutgers.edu Karl Dotzek karl@adler.ims.uni-stuttgart.de Jamie Dreier pl436000@brownvm.brown.edu Nicholas Fitzpatrick nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca Gudmundur Bjarni Josepsson gummi@rhi.hi.is Danny Loeb loeb@geocub.greco-prog.fr Ken Lowe jdr@u.washington.edu Michael Luft scottb@cs.utexas.edu Sean MacIntosh casmacin@atlas.cs.upei.ca Matt McLeod C9106225@cc.newcastle.edu.au John Aidan O'Regan J_Oregan%csvax1@iruccvax.UCC.IE Josh Smith irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu Sean Starkey starkey@netcom.com Andre Verweij andre@duteina.tudelft.nl andre@hlniob.uucp. Per Werstling c85perwe@ ***** PART THREE ***** *** METER EOG REPORT *** Summary of game meter through F1910R. (EP 187) Master: Ken Lowe jdr@u.washington.edu Austria: Niklas Persson niklasp@minsk.docs.uu.se England: Mark J. Hyman JW5X@VAX5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU from F1901M: Kirk Randall cheng@u.washington.edu France: Joakim Spangberg NDB026@nov.hb.se Germany: Gavin Maltby maltby@unpsun1.cc.unp.ac.za Italy: Scott Gingrich sging@carina.unm.edu from S1905M: James A. Dare jdare@math.rutgers.edu from S1907M: Russ Carpenito ALASKA@MITVMA.BITNET Russia: John Midtgard mitgardt@math.ufl.edu from F1902B: Martin Snow snow@lyrae.DNET.NASA.GOV Turkey: Andre Verweij andre@duteinh.et.tudelft.nl from F1904M: Andrew Percey olearyr@rnisd0.DNET.roche.com from S1906R: Sean Morgan morgan@arc.ab.ca Game parameters are/were as follows: Move clock 1410 min 12.00 next 72.00 grace 168.00 delay 0.50 days --TWTF- Retreat clock -1 min 0.00 next 24.00 grace 72.00 delay 0.50 days --TWTF- Adjust clock -1 min 0.00 next 24.00 grace 72.00 delay 0.50 days --TWTF- Access: Different-site, Level: Any, Moderated. Variant: Standard. Flags: NoNMR, NoProxy. Press: White, No Fake Broadcast. EP 187, completed October 1992 Historical Supply Center Summary -------------------------------- Ven Nap Edi Lvp Par Por Bel Mun Ber Swe Stp Mos Con Smy Rum Ser Vie Year Rom Tun Lon Bre Mar Spa Hol Kie Den Nor War Sev Ank Bul Gre Bud Tri 1900 I I I . E E E F F F . . . . G G G . . . R R R R T T T . . . . A A A 1901 I I I I E E E F F F F F F G G G G G R E R A R R T T T T R T A A I A 1902 I I I I E E E F F F F F G G G G G G R R R A A R T T T T T T T I I I 1903 I I I I E E G F F F F F F G G G G G R E R R A T T T T T T T T I I I 1904 I I T I G F G F F F F F F G G G G G G R R A T T T T T T T T T T I I 1905 I I I F G F G F F F F F F G G G G G G R G A T T T T T T T T T T G I 1906 F I I F G F G F F F F F F G G G G G G R G G T T T T T T T T T T I T 1907 T F I F G F G F F F F F F G G G G G G G G G R T T T T T T T T T T T 1908 T F T F G F G F F F F F F G G G G G G G G G G T T T T T T F T T G T 1909 F F T F G F G F F F F F F G G G G G G G G G G G T T T T T T T T G G 1910 F F T F G G G F F F F F G G G G G G G G G G G G T T T T G T T G G F History of Supply Center Counts ------------------------------- Power 1900 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 Player Austria 3 4 2 1 1 1 Niklas Persson England 3 \ Mark J. Hyman 4 3 3 Kirk Randall France 3 6 5 6 7 8 9 9 10 10 Joakim Spangberg Germany 3 5 6 6 8 10 10 11 13 15 Gavin Maltby Italy 3 5 7 7 5 \ Scott Gingrich 4 3 \ James A. Dare 1 Russ Carpenito Russia 4 5 4 \ John Midtgard 3 2 1 1 1 Martin Snow Turkey 3 5 7 8 \ Andre Verweij 11 10 \ Andrew Percey 11 12 11 9 Sean Morgan Index: 10 24 26 29 37 40 44 49 55 58 Power 1910 Player France 9 Joakim Spangberg Germany 18 Gavin Maltby Turkey 7 Sean Morgan Index: 64 Index is the sum of squares of the number of supply centers divided by the number of players. It is a measure of how far the game has progressed. Broadcast message from maltby@unpsun1.cc.unp.ac.za as Germany in meter: Greetz to all (that are left!) Thanks for the game. After our initial French/German war, Joakim, we got our act together rather neatly. Remember when Italy was huge and had you up against a wall? A pity that I had to stab you to win, but that's just Diplomacy. Anyway, our simultaneous stabbing made me feel less bad. This was one of the first two games I started on the judge. All eager to maintain an air of trustworthiness, I have tried hard not to do much stabbing. That's just what makes the end game so frustrating---I could have tried to get my last three centres from Turkey and risk France running over me. So you are practically forced into a `preventative stab'. Apologies to Turkey. After (an ex) Turkey stabbed Italy and Russia, it was without friends. The German/French machine, spurred by the conquest of England, rumbled in mercilessly. Cheers. and thanks again for an enjoyable game Gavin Broadcast message from morgan@arc.ab.ca as Turkey in meter: A somewhat interesting game, but a little more press would have helped. Aside from a couple of messages with France and one to Russia, that was it in four game years. To Germany: Thanks for the explanation. I knew it couln't have been anything I said (see above). Sean Morgan *** FONTENOY 1919 STATISTICS *** Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 09:35:17 +0100 From: loeb@organon.greco-prog.fr (Daniel LOEB) Diplomacy Game Fontenoy statistics 1919 compiled by Danny Loeb GM: Ken Lowe ***PLEASE SEND ME CORRECTIONS OR COMMENTS IF YOU HAVE ANY!!!! ***UPDATE As we end our second decade of play, in a surprise move, Belgium and Munich re-ally. Belgium removes its fleet in the North Sea which had been such a thorn in Munich's side. In the following seasons, Belgium and Munich regain their own capitals which the other had taken in previous years. Together they move South, to the aid of Rome who had been beseiged by the other Southern powers. Rome thus regains Trieste, and St Pete must remove a precious unit. Regardless of what choice is made it will be nearly impossible for the Turks to regain any semblance of a stalemate line. ***NUMBER OF SUPPLY CENTERS Bel Bre Bul Den Gre Kie Lon Mos Nap Par Rom Ser Smy StP Tri Ven War Ank Ber Bud Con Edi Hol Lvp Mar Mun Nor Por Rum Sev Spa Swe Tun Vie A B C D E F G H I J K L N P Q R S T U V W X Y Z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1900 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1*1 1 1 1 1 1901 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1902 2 2 1 2 1 1* 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2*1 1 1 2 1903 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1904 1 3 1 1 1 1 2*2* 4 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2* 2 1* 1905 1 4 1 1*1 2 2* * 4 1* 1 3 3*2 * 3*2 1 2 * 1906 2 4 2 1 2 4 6 4 2 2 3 2 1907 3 5 2 3 3 6 4 2 4 2 1908 3 7 3 2 1 7 4 6 1 1909 2 6 4 2 7 5* 8 1910 2 6 4 1 9 4* 8 1911 2 7 4* 11 4 6 1912 2 8 4 11 3 6 1913 3 9 5 10 4 3 1914 3 9 6 10 4* 2 1916 3 7 6 12 4 2 1917 3 8 5 11* 5 2 1918 3 6 5 13 4* 3 1919 3 6 6 13 4* 2 Bel Bre Bul Den Gre Kie Lon Mos Nap Par Rom Ser Smy StP Tri Ven War Ank Ber Bud Con Edi Hol Lvp Mar Mun Nor Por Rum Sev Spa Swe Tun Vie Note: number = number of supply centers at the END of that year blank = no supply center left at the END of that year * = 1 change of command DURING that year ***OWNERSHIP OF SUPPLY CENTERS Ven Nap Edi Lvp Par Por Bel Mun Ber Swe Stp Mos Con Smy Rum Ser Vie Year Rom Tun Lon Bre Mar Spa Hol Kie Den Nor War Sev Ank Bul Gre Bud Tri 1900 7 X T 6 I P N D V Q W 2 B K S L C H 4 U 3 9 R 0 G A 1 F Y J Z E 8 5 1901 7 X T 6 I P N D V Q W W B B Q K S L 4 4 U 9 3 R A A 1 1 F J Z Y 8 5 1902 7 X T X I P N P V Q W 6 B B S K S I 4 4 3 9 9 A 1 A 1 Z F J Z Y Y 5 1903 7 X T X I P N P V Q W N B B S S S I 4 4 3 9 3 A Z F 1 Z F J 5 Y Y 5 1904 7 X T X 4 P N P B Q W Q B B S S S I S 4 3 9 3 A Z F 1 Z Y J 5 Y 7 5 1905 7 X X X 4 P N P B N W B B B S S S I S 4 3 3 3 A Z F Z J Y T Y Y 7 5 1906 7 X X X B P N P B N B P P B S S S S S I 3 3 3 A Z F Z A F X Y Y S 7 1907 7 X X X N P N P B N B B P B S S S S S B 3 3 3 A Z A F Z A X F 3 S 7 1908 7 X X X N B B B B N B P B B S S S S S S 3 3 3 3 F A F A A X F 3 S 3 1909 3 X X X N B N B B X X B B B S S S S S S 3 3 3 3 F A F F 3 A F 3 S 3 1910 3 S X X S B N B B B X X B B S S S S S S 3 3 3 3 F A F F 3 A F 3 S 3 1911 S S X X S B B B B B X X B B S S S S S S 3 3 3 3 F A F F 3 A F 3 S S 1912 3 X X X S B B B B B B B B S S S S S S S S 3 3 3 F A F F 3 A F 3 S S 1913 X X X X S B B B B B B B B S B S S S S S S S 3 3 F A F F F A F 3 S A 1914 X X X X S B B B B B B B B S B S S S S S S S S F F A F F F A F 3 3 A 1916 X X X X S B S B B B B B S S B S S S S S S S S F F A F F F A F 3 3 A 1917 X X X X S B S B B B B B S S B B S S S S S S S F F A F F F A A 3 3 X 1918 X X X X S S S B B B B B S S B S S S S S S S S F F A F F F A A 3 3 3 1919 X X X F S S S B B B B B B S S S S S S S S S S F F A F F F A A 3 3 X Ven Nap Edi Lvp Par Por Bel Mun Ber Swe Stp Mos Con Smy Rum Ser Vie Year Rom Tun Lon Bre Mar Spa Hol Kie Den Nor War Sev Ank Bul Gre Bud Tri ***CHANGES Center Tun Bel Mun Tri Was X S B 3 Is F B S X Up