Diplomacy Magazine - Chapter Two From: loeb@geocub.UUCP (Daniel LOEB) Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1992 10:52:50 +0000 Issue #268 of Chapter Two of the Electronic Protocol By Daniel Loeb (loeb@geocub.greco-prog.fr) January 3, 1992 ------------------------------------------------------------- Electronic Protocol Games played on the Diplomacy Adjudicator ------------------------------------------------------------- **** TABLE OF CONTENTS **** PART ONE - Opinions, Letters, and Editorials: Eric Klien out of town Friends in our Midst -- The Unethical Diplomats 1898 variant - Continued Discussion Openings Archive - Continued Discussion Hall of Fame PART TWO - Summary of all moderated games on the Judge: List of game openings List of EP games on the DA For more info PART THREE - Reports from the battlefront: Eylau 1903 ***** PART ONE ***** **** ERIC KLIEN - OUT OF TOWN **** I am moving from Boston to Nevada on Dec 31st. Since this move will be covering a lot of miles, it will be a week or two before my luggage catches up to me and my computer is part of the luggage. So if you don't hear from me for awhile, don't worry! Eric Klien **** FRIENDS IN OUR MIDST -- THE UNETHICAL DIPLOMATS **** By Nicky Palmer, Denmark From Europa 12/13 p.14-16 On the face of it, Diplomacy is a game eminently suited to adherents of the amoralist view of life, than no action is inherently right or wrong, and life should be guided entirely by self-interest. In fact, one might argue that the success of Diplomacy is partly attributable to the attractive invitation in the rules booklet to indulge one's more conspiratorial and devious impules without having to worry whether such behavior is immoral. "You, too, can be a Metternick", and all that. What is interesting, however, is that the Diplomacy game community, far from maintaining this abstract and pure amorality, has found it necessary to develop from scratch a new ethical system, whic is not terribly clear in its precepts but hazily relfects 'real-life morality' at a less demanding level. It's okay to lie and cheat, as the rules say, but only within certain rather ill-defined limits. The need for some sort of limit is rather evident---one could, for instance, kidhap one's main rival before a crucial move and hold him incommunicado until the deadline passed, but it seems unlikely that this would be regarded as ethical by any player---and not attempting to deceive the gamemaster (GM) is widely accepted as a necessary restraint on players. The trouble is that the borderline cases are not at all clear, with the result that some players are regarded with a certain amount of wariness by others who hold a different view on what is acceptable in a diplomacy game; things which seem praiseworthy to some appear close to cheating to others. The most topical examples are game-long alliances and their extension, the Karma league alliances, and cross-game alliances and stabs. Unfortunately, there is considerable dispute about the ethics of these and other matters, with the result that every player is in a genuine dilemna as to whether his play is "ethical" or not. It would be useful if some sort of consensus could be reached on what really is unethical; where a consensus cannot be arrived at I think the activity should be allowed without objection---given the nature of the game, ethical views cannot be forced on people without overwhelming agreement among players. One can say "I don't play like that" but to add "and you shouldn't either" is a pointless attempt to enforce a disputed theory. If this article stimulates some sort of Debate in "EUROPA" perhaps we shall be able to see where the balance of opinion lies. Take first an ethical view which has not to my knowledge been openly challenged, but which (again in my view) is in fact widely ignored: that cross-game stabs are "wrong". The arguments for this are quite well-known and probably unanswerable in theory: each game is obviously a separate event, and cross-game influences sharply discriminate in favour of players in a large number of games, who can build up a stranglehold pressure to dominate dozens of opponents; if you are in three games with X, then you will surely hesitate to stab him in all three games, but this will rarely be possible with a good, and even if it were it would still distort the pattern of the individual games as a result of the cross-game relationshiop. Similarly, if two players agree to ally whenever they play together they will nearly always clean up against the other five players, divided among themselves, unless they know what's going on. Quite so --- but in practice the cross-game alliance is immensely hard to resist, and so is the cross-game stab. Support you are next to X and Y, and X you know as a man who always moves rationally and rarely stabs, and you know HE knows the same about you, while you don't know a thing about Y, who may be a dropout or a mad stabber or a chronic misorderer, or perhaps you DO know that Y is one of these things --- are you really required to treat the game as an absolutely new event and give equal credence to the blandishments of X and Y? If not, where do you draw the line? What if X is known to be reliable but stabbed you last time? --- Perhaps he thinks that you are a mad stabber, etc, and so will stab you again as a preemptive measure? What if you live next door to X so can negotiate quickly, while Y lives in East Timor and his post office is beseiged by Indonesian invaders? Nothing to do with the game as a pure concept, but... is it really practicable to play the game as if you knew nothing of any of the other players from other games or information on their outside life? I don't know, but it's essential that we decide what is so unacceptable that any such suggestion should result in an immediate stab on the proposer, and what is to countenanced; a situation where some, for instance, think it right to prefer alliances with people living nearby, while others think it wrong and don't realize what is going on, is totally unsatifactory. Hence my view that what is not actually ruled out should be accepted so that the other players can allow for it. A similar problem arises with the game-long alliance, and the Karma League players who never break the letter of a written treaty. It is quite well-known that the game's inventor, Allan B Calhamer, think that players should try for a win and certainly not settle of second place in two games in preference to a first and a seventh place, and Richard Sharp persuasively argues that he feels intitled to assume that the other players will try for a win and plan accordingly. Calhamer has argued that the Karma league concept leads to cliques in games which can only be combated by rival cliques, and hence is undesirable as it prevents the free flow of diploming that makes the game fun. Perhaps --- but how can one in partice demand that a player who finds it beneficial under HIS terms of reference to avoid stabs either in a single game or in all games give up his policy and deliberately make a stab to e.g. win the game, despite his conviction that it's a mistake? Moreover, if two good players face a conglomerate of enemies and smoothly defeat them, must they then turn on each other an turn the game into a boring 2-player guessing match of tactical maneouvre? My own view is that the only ethical requirement should be that players do not bring pressures and inducements to bear which are exterior to the game and not available to other players; therefore, bribery is out, and the establishment, outright or by implication, of cross-game alliances and the threat of cross-game stabs are out, but it is permissible to take the reputation of a player IN GENERAL into account (rather than what he is doing for you at the moment) and to pursue whatever targets within the game one prefers: first, equal first, a good result for a rating system, or whatever. I don't think you can insist on the other players trying to win, but you are of course entitled to lean towards stabbing people who do not try to do so! Finding out the targets and policies of the other players is part of the task facing you in your diplomatic activity. Unfortunately, this means that if you're very experienced and know a lot of the player you will have a better chance, but I don't think this is avoidable, and more than one can expect players who know me not to bear in mind that I think Russia should always ask for permission to more or stand off in BLA and Spring 1901, and any other statement for me if therefore probably false. I usually try for a win, but will settle for what I can get, if a win looks ruled out, and will sometimes agree to share a win, if an alliance has been especially good. I think this is not unreasonable, and as long as the other players have a reasonable chance of knowing my policy I doubt if much harm is done. Perhaps all players should fight for a win to the last, even with one unit, as either you win or you don't, but some people don't really think 2nd is as bad as 7th, so let's recognize the fact and incorporate it in our caclulations. What about geographical alliances (the player who lives next door)? Living in Denmark, I naturally detest these as being biased in favour of e.g. London players, but a suppose quick communications are both interior to the game and evident to the other players, who can ally against the neighbours in defence. Moreover, I in fact write more prompty than most and/or keep in rapid touch by phone. But if I lived in East Timor... What do readers think? ------------- Comments by EUROPA'S editor Walter Luc Haas: Maybe we really should be more specific in our openings: we should perhaps tell what kind of letters --- "historical" or "normal" --- the players in this game prefer, what kind of "ethics" they intend to follow etc. Capsule biographies, in which these things get mentioned, could help, as well as some datas about their drop-out rate, ratings, etc. And if somebody would cheat in these informational notes? Quite simple, I would never again play with a real cheater, I would try to influence others to do so either, and as a publisher I wouldn't allow him to play again in my zine... In fact, a lot of players have to play in game, have to play with/against partners who quite obviously have different opinions about a lot of things eg: how often and how fast they should communicate, what kinds of alliances and stabs should be allowed, what diplomacy means, etc and who often --- too often --- also have different opinions about the consequences of delayed orders (NMRs/NORs) and drop-outs --- for the other players who can get, depending on their mentality, rather frustrated by such a behavior, even if by this they would win positions, centers, and even the game. I fell, this in things like this, ONE reason for the very high rate of hobby-drop-outs can be found. About alliances cross-game alliances, cartels, etc you may find additional opinions in: E 4/4, 4 (Calhamer), G&P 21,10; 37,6; 38,14, 44.42; 45,44 (all: Calhamer), PF 55,39 (Gygax); S&T 24,24 (Walker); DW I/3,10.16 and DW I/6,13 (Birsan, Beyerlein, Bachanan), HA 7,3; 14,1; 18,1 (Beshara, Prosnitz, Lakofka), HA 13,4 (Prosnitz), Diman 11.18 (Buchanon), etc etc. About the Karma League; 1901/47,16; 48,13 ;49,7; 51,15; 52,15; Rocinante 5,6; and well as in Lemming Express, Greatest Hits, etc. ------------------- Comments by Daniel Loeb: To some extent, a certain level of ethics has been decided upon: those listed in the ELECTRONIC PROTOCOL HOUSE RULES, and its modifications decided for any particular game or variant. If a player doesn't believe in following these house rules, he can find games not governed by them, or he can ask (before SPRING 1901) for a vote to change the rules for one particular game. He can even lobby to have the default rules changed. Many of these rules are in fact enforced automatically by the judge. Others are seen to by the GM. Some violations will lower your "DEDICATION" and thus limit what games you can enter, while other violations can get your thrown out of EP. The "distance" problem is solved by the "different-site" default JUDGE uses. Incidentally, this "site" feature was actually designed to avoid an even worse problem: one player running several powers! However, even in any-site games, distance is less of a problem than it was with snail mail; everyone is just as close by email! It is up to each player to decide when to stab and what his objective is. However, a fixed scoring system has been devised (a k-way draw in a n-player game is worth (n-k)/k points to each winner) as a standard, and for really deviant behavior (eg: throwing away your supply centers so that you can leave the game without being penalized for quitting) is forbidden by the house rules. Cross-game influences are not yet being adequately handled. I'm hoping that one day JUDGE will keep track of the "hall of fame" better than it does now (currently only via game summaries). This improved "hall of fame" could be used to forbid co-winners from playing together except in specially approved games. Moreover, players should be limitted in the number of games they can play in together at any one time. Eric Klien is currently revising the house rules. So now would be a good time to have your comments! **** 1898 VARIANT - CONTINUED DISCUSSION **** From: dwiseman@erim.org (Dave Wiseman) In Issue 267, Chapter two, you say: >COMMENT BY DANIEL LOEB: >If as Dave Bowen says, it is a terrible mistake to take any non-home >supply centers at the beginning of the game, then after spending a >couple of years playing you are bound to come to a situation very >similar to that at the beginning of a diplomacy game. In other words, >the first couple of years are a waste of time. >The interest in diplomacy is the conflict, so I don't see the point in >delaying this conflict. You're right, the conflict is the most fascinating part of diplomacy, but the 1898 variant gives another slant to the game. A good number of players take a "home" supply center in the first turn, and then leave the third (or fourth) "home" supply center for later in the game, in order to achieve better position. I think the key to the 1898 game is the fact that if you ally strongly with another player, you have a much better chance of blitzing a third, especially if you hold him to 3 centers in the first two years. This, coupled with early mistakes by opponents, gives you a good chance to get a leg up on the competition. The fun part is deciding what centers to take in the first 2 years in order to be in position to blitz in the third. **** OPENINGS ARCHIVE - CONTINUED DISCUSSION **** From: AMT5MAN@cms1.ucs.leeds.ac.uk (Mark Nelson) I like the idea of maintaining a set of articles on diplomacy openings (and on other aspects of the game/hobby) at a GETable site. Would Ken be willing to add a diplomacy library to the facilities that Judge offers? Such a library would have to be 'read' only, and anyone with any comments on the articles should mail them to a 'librarian'. Nearly all the emailable dip material I have comes from the pages of _EP_ except for some variant rules. Do you think a library of online dip articles is a feasable idea? I guess in the long run the main problem would be finding a site for an on-line archive. [Reply by Ken Lowe: The judge and I would prefer not getting into the archiving business.] **** HALL OF FAME From: Dylan Harris <dylan@cix.compulink.co.uk> We've run a number of diplomacy games on CIX (cix.compulink.co.uk). Do you want the results for your hall of fame, especially since a number of us are now playing on usenet? My reply: Actually, I don't have the time to run the HALL OF FAME anymore. Perhaps one day the JUDGE will handle in automatically (for its games) and you can add your data. Until then however, I need a volunteer. Can you help? ***** PART TWO ***** **** LIST OF GAME OPENINGS **** Hastings - Great britain variant - Russia (3/3) Emu - Crowded variant - Germany (3/3), Lowland (3/3) Signups available for the following games in formation: normandy, conan, cannes, iena, iona, 7senuf, vega, poverty Please volunteer to be a GM. Note in particular that there are no STANDARD ENGLISH games in formation! **** LIST OF EP GAMES ON THE DA **** --- EXPLANATION --- Here is an 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 the variant rules which are used. The 1st column gives the name of the game including a "#" if the game is a "private" or "unlisted" game. The 2nd column gives its Electronic Protocol number if available. If the game is published in another EP chapter (other than number two), then that is indicated after a slash. The 3rd column gives the name of the GM (see list of GMs below). The other columns give updates on this game in chronological order with the most recent entry 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'm listing the status of each game not only for this week but for the last several weeks, so that you can see not only where the game is, but how fast it is moving. Please tell me if this extra information is useful to you. --- LIST --- Name EP# GM Sep4 Oct4 Nov4 Nov22 Dec5 Dec20 Jan3 ------- --- -- ----- ----- ---- ----- ---- ----- ---- STANDARD RULES banditos 149 j_oregan S03M S03M S05M F06M S07M F07M F07R Black press is allowed marengo 129 scottb F01B S03M S05M S06M F06M F07M F07M Turkey reborn. Many countries homeless. osijek 137 cebulad F02M F03M S04R S05M S05M paris 134 skiman -5 -4 S02M S03M F03M S04M S04M portnoy 125 koll02 F09M F10M F12M S14M F14M F15M F15M sparrow 133 casmacin -1 S02R F03B F04M S05R F05B S06M Turkey pulls ahead with England close behind. Others envious tiberius 83/8 loeb F09M S10M F11M F13M S14M S15M-1 S15M Vacation until January 10. # normandy loeb -4 -2 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 All press will be written in French. Le jeu sera en francais. croatia 148 nick -2 S02M F02M F02R F02R For beginners. Ger attacked from all sides, Tur enters Rus. muddle 150 durrell S01M S02M S03M S03M 1 day/turn game. Most/all diplomacy carried out on a MUD. STANDARD GUNBOAT - Identities of players unknown. All messages are public. boadicea 147 pl436000 -6 F04M F07M F08M S09M S09M # khafji 138 skiman S03M S05M F05M-1 F05B F05B Fast pace. No press. Delays over a few hours unacceptable. conan pl436000 -6 -5 -3 -2 YOUNGSTOWN RULES (10 players) Extended map including Asia and Africa. dien 124 ken F07M F07B F09M F10R F10B-1 S11M S11M giggles dwiseman S02M S03M F04B S06M S06R S07R S07R Local ERIM game PURE RULES (7 players) Reduced map with only 7 spaces all connected. cannes loeb -5 -4 -5 -4 -4 -4 -3 LOEB9 RULES (9 players) Spain and Scandinavia are added as extra players. eylau loeb -4 -3 S01M F01M F01B-1 S03M S03M Spain stabs England. Austria/Russia at war. Vacation till 1/23 GREAT BRITAIN RULES (7 players) Britain starts with 6 SC's but all armies! hastings 139 loeb -3 S01M F01M S03M F03B F04M F04M-1 England gets one of his armies ashore. Pandora's box is open. CHAOS RULES (34 players) Regular map. Each SC is owned by a different player. fontenoy 114/4 ken S05R-6 S05R-6 S06M S07M F07R F08M F08M 10 players left. Austria/Italy being overrun. iena ken -21 -21 -18 -17 -22 -21 -20 Ken recommends players resign and signon "iona" below iona ken -20 -15 -13 Will start JANUARY 16 regardless of # of players (up to 34). SC's will be evenly divided at that time 1898 RULES (7 players) Regular map. Each player starts with only his capital. bataan dmb -3 S99M-1 F99M F00M F00B CROWDED RULES (11 players) 4 more players added, leaving no neutrals. 7senuf ken -7 -5 -5 -6 -6 -6 -6 emu C9106225 S02M-4 S02R S02R-1 F02M-2 F02M-2 MACHIAVELLI RULES - An economic variant of Diplomacy marketed by Avalon Hills vega cebula -8 -7 -5 -4 -4 -3 -3 dagger ken F54M ??? S56R F56B S57M U57R U57R poverty andre -6 -6 -6 -6 **** FOR MORE INFO **** 1) FOR A PARTICULAR GAME: For more detailed information about game's current status: Send "LIST <name-of-game>" to JUDGE@U.WASHINGTON.EDU For the game's history: Send "SUMMARY <name-of-game>" to the JUDGE For regular game updates: Send "OBSERVE <name-of-game> <password>" to the JUDGE For a copy of the variant rules: Send "GET INFO.<name-of-variant>" or "GET PRESS" or "GET GUNBOAT" For other information (including house rules): Contact the GM. (See list below) 2) FOR THE JUDGE IN GENERAL: For general information about the judge, Send "HELP" to the JUDGE For an update of the list of games given above: Send "LIST" to JUDGE@U.WASHINGTON.EDU For a more detailed list: Send "LIST FULL" to the JUDGE To be informed of all changes in the list of games, Send "OBSERVE CONTROL <password>" to the JUDGE. For a copy of the default house rules: Send "GET EP.HOUSE.RULES" to the JUDGE. For other information: Contact me (loeb@geocub.greco-prog.fr) or Ken (jdr@u.washington.edu) 3) FOR THE ELECTRONIC PROTOCOL IN GENERAL: For general information: Contact the editor Eric Klien (eric_s_klien@cup.portal.com) To solve Email problems, contact one of the email wizards: swb@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu, andre@hern.stonemarche.org eisen@cs.jhu.edu, eisen@jhuvms.bitnet, or wcw27974@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu For back issues: Contact the archivist, jlitvin@swtec1.intel.com/John Litvin **** LIST OF GAME MASTERS **** Brian Bacher bacherb@physics.orst.edu David M Bowen dmb@bigd.cray.com dmb@sequoia.cray.com Dave Cebula cebulad@physics.orst.edu Jamie Dreier pl436000@brownvm.brown.edu, pl436000@brownvm.bitnet Bryant Durrell durrell@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu Nicholas Fitzpatrick nick@sunburn.waterloo.edu Nawwar Kasrawi skiman@leland.stanford.edu Edward J Koll koll02@snybufva.bitnet Koll02@snybscva.bitnet Danny Loeb loeb@nestor.greco-prog.fr Ken Lowe jdr@u.washington.edu ken@milton.u.washington.edu Michael Luft scottb@cs.utexas.edu Sean MacIntosh casmacin@atlas.cs.upei.ca John Aidan O'Regan J_ORegan%csvax1@iruccvax.UCC.IE Andre Verweij andre@duteina.tudelft.nl andre@hlniob.uucp ***** PART THREE ***** **** EYLAU 1903 **** ====================================================================== Geneva Sun-Times, January 1903 ====================================================================== SPAIN STABS ENGLAND In 1902, the entire political shape of Western Europe changed. Spain, reportedly taking advantage of English trust, attacked England by surprise, achieving complete success. England reacted with claims of poor tactics; the Sun-Times is unsure whether the fleet in Liverpool will be able to hold on against superior English forces in the area. However, it cannot be denied that Spain now holds a commanding position in France. It must be assumed that France and England will now be allied. Still, without help from another source -- Norway, Germany, or Austria -- Spain seems likely to completely conquer France in the near future. The guessing games to be played are most fascinating. For example, consider the fleet in Belgium. Should it be moved to help fight the attack on England? Will Spain move in from Burgundy? The final outcome will almost certainly be determined by the leader who guesses right on such issues as these. The unit margin is too slim for anything else. AUSTRIA, RUSSIA AT WAR Austria and Russia, once apparent allies, are now apparently at war. Only the lack of communication between Austria and Turkey kept Rumania from falling this turn. Russia is now looking rather over- extended, and depending on a possible joint venture involving Austria and Norway, will not be able to hold her German conquests. Berlin is extremely vulnerable, and this could even be Germany's chance to come back from among the ashes. On the other hand, with Italy pressing Turkey hard from the south, this may be Russia's chance to take back some of her southern borders. This would offset the inevitable losses in the north, although Russia is in no position to gain ground. On a rather ironic note, we wonder if Russia can afford to attack Sevastopol this turn. If this attack takes place, it might cut the support for an attack which was, last fall, the only reason Rumania did not fall. If the same moves are entered, then such an attack would be suicide. Turkey has an interesting role to play, and could perhaps buy Austrian friendship. Up