Diplomacy Zine -- Chapter Eight EP #249 From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 02:31:18 +0000 Issue #249 of ELECTRONIC PROTOCOL: ************************************************************************* "To make a machine that will be proud of us." ************************************************************************* Chapter One contains: BAGHDAD, BLITZKRIEG II, KING'S GAMBIT, PASSCHENDAELE, DRAGONS, BLACK OCTOBER, OPERATION DESERT STORM, THE SOMME And is published by uunet!cti1!rlister or rlister@cti.com/Russ Lister Chapter Two contains: BEREZINA, PORTNOY, JUTLAND, TIBERIUS, MARENGO, PARIS, SPARROW, SNORRI AJAX, DIEN, FONTENOY, AGINCOURT And is published by loeb@geocub.greco-prog.fr/Daniel E. Loeb Chapter Three contains: SQUALANE, BRUSILOV OFFENSIVE II, CULLODEN, GANDALF'S REVENGE, GOODBYE BLUE SKY, MASTERS OF DECEIT, PANDORA, NOW AND ZEN And is published by mad-2@kub.nl/Constantijn Wekx Chapter Four contains: DEADLY DAGGERS, MONTREUIL-SUR-MER, FIRE WHEN READY, THUNDERDOME, BEREZINA, FONTENOY And needs a publisher. Chapter Five contains: YALTA, AJAX And needs a publisher. Chapter Six contains: BERLIN WALL, HIROSHIMA, GENGHIS KHAN, SEA LION, VIOLENT PEACE, GIBRALTAR And is published by barry@brahms.udel.edu/Barry Fausnaugh. Chapter Seven contains: TIBERIUS, BETELGEUSE, IRON CROSS, TEUNISGEK, RIYADH'S RECKONING And needs a publisher. Chapter Eight contains: TIBERIUS, BETELGEUSE, IRON CROSS, GUERNICA, TEUNISGEK, WOLF BLITZER, THE COMMANDERS ------------- Chapter Eight ------------- Table of Contents: Letter from Fritz Juhnke Panadin's Paradox Resolved! by Matthew Seitz Letter from Brian Youse Two letters from Danny Loeb Letter from Mark Nelson ---- From juhnke@reed.edu/Fritz Juhnke I basically agree with Jeff McKee's aritcle on how tournaments ought to be scored, although I have some refinements to suggest. I think one point should be awarded for each win, and 1/N for each N-way draw. Supply center counts should not play any part in the scoring, nor should survivals. If the game must be terminated prematurely, all remaining players should participate equally in a draw, as per the rulebook. The improvement I have to offer over Jeff's system is a method of breaking ties. I borrow the idea directly from chess, where tournament scoring is also simply one point for a win and one half point for a draw. Ties are usually broken by adding up the final scores of all the opponents of a given player. For example, in a three-round Diplomacy tournament, two players in the middle of the pack end up tied at 1/2 point each, say by two 4-ways vs. a 2-way. One, however, played against several of the eventual tournament winners, while the other played against sad sacks. The sum of the final scores of the eighteen opponents of the first is 5 1/6, while the latter's opponents scored only a total of 3. This system is quite effective at breaking ties in chess. In Diplomacy the situation is even more favorable, since ties which can't be resolved in this way are very rare. In my humble opinion, this is a much less arbitrary way of breaking ties than using supply center counts. It matters to me _who_ I beat or tie much more than what the board looks like at the end of the game. Fritz Juhnke, 9 October 1991 Article submitted by seitz@netcom.com/Matthew Seitz: PANADIN'S PARADOX RESOLVED! Copyright 1991 Matthew Seitz, All Rights Reserved Under the first edition Avalon Hill Diplomacy rules, it was sometimes impossible to resolve a set of orders. An example of this is Panadin's Paradox, discovered by Tony Panadin. However, the second edition Avalon Hill Diplomacy rules do allow Panadin's Paradox to be resolved. Let's begin by reviewing Panadin's Paradox. As given in THE GAMER'S GUIDE TO DIPLOMACY, Panadin's Paradox consists of the following orders: ENG: A Wal-Bel, F Eng C A Wal-Bel, F Lon S F Eng FRA: F Bre-Eng, F Mid S F Bre-Eng GER: F Hol-Nth, F Bel S F Hol-Nth RUS: A Nwy-Lon, F Nth C A Nwy-Lon Let's try to resolve this under the first edition rules. We begin with the tautology that the convoy of RUS A Nwy-Lon is either disrupted or it is not disrupted. Let's first presume that the convoy of A Nwy-Lon is not disrupted: 1) If the convoy of RUS A Nwy-Lon succeeds, ENG F Lon S F Eng fails, because the attack from A Nwy cuts F Lon support of F Eng. 2) Since ENG F Lon S F Eng fails, then FRA F Bre-Eng, supported by F Mid, succeeds, dislodging F Eng. 3) Since F Eng is dislodged, the convoy of ENG A Wal-Bel fails. 4) Since the convoy of ENG A Wal-Bel fails, the GER F Bel support of GER F Hol-Nth is not cut. 5) Since the GER F Bel support is not cut, GER F Hol dislodges RUS F Nth. 6) Since RUS F Nth is dislodged, the convoy of RUS A Nwy-Lon fails. Thus we conclude that if the convoy of RUS A Nwy-Lon is not disrupted then the convoy of RUS A Nwy-Lon is disrupted. Since this is a contradiction, our premise that the convoy of RUS A Nwy-Lon is not disrupted is false. Therefore, let us presume that the convoy of RUS A Nwy-Lon is disrupted: 1) If the convoy of A Nwy-Lon is disrupted, F Lon support of F Eng succeeds 2) Since F Lon support F Eng succeeds, F Bre does not dislodge F Eng. 3) Since F Eng is not dislodged, the convoy of A Wal-Bel succeeds 4) Since the convoy of A Wal-Bel succeeds, the F Bel support of F Hol-Nth fails. 5) Since the F Bel support of F Hol-Nth fails, F Hol does not dislodge F Nth 6) Since F Nth is not dislodged, the convoy of A Nwy-Lon succeeds Thus we conclude that if the convoy of A Nwy-Lon is disrupted, then the convoy of A Nwy-Lon is not disrupted. Again, this is a contradiction, which means that our premise that the convoy of A Nwy-Lon is disrupted is false. So we have proved that the convoy of A Nwy-Lon cannot be disrupted and that it must be disrupted! This is the paradox. However, under the second edition rules, it is possible to resolve these orders without contradiction. Under the second edition, Rule XII.5 was changed so that a convoyed army does not cut the support of a fleet that is supporting an action in a body of water. Let's try resolving the situation according to the second edition rules: 1) Under the second edition Rule XII.5, F Lon support of F Eng is not cut, regardless of whether the convoy of A Nwy-Lon is disrupted or not. 2) Since F Lon support of F Eng is not cut, F Bre does not dislodge F Eng. 3) Since F Eng is not dislodged, the convoy of A Wal-Bel is not disrupted. 4) Even though the convoy of A Wal-Bel is not disrupted, the new Rule XII.5 means that the F Bel support of F Hol-Nth is not cut. 5) Since the F Bel support of F Hol-Nth is not cut, F Hol dislodges F Nth 6) Since F Nth is dislodged, the convoy of A Nwy-Lon is disrupted. Therefore, under the second edition rules, there is no contradiction. This means that Paradin's Paradox can is resolved as follows: ENG: A Wal-Bel fails (stand-off with F Bel), F Eng C A Wal-Bel succeeds, F Lon S F Eng succeeds (A Nwy cannot cut this support, Rule XII.5). FRA: F Bre-Eng fails (stand-off with F Eng), F Mid S F Bre-Eng succeeds. GER: F Hol-Nth succeeds, F Bel S F Hol-Nth succeeds (A Wal cannot cut this support, Rule XII.5) RUS: A Nwy-Lon fails (convoy disrupted by F Hol-Nth), F Nth C A Nwy-Lon fails (dislodged by F Hol-Nth). -- Matthew Seitz seitz@netcom.com Letter from: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov/Brian Youse: Eric, Could you advertise in the next Electronic Protocol to see if anyone is interested in e-mail ASL and has the rules currently used by GEnie? I don't know if you often get requests like this and turn them down, but I figured what the heck, you certainly have a large, wargame oriented mailing list. From loeb@geocub.greco-prog.fr/Danny Loeb Subject: Danny Responds REGARDING THE USE OF THE DIPLOMACY ADJUDICATOR (JUDGE) From: mad-2@kub.nl (C. Wekx) Well, I strongely object against Daniel's idea of playing all games thru Judge. Judge makes terrible mistakes (sometimes) and the involvement/dedication of the players is much lower in games played at the Judge adjudicator than in the game with a human GM. I have never liked the idea of playing EP game on the judge adjudicator and I'd be glad if you payed more attention to the quality of EP games rather than the quantity. I agree with part of what Wekx is saying here. Eric advertises his huge zine by bragging about how many games are in there, but you get the impression that he doesn't follow them all himself. In fact, nobody follows all of the games. So why are they all published like this? The answer is just inertia from moving away from the system of publication used by non-email diplomacy zines. You say that JUDGE makes serious mistakes. I really don't think this is the case. The JUDGE hardly ever makes an adjudication error because when it does, the error is fixed and doesn't happen again. The last error I am aware of occurred about 1/2 a year ago (it allowed the retreat results to be posted even if the last unit on the unit list had a retreat outstanding). Regarding the lower quality of JUDGE players, I think there is no relationship in question. Up until recently, most JUDGE games were formed at random so of course some unreliable players can slip in. However, nowadays a game master can make an "unlisted" game which only those players which he handpicks can sign up for. Moreover, even if the game is "listed", he can set a minimum "dedication" required to participate in the game. That is to say, you can require players to "prove themselves" by meeting the deadlines in another game before they can enter yours. Another solution for getting reliable players is the following. Each player pays a forfeit to enter the game as a starting player. A certain percentage of the forfeit is returned to the player if he makes all the deadlines. Penalties are removed for deadlines he missed. And if he had to be replaced then his replacement player (who pays nothing to get in) gain all right to this forfeit. Any money not returned in this way is divided evenly among the winning players. I would be willing to run some of my games in this fashion if people are interested. Wekx propose that we: 2. Run less games so that you can keep up with the number of replacements and games in trouble. I agree that the emphasis shouldn't be on maximizing the number of games, and that new games shouldn't be started while old ones could use the players. However, that not being the case, why should we prevent interested players from playing Diplomacy? ------ REGARDING DAVE MCCRUMB Eric proposes that vote for Dave McCrumb. Who is this guy? And why should we vote for him? ------ REGARDING THE DIPLOMACY PROGRAMMING PROJECT I think that a good diplomacy playing program is possible. It merely requires a lot of work and cooperation between 7 teams of programmers. (Imagine that, cooperation being needed in diplomacy.) Currently, a lot of work is being done one 2 player games. For example, the following games will have automat competitions this August in Holland and talks will be given about the programs in question: Awari Cribbage Go (9x9) Renju Backgammon Dominoes Go (19x19) Reversi/Othello (r) Bridge 8 x 8 Draughts Go-Moku Scrabble (r) Chess 10 x 10 Draughts 9Men's Morris Chinese Chess Gin Rummy Qubic I know that in Checkers and Othello computers are considered much better than humans while in Go humans are considered vastly superior. ------ REGARDING THE ARTICLE "HOW TO GM" (Electronic Protocol 225) Mark Nelson writes: A GM should have little problem in being impartial and shouldn't be too concerned about keeping the players interested in the game. All the GM has todo in order to maintain interest is to provide game reports on time and to a regular schedule. If you don't think you can do that then you shouldn't start games. The only time when a GM needs to consider partiality is if they are providing comments on the moves made in the game. In a mail game of Diplomacy, even novice players can see the other game in the zine, and will be thus encouraged to start writing press. Here, some novice players will only be getting their game, so it might be necessary to get the press moving yourself by writing the first one. If the GM is only willing to set deadlines and compute results, then he is doing no more than the JUDGE can do on its own. One thing which has not been approached in the talk on computerising diplomacy is producing adjuticators for games which are complicated to GM. One game which I probably won't run is MERCATOR (the best variant for 10+ players...infinitely superior to YOUNGSTOWN in both diplomacy and tactics). The larger versions (with 17...22 players) take a very long time to adjuticate (one of the reasons why they may not be suitable to email play) as the number of players is high and the new rules on convoys need studing. Games such as Bourse where there is little interest in the mechanics of GMing are also suitable for the production of adjuticators. I haven't heard of the variants you mention here. Can you give more details. In Daniel's disdain for local games he overlooks the fact that many games are run locally over University networks. True, but since most of the action takes place face-to-face, it really is a face-to-face game, and thus lies outside the scope of my article. I know of no GM who has ever allowed players to trade countries once they have been allocatted. Such a practice proably makes these games 'irregular'. To do so introduces a new element into the game and can only lead to all kinds of unsaviour practices and going-ons. I have seen it done, and it is not a good idea. Generally, what happens is that 2 or 3 friends join the game together and make sure that they get a group of countries (such as EGI) that can make some good initial attacks and firmly control both sides of the stalemate line. Why a GM who is being sent secret information from the players should not print press is something I can't fathom out...unless the calibre of email GMing is really that low which I find hard to believe. I wouldn't warn players about the consequences of sending me unasked for secret information since I am a mature GM who wouldn't want to abuse my position of trust with the player concerned. Again, perhapes email GMs are of a different calibre and would willing misuse their position as GM? I found this section of the article to be rather strange. I was referring to GMs who ask there players to confide their strategies with him. For such a GM to then go on and write about the potential strategies of players, would be putting himself in an awkward position. I see no reason why players should not be allowed just to change one or two orders and not to resubmitt all their orders...although it is good practice for a player todo so. I agree with you. In fact the judge allows such incremental changes. However, when running a non-JUDGE game, I SUGGEST that the players submit complete orders for clarity. There is no point not allowing illegal orders except when players ask you to on grounds of strategic necessity. Personally, I am against Illegal orders, but my policy still allows them if the player really insists. He might be insisting for humor value or he might be hoping that the other players don't realize that illegal moves are not allowed or even that I as GM had forgotten about the rule or not recognized the illegality of a move. I don't like games where the GM adjutciates with a full set of orders regardless of the date. But that's mearly a personal preference. I like the option of being able to use all of the period allocated to diplome. Players who aren't ready to have results computed need only specify SET WAIT with their moves. Then results will not be computed before the deadline. (PLEASE HOLD is the equivalent for a non-Judge game.) There is nothing wrong in allowing somebody else to order your units although I firmly believe that the GM should always report this fact in an adjutication...after all you can't keep this secret in a ftf game so why should you be allowed to in a postal game? It can be secret in a FTF game, and why not in a mail game. In any case, I only allow such switch-overs if it is obvious that the party in question is CONTINUING to be interested in the game. Otherwise, you are allowing a bored player to unfairly change the balance of the game. I only throw out players, if they are not following the game. DOes the game belong to the players or the GM? I wouldn't run a game where the players had the final say on what happens...it could end up in a very nasty situation. If players don't like the fact that my games belng to me then they can find another GM to play under. That's what I mean by "the final say". The GM makes rulings. If the players don't like these rulings they can ask for him to rethink it, or they can call in an arbitrator. However, in the final analysis, they can allows leave ship and find a new GM. A standby who sends in orders for a country which aren't used probably should not be called for that game again unless it is for the same power. The GM should not use backup orders if he has not announced to the players a prior that a standby is being called. To use anonymous orders to prevent holding a game over is the sign of a bad GM. These backup players are generally announced in advance. That way anyone who has trouble contacting one player can try his backup instead. Once a backup is used for one country, he would not be used for another one. Games which do not use DIAS rules are not 'variants'. Here I disagree. Personally, I would never vote for a draw which didn't include myself, and I would never run a non-DIAS game of diplomacy. A GM must decided if votes come before the Autumn adjutication or after...it has been known that players agree a draw yet the adjutication produces an 18 center winner...In my opinion votes come before adjutication after Spring adjutications but after adjutications in Autumn seasons (again this is fairly common practice amongst postal GMS) I think a vote has effect when the last needed vote comes in. The only problem is what if the last missing vote appears along with the last missing set of Fall orders? ------ REGARDING ABBREVIATIONS A complete set of abbreviations allowed can be obtained from the JUDGE using the GET MAP (or GET MAP.<variant>) command. Yours, Daniel Loeb "Pas de Panique" Another letter from Danny Loeb: Here is a continuation of my discussion with Mark Nelson about Diplomacy. I would like this to published as a "conversation" rather than as a series of articles which for the most part consists of quotations of each other. Quotes below are identified by the authors initials. New material is as is. ---------------- MN Incidentally, I would like the address for any other email zines! Personally, I am of the opinion that there are no other email zines of Diplomacy on Internet. On other (mostly private) networks there are some small zines. And even on Usenet there are mavericks who run a handleful of games without a zine. Some of these games are reported in REC.GAMES.PBM. Of course, you might have considered the "JUDGE" as a zine. In fact, Eric Klien used to refer to it as the competition about a year ago. However, the share size of Eric's zine inhibits the growth of other zines. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. For instance, having one backup player list maintained by Eric for all games is a really gain in efficiency. MN: Game fees work to some extent in snail mail games, but they are not 100% and I think that they would be difficult to use in email games.. after all the attraction of email games is that you can do everything from your terminal. How then can we cater for the 'experienced' player who wants a good tough game? Simple, run `experienced' player only games. I know that Eric is interested in running winner-only games but there is no reason why he shouldn't organize games for people who have completed at least 1 game by email or snail mail. (I'd personally take a minimum of three complete games for entry to an `experienced players' game.) Of course such games are not going to be completely NMR free (or drop-out free) but the NMR rate should be a lot less than in general games. The main problems in game fees are the following: 1) conversion of currency for players overseas. <Solvable by using the Snail mail oversea subscription exchange, or credit cards.> 2) game startup delays while snailmail is used to exchange money. <Credit cards would also solve this problem.> 3) regulations against using the net for commercial purposes. <Solvable by completely returning the money at the end of the game. That way it is a Deposit, and not a Fee.> However, I agree that this is probably an extreme measure. Instead, "experienced" games are the key. That can be done automatically on the JUDGE, by insisting that players have a fairly signification positive "dedication" built up before they can sign up. Just a tangential comment about the game BID DIPLOMACY. At one convention, an auction was held for the powers in a game of diplomacy. The money bid went to the winner and the minimum bid was $100. Austria went at a little over the minimum and England was sold for about $500. Another small correction is that I invented the WIN91 idea, of course at the time it was called WIN89. Too bad I don't have time to play myself now. MN In email zines where the Gming load is spread out so much amongst human (and non-human !) GMs I see little reason for restricting the start-up rate for new games I was referring to delaying new startups during times at which the replacement player list was exhausted and new players were needed. That is a sure sign we are spreading ourselves too thin. If backup players are needed, I would direct any new players to those games. Of course I would still be willing to start up a game involving only those players who for one reason or another are ineligible or unable to fill those voids. MN I agree that it should be possible to produce a good diplomacy ordering program, but I have my doubts that a good DIPLOMACY progrtam can be written with current technology. Current progress should be towards a program which can write a decent set of orders in any position regardless of diplomatic situation. From here a program that writes a good set of orders given the alliance structure should be realtively easy. ie the Gunboat program might attack your ally, but the more advanced program would be able to take into account that you may not want to attack your allies! That is basically our strategy in the Diplomacy Programming Project. We think the initial emphasis should be on strategy, and then later on negotiation. However, for compatibility, the stupid initial programs will know at least how to tell the smart later programs how incommunicative they are. MN (2) I personally don't like the idea of games being run in complete isolation from other games, although this may just be my snail- mail upbringing coming out! I'd like GMs to run two or three games which appear in a little publication being mailed out to all the players in all the games. For one thing it would be easier to get SBs for any games that required them since there would already be a pool of players who knew something about the game. (In my experience players are more likely to SB if they have been receiving the game-report rather than if they are are asked about an abstract game.) Finally, there is nothing wrong in the GM writing CERTAIN kinds of press, indeed it can help make the press flow more smoothly. I agree with you partially here. I think that players should be allowed to observe whatever set of games they want to. Of course, observers make better/faster/more-willing substitutes then complete strangers, so GMs should definitely encourage people to observe. As a libertarian, I am suprised that Eric forces people to observe games that they are not particularly interested in. The one exception to the above are especially interesting games (34 player variant, tournaments, bourse, etc) for which large number of observers are expected/needed in any case. MN (2) Mercator was originally designed in 1974 as an attempt to produce a multi-player game along the lines of Youngstown but eliminating ... Please send me the rules by snail mail now that you've offered. DL That's what I mean by "the final say". The GM makes rulings. If the DL players don't like these rulings they can ask for him to rethink it, DL or they can call in an arbitrator. However, in the final analysis, DL they can allows leave ship and find a new GM. MN(2) If players leave a game and find another GM they are (of course) classed as a drop-out and a SB found to replace them. Are you trying to say that if all of the remaining players in a game dropped out SIMULTANEOUSLY and in order to move to another GM which they had found that you would get all of the players replaced? I say that when there is no players left there is no game and there is no need to find replacement players. (Of course that has never happened to me, my players love me....) :) ----- By the way Mark, I'm enjoying this discussion.... Yours, Daniel Loeb "Pas de Panique" Letter from AMT5MAN@cms1.ucs.leeds.ac.uk/Mark Nelson Subject: RE DANNY's LETTER Comments on Danny's letter... > REGARDING THE USE OF THE DIPLOMACY ADJUDICATOR (JUDGE) > From: mad-2@kub.nl (C. Wekx) > Well, I strongely object against Daniel's idea of playing all > games thru Judge. Judge makes terrible mistakes (sometimes) > and the involvement/dedication of the players is much lower in > games played at the Judge adjudicator than in the game with a > human GM. I have never liked the idea of playing EP game on > the judge adjudicator and I'd be glad if you payed more > attention to the quality of EP games rather than the quantity. DL I agree with part of what Wekx is saying here. Eric advertises his DL huge zine by bragging about how many games are in there, but you get DL the impression that he doesn't follow them all himself. In fact, DL nobody follows all of the games. So why are they all published like DL this? The answer is just inertia from moving away from the system of DL publication used by non-email diplomacy zines. MN Incidentally, I would like the address for any other email zines! DL You say that JUDGE makes serious mistakes. I really don't think this DL is the case. The JUDGE hardly ever makes an adjudication error because DL when it does, the error is fixed and doesn't happen again. The last DL error I am aware of occurred about 1/2 a year ago (it allowed the DL retreat results to be posted even if the last unit on the unit list DL had a retreat outstanding). DL Regarding the lower quality of JUDGE players, I think there is no DL relationship in question. Up until recently, most JUDGE games were DL formed at random so of course some unreliable players can slip in. DL However, nowadays a game master can make an "unlisted" game which only DL those players which he handpicks can sign up for. Moreover, even if DL the game is "listed", he can set a minimum "dedication" required to DL participate in the game. That is to say, you can require players to DL "prove themselves" by meeting the deadlines in another game before DL they can enter yours. DL Another solution for getting reliable players is the following. Each DL player pays a forfeit to enter the game as a starting player. A DL certain percentage of the forfeit is returned to the player if he DL makes all the deadlines. Penalties are removed for deadlines he DL missed. And if he had to be replaced then his replacement player (who DL pays nothing to get in) gain all right to this forfeit. Any money not DL returned in this way is divided evenly among the winning players. DL I would be willing to run some of my games in this fashion if people DL are interested. MN Game fees work to some extent in snail mail games, but they are not 100% and I think that they would be difficult to use in email games.. after all the attraction of email games is that you can do everything from your terminal. How then can we cater for the 'experienced' player who wants a good tough game? Simple, run `experienced' player only games. I know that Eric is interested in running winner-only games but there is no reason why he shouldn't organize games for people who have completed at least 1 game by email or snail mail. (I'd personally take a minimum of three complete games for entry to an `experienced players' game.) Of course such games are not going to be completely NMR free (or drop-out free) but the NMR rate should be a lot less than in general games. DL Wekx propose that we: DL DL 2. Run less games so that you can keep up with the number of DL replacements and games in trouble. DL DL I agree that the emphasis shouldn't be on maximizing the number of DL games, and that new games shouldn't be started while old ones could DL use the players. However, that not being the case, why should we DL prevent interested players from playing Diplomacy? MN In email zines where the Gming load is spread out so much amongst human (and non-human !) GMs I see little reason for restricting the start-up rate for new games ------ DL REGARDING DAVE MCCRUMB DL Eric proposes that vote for Dave McCrumb. Who is this guy? And why DL should we vote for him? MN I believe that Eric has behavioured very badly in trying to `fix' the results of this Poll, and if it works this will only increase the tension between certain section of the email and snail mail hobbys. (1) Eric should have listed all the candidates and (2) why should email players vote for someone they may not have heard of? Dave did have an email address a year-or-so ago and obviously those people he had contact with then may vote for him. I would vote for him as I have known him for four years in the snail mail hobby but to ask EP readers to vote for someone then don't know and without giving a reason is not `playing the game'. ------ DL REGARDING THE DIPLOMACY PROGRAMMING PROJECT DL I think that a good diplomacy playing program is possible. It merely DL requires a lot of work and cooperation between 7 teams of programmers. DL (Imagine that, cooperation being needed in diplomacy.) MN I agree that it should be possible to produce a good diplomacy ordering program, but I have my doubts that a good DIPLOMACY progrtam can be written with current technology. Current progress should be towards a program which can write a decent set of orders in any position regardless of diplomatic situation. From here a program that writes a good set of orders given the alliance structure should be realtively easy. ie the Gunboat program might attack your ally, but the more advanced program would be able to take into account that you may not want to attack your allies! DL Currently, a lot of work is being done one 2 player games. For DL example, the following games will have automat competitions this DL August in Holland and talks will be given about the programs in DL question: DL Awari Cribbage Go (9x9) Renju DL Backgammon Dominoes Go (19x19) DL Reversi/Othello (r) Bridge 8 x 8 Draughts Go-Moku DL Scrabble (r) Chess 10 x 10 Draughts DL 9Men's Morris Chinese Chess Gin Rummy Qubic DL DL I know that in Checkers and Othello computers are considered much DL down 5 than humans while in Go humans are considered vastly superior. ------ DL REGARDING THE ARTICLE "HOW TO GM" (Electronic Protocol 225) MN Incidentally, I don't seem to have a copy of EP with this letter in. Mark Nelson writes: > A GM should have little problem in being impartial and shouldn't be > too concerned about keeping the players interested in the game. All > the GM has todo in order to maintain interest is to provide game > reports on time and to a regular schedule. If you don't think you can > do that then you shouldn't start games. The only time when a GM needs > to consider partiality is if they are providing comments on the > moves made in the game. DL In a mail game of Diplomacy, even novice players can see the other DL game in the zine, and will be thus encouraged to start writing press. DL Here, some novice players will only be getting their game, so it might DL be necessary to get the press moving yourself by writing the first DL one. DL If the GM is only willing to set deadlines and compute results, then DL up 5s doing no more than the JUDGE can do on its own. MN (2) I personally don't like the idea of games being run in complete isolation from other games, although this may just be my snail- mail upbringing coming out! I'd like GMs to run two or three games which appear in a little publication being mailed out to all the players in all the games. For one thing it would be easier to get SBs for any games that required them since there would already be a pool of players who knew something about the game. (In my experience players are more likely to SB if they have been receiving the game-report rather than if they are are asked about an abstract game.) Finally, there is nothing wrong in the GM writing CERTAIN kinds of press, indeed it can help make the press flow more smoothly. > One thing which has not been approached in the talk on computerising > diplomacy is producing adjuticators for games which are complicated to > GM. One game which I probably won't run is MERCATOR (the best variant > for 10+ players...infinitely superior to YOUNGSTOWN in both diplomacy > and tactics). The larger versions (with 17...22 players) take a very > long time to adjuticate (one of the reasons why they may not be suitable > to email play) as the number of players is high and the new rules on > convoys need studing. > Games such as Bourse where there is little interest in the mechanics > of GMing are also suitable for the production of adjuticators. DL I haven't heard of the variants you mention here. Can you give more DL details. MN (2) Mercator was originally designed in 1974 as an attempt to produce a multi-player game along the lines of Youngstown but eliminating many of the defects from that game (chiefly the large numbers of stalemate lines and the clogging up of the board which occurs so easily...particularly around sea provinces) but with the fluidity of Abstraction II and Atlantica. Since then the game has undergone many different revisions. There are about 9 different versions of the game today which are playable, the differences between the games being in the number of the players. Definitive Mercator caters for 13 players. Although little known in the States this is the best large multi- player variant, indeed it is arguble better than diplomacy. The main rule differences are as follows: (1) A/F rules... These are a revision of the Abstraction A/F fleet rules are make the game more tactical. Say France has A(Gas) and F(MAO) in Spring 1901. Then in Autumn 1901 France can order A(Gas) Boards F(MAO), F(MAO)-IRI, A(IRI)-Lpl. This makes for more aggressive play. Also a fleet which doesn't move in a turn can support an army moving onto land. (2) Players have a combination of colonys and special build centers across the map. This ensures that you must diplome with every player every season if you want to do well! This is one of its appeals, the fact that diplome is very intense. (3) There are no stalemate lines. (4) Victory criteria are easy to achieve. One of the problems with large games is that the (n)/2 +1 VC is impossible to furfill without the game going on for an exceedingly long time. Mercator gets round this problem by a very ingenious route which works well. The new VC ensures that there are always 5/6 players at the end with an equal chance of winning. I can provide more details/rules on request but they have to go by snail-mail. Also one of the leading Mercator players has an email address, and he can provide you with more details. Bourse is a financial game run aside a regular dip game (in principl it could be run with a variant). THere are many financial games and Bourse was one of the first, and is one of the simplest. Players (who don"t have to be in the dip game) buy and sell shares. However the final share-price at the end-of-the-game depends on how well that country has done. So as well as being good at manipulating share-prices you also need to spot which countries are going to do well in the game before anyone else does. It is a reasonable popular game. There are many extensions to the basic framework. This can be divided into two groups (1) Making the share selling and buying more realistic and (2) the players in the bourse game all play in the dip game. In (2) (which are all variants) players with the most shares in a country in a Winter Season order that country in the next season. Hence they can manipulate prices by the right set of orders. Incidentally, does anyone want to write some variant reviews? I am currently writing an `A-Z of Variants' and need people to write reviews of any variants that they have played. > In Daniel's disdain for local games he overlooks the fact that many > games are run locally over University networks. DL True, but since most of the action takes place face-to-face, it really DL is a face-to-face game, and thus lies outside the scope of my article. > I know of no GM who has ever allowed players to trade countries > once they have been allocatted. Such a practice proably makes these > games 'irregular'. To do so introduces a new element into the game > and can only lead to all kinds of unsaviour practices and going-ons. DL I have seen it done, and it is not a good idea. Generally, what DL happens is that 2 or 3 friends join the game together and make sure DL that they get a group of countries (such as EGI) that can make some DL good initial attacks and firmly control both sides of the stalemate DL line. MN(2) Agreed, this practice should be stamped out. > Why a GM who is being sent secret information from the players > should not print press is something I can't fathom out...unless > the calibre of email GMing is really that low which I find hard to > believe. I wouldn't warn players about the consequences of > sending me unasked for secret information since I am a mature GM > who wouldn't want to abuse my position of trust with the player > concerned. Again, perhapes email GMs are of a different calibre > and would willing misuse their position as GM? I found this section > of the article to be rather strange. DL I was referring to GMs who ask their players to confide their DL strategies with him. For such a GM to then go on and write about the DL potential strategies of players, would be putting himself in an DL awkward position. MN(2) Thanks for correcting this. This section now makes sense and I agree with your views. Incidentally the best way for a GM who is asking for comments from the players to comment on the game is to comment on the last season played rather than (as is normally the case) the next one. Alternatively ask a neutral party to write a commentary on the game. > I see no reason why players should not be allowed just to change > one or two orders and not to resubmitt all their orders...although > it is good practice for a player todo so. DL I agree with you. In fact the judge allows such incremental changes. DL However, when running a non-JUDGE game, I SUGGEST that the players DL submit complete orders for clarity. > There is no point not allowing illegal orders except when players > ask you to on grounds of strategic necessity. DL Personally, I am against Illegal orders, but my policy still allows DL m if the player really insists. He might be insisting for humor DL value or he might be hoping that the other players don't realize that DL illegal moves are not allowed or even that I as GM had forgotten about DL the rule or not recognized the illegality of a move. MN Illegal moves add an extra subtlety to the game, which is why I allow them. It is unlikely that a good player will be conned by them... but if you can't try it then you can't get away with it! > I don't like games where the GM adjutciates with a full set of > orders regardless of the date. But that's mearly a personal preference. > I like the option of being able to use all of the period allocated > to diplome. DL Players who aren't ready to have results computed need only specify DL SET WAIT with their moves. Then results will not be computed before DL the deadline. (PLEASE HOLD is the equivalent for a non-Judge game.) > There is nothing wrong in allowing somebody else to order your units > although I firmly believe that the GM should always report this fact > in an adjutication...after all you can't keep this secret in a ftf > game so why should you be allowed to in a postal game? DL can be secret in a FTF game, and why not in a mail game. In any DL case I only allow such switch-overs if it is obvious that the party DL question is CONTINUING to be interested in the game. Otherwise, you DL are allowing a bored player to unfairly change the balance of the DL game. I only throw out players, if they are not following the game. MN(2) It is very difficult to conceal this in a FTF game (I have never seen it done). OK you can write your own orders but players soon become suspicious and follow you round for the whole of the diploming period. THey soon work out that yuo are up-to-something. In a postal game I believe that it gives an unfair advantage to order another players units without the remnaining players being informed of this fact, many snail mail GMs would allow ordering of units BUT would reveal this fact. Now, players can disguise this fact by player A telling player B what to order and player B sending in those orders but this is not strictly ORDERING of ANOTHER PLAYERS UNITS. > DOes the game belong to the players or the GM? I wouldn't run > a game where the players had the final say on what happens...it > could end up in a very nasty situation. If players don't like the > fact that my games belng to me then they can find another GM to > play under. DL That's what I mean by "the final say". The GM makes rulings. If the DL players don't like these rulings they can ask for him to rethink it, DL or they can call in an arbitrator. However, in the final analysis, DL they can allows leave ship and find a new GM. MN(2) If players leave a game and find another GM they are (of course) classed as a drop-out and a SB found to replace them. > A standby who sends in orders for a country which aren't used > probably should not be called for that game again unless it is for > the same power. The GM should not use backup orders if he has not > announced to the players a prior that a standby is being called. > To use anonymous orders to prevent holding a game over is the sign > of a bad GM. DL These backup players are generally announced in advance. That way DL anyone who has trouble contacting one player can try his backup DL instead. Once a backup is used for one country, he would not be used DL for another one. MN(2) By `used' do you mean that his orders are used and he becomes the player of record or do you just mean that he has been called as a SB? > Games which do not use DIAS rules are not 'variants'. DL Here I disagree. Personally, I would never vote for a draw which DL didn't include myself, and I would never run a non-DIAS game of DL diplomacy. MN (2) You might disagree but you would be wrong! They are not variants. I would almost always not vote for a draw which didn't include me but there are one or two exceptions. ie I am on one centre and will be eliminated next year...I'd rather finish the game as a survivor rather than as a eliminatee! DIAS are a good idea, 90% of EGP get votted down because they don't include one player and are therefore a waste of time. But should we stop players votting themselves out of a draw? > A GM must decide if votes come before the Autumn adjutication or > after...it has been known that players agree a draw yet the > adjutication produces an 18 center winner...In my opinion votes > come before adjutication after Spring adjutications but after > adjutications in Autumn seasons (again this is fairly common practice > amongst postal GMS) DL I think a vote has effect when the last needed vote comes in. The only DL problem is what if the last missing vote appears along with the last DL missing set of Fall orders? MN(2) Fair enough, although this would have to be stated in the HRs. Yours, Mark Nelson WORK Department of Applied Mathematics, The University, LEEDS. LS2 9JT ENGLAND Publisher comments: Motto is from Thinking Machines, creators of this planet's fastest computer. ****************************************************************************** To join in the fun, send your name, home address, home and work phone numbers, and country preferences to Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com. ****************************************************************************** Up