Diplomacy zine -- Chapter Eight EP #242 From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1991 21:25:43 +0000 Issue #242 of ELECTRONIC PROTOCOL: ************************************************************************* In investing money, the amount of interest you want should depend on whether you want to eat well or sleep well. ************************************************************************* Chapter One contains: BAGHDAD, AUSTERLITZ, 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: REPUBLIC, BORODINO, KHAN, SUTHERLAND And is published by sinhaa@mcmaster.ca/Anand Sinha 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 is published by daguru@ucscb.ucsc.edu/Nicholas Jodar Chapter Five contains: YALTA, AJAX And is published by ddetlef@csd4.csd.uwm.edu/David Aaron Detlef 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 is published by staats@ucscb.UCSC.EDU/Robert Staats. Chapter Eight contains: HELM'S DEEP, GROUND ZERO, TIBERIUS, BETELGEUSE, IRON CROSS GUERNICA, TEUNISGEK, WOLF BLITZER ------------- Chapter Eight ------------- Table of Contents: Mike Nangle moves to Mass! Python Quotes Automating this zine The invention of Diplomacy by Allan B. Calhamer Playing Turkey from the Gamer's Guide Letters from Danny Loeb Letters from Mark Nelson ---- Mike Nangle has moved to Massachusetts. If you wish to play face-to-face Diplomacy with him, call him at 617 227 6406. I never received the 90 python files from clarinet@yalevm.bitnet. If anyone has a copy of them, I would greatly appreciate receiving them. I need quotes for this zine! Other types of quotes would also be nice. I received the following letters in response to the last issue discussion on whether I should automate my zine: From: cebulad@physics.orst.edu I think Dan's ideas are good ones. The judge does make life much easier for all parties concerned. -Dave Cebula cebulad@physics.orst.edu From: daguru@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Da Guru) I approve of the use of the JUDGE for all diplomacy games. From: mad-2@kub.nl (C. Wekx) Hello Eric, >I received the following from loeb@nestor.greco-prog.fr/Daniel Loeb: > >What I suggest however is the following: >(1) You urge all games to be formed and played on the JUDGE. 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. >(2) Some players might prefer not to use the JUDGE. In that case, the > GM should collect the signups, and orders directly from the > players and submit it to the JUDGE for them. From the > point-of-view of the players this is just like a non-JUDGE game > except that the results will contain LESS errors. From you point > of view, you will automatically be warned of any problems via the > game CONTROL, and the Guest Publisher and other observers will > continue to automatically get results. In fact, anti-JUDGE players > could play with pro-JUDGE players in such a game. The only one who > losses out in this story in the GM who might now have some > additional email handling to do. Well, this is a rather far-fetched solution. The amount of errors made by a human GM is not as huge as indicated here. I object against the idea of human GMs being less competent. >(3) If the GM doesn't want to use the JUDGE, consider getting a > different GM, or use your current system on an exceptional basis > to keep track of that one game. If it has to be this way, I'd rather quit GMming, Guest Publishing and playing. >(4) Some variants are not yet accepted by the JUDGE. If that is the > case, then contact Ken Lowe and see if he can add that variant. > Otherwise, continue using your current system of running the > Electronic Protocol for these variants. > >(5) Ongoing EP games CAN be transferred to the JUDGE if you like. > >Once you have adopted all of these measures. The JUDGE will be much >bigger and much more efficient. > }What does my readership think of Danny's idea? I need to find a way to }keep track of how games are going. My method of publishing results in }chapters no longer works because too many games are running plus I am }unable to find enough reliable publishers who will tell me if a game is }having problems. There is an easy solution to this problem: 1. Make bigger chapters and limit the number of chapters. 2. Run less games so that you can keep up with the number of replacements and games in trouble. 3. I am sure you'll find 3 reliable publishers. >1990 MELINDA ANN HOLLEY AWARD > >I am pushing Dave McCrumb for this award because he is a great guy. Please >send a vote for him to Ron Cameron, 8781 Walker St. #13, Cypress, CA 90630. >If just 10% of this zine's readers responded, he would win. This would be >a great way to show the power of the PBEM hobby. The PBM hobby doesn't take >us seriously, and I would love to show them that e-mail is the way to play >Diplomacy, not snail mail! Again, please vote, it would be fun if we won! Yeah, Dave is a great guy. He deserves this award! (What is this award all about, anyway?) ;-) Constantijn My response: I will be starting a new chapter that will be run by Danny. It will list all human moderated games on Judge that follow my no-NMR houserules. It will simply say what season these games are up to and how people can download game reports and summaries of these games. Ideally, at least half of my games will be played on Judge as it has the advantage of keeping better records than my current system of chapter publishers plus it publishes less to the net. I will always have some non Judge games, as there is a demand for purely human run games. I agree with Constantijn that having some sharp people run a few large chapters would solve most of my problems, if not all of them. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find these sharp people despite a year+ long search. If you are a sharp person that I have missed, let me know. Finally, the Melinda Ann Holley award is for playing in a lot of games at once. The following was first published in EP #62: Taken from Europa Express #10: THE INVENTION OF DIPLOMACY by Allan B. Calhamer As the War drew to a close in 1945, I read an article on postwar planning in the magazine LIFE. This article reviewed the history of the Congress of Vienna and the subsequent period to 1914, arguing that a word containing several Great Powers all roughly equal in strength would offer the best guarantee of peace, because, whenever one or two of these powers acted aggressive, the remainder could unite against them, causing them to back down by overwhelming threate before a war could break out. Regardless of whether such a plan would have worked or could have been brought about in the real world as suggested, the condition of multiple and flexible checks and balances obviously offered itself as a possible basis for a parlour strategic game of some depth and color. In the course of debating in high school, I then encountered an argument against world government--a hot topic of the late forties-- which was that governments now are checked both by internal and external factors, but that a world government would have no external checks upon it, hence might be more likely to become tyrannical. Another debater and I attempted a game simulating the grand alliance of European history of the Eighteenth Century; but as we used only two players and did not find any way to simulate an independent third or fourth part, the effort ended in failure. Meanwhile, several of us were playing Hearts, a card game in which several players participate, each independent of all the others. We observed that the game was best if all the other players played against the current leader. Thus the current lead would tend to change hands, giving more players a chance to lead and a chance to be the leader at the end of the predetermined number of hands. Competition was further enhanced by ruling that if two players tied for the lead at the end, all players shared equally in the tie. Thus all players who were hopelessly far behind still had incentive to try to bring about a tie between the leaders, thus increasing the competition instead of detracting from it. I noticed that players who did not understand all of this would tend to play for second place, or simply to protect their own score, and would thus detract from the competition, while usually also detracting from their own chances of finishing first. It occured to me that if negotiation were permitted, other players whose chances were diminished by this suboptimal play would have a chance to inform the suboptimal party and make out a case for more nearly optimal play. If this effort failed, then they could say that their opportunities were foreclosed, not merely by the aberrant play of another, but also by thier own failure to persuade, which would be an integral part of the contest. From chess I borrowed the number of spaces, about 80 as against 64 squares, and the number of pieces, 34 as against 32 chesspieces. My pieces move only as chess Kings; but the King is about an average chessman in mobility; thus the board is about equally saturated with force. Diplomacy is thus much simpler than most war games in its small number of spaces. I think that the game should be as simple as possible, so long as the game is indeterminate and reasonable rich in strategic choices. In 1952, I studied Nineteenth Century European history at Harvard under Professor Sidney B. Fay, of the Harvard Class of 1895(!), whose book, ORIGINS OF THE WORLD WAR, detailed the specific diplomatic developments leading to the World War. These consisted primarily of two-or three-party arrangements, wholly or partly secret in nature, as well as similiar contacts and projects which did not mature into arrangements. The arrangements were frequently almost as brief and pointed as those made verbally during Diplomacy games. At this time I also studied political geography under Professor Derwent Whittlesley. There I became reacquainted with the concept of Geopolitics devised by Sir Halford MacKinder about 1904, which I had already encountered in an article, again in LIFE. The principle element of Geopolitics seems to be the consideration of the effect upon the international power struggle of the particular geometric nature of the division of the surface of this Earth, altogether specifically considered, into land and sea. Thus Diplomacy emerged as a game in which land power and sea power are almost equally significant; whereas nearlly all other war games are either land games primarily or sea games primarily. The decision whether to raise an army or a fleet is one of the most important decisions the player can make, and is one of the most important indicators of the direction of future activity. Diplomacy is perhaps the first or only war game on the continental scale, in which entire campaigns are only elements of the whole. In designing the tactics, reference was made to the Napoleonic principle, "unit to fight, seperate to live." Seperation is achieved first of all by requiring that there be only one piece in a space. Concentration is then arrived at by the use of "support" orders from different pieces which bear on the attacked province. Pieces farther from the crucial point are less likely to affect the struggle for it, but some of them may do so by cutting supports. The use of supply centers causes further dispersion of forces and emphasizes the economic nature of objectives. It also makes the game primarily one of manoeuvre rather than annihilation. This aspect of the game is reminiscent of the "indirect apporach" of Liddell-Hart, though I had not read Liddell-Hart at the time. Finally the problem of organizing a seven-person game was not solved unitl I entered the study of law in 1953. Then I became aware that players who failed to meet their responsibilities toward the game should be made to suffer light penalities, such as loss of a single move, so that they are encouraged to comply but are not usually wiped out be minor lapses. The game should be designed so taht it can charge right on in spite of poorly written orders and the like. The notion that a person may tell all the lies he wants and cross people up as he pleases, and so on, which makes some players almost euphoric, and causes others to "shake like a leaf", as one new player put it, came up almost incidentally, because it was the most realistic in international affairs and also far and away the most workable approach. To require players to adhere to alliances would result in a chivving kind of negotiation, followed by the incorporation of the whole of contract law, as some erstwhile inventors of variants have found out. The game was completed in 1954 and has undergone relatively little change. The major changes have concerned adjusting the map to make the countries more nearly equal and to give them a wider range of strategic choices. Convoying was made simpler, and minor complications eliminated. These revisions occurred during 1958 when a good group of game players and Operations Research people played many games and offered many suggestions for improvement. In 1959 I had 500 sets manufactured on my own capital after major companies rejected the game. Manufacture of the game was transferred to Games Research Incorporated in 1960. Sales have increased in every single year since the game has been on the market. Postal Diplomacy was begun in 1963 by Dr. John Boardman. The games are conducted through amateur magazines, of which a few dozen are always in existence. Annual conventions have been held in the United States for some years; conventions have also been held in Belgium and Italy. From loeb@nestor.greco-prog.fr/Danny Loeb: Playing Turkey Scribed by Daniel Loeb From Player's Guide The southern Wicked Withc is if anything more wicked than the Northern one. Her defensive position is superb---essentially an island with land approaches, the ways into Turkey are dvided between land and sea. This requires any potential enemy to have a strong and balanced force. The position of TUrkey is so strategic she can frequently get Austria or Russia to defend her rather than see the other get a lion's share. Turkey's offensive position is good too. She has quick access to the Mediterranean and is close to the Balkan "knot" of centers. Of of the frequent game ending situations is a 16 or 17 unit Turkey dividing the board with England/France, England/Germany, England/Italy or some such combination. The reason for this is that Turkey does not have a majority of centers on her side of the stalemate lines that run through the middle of the board. She can often get as far as controlling AUstria, Italy, the Balkans, Tunis, and 3 Russian centers. That's 17. Any of the other nearby centers which would give her victory (Spa,Mar,Mun,Stp) can be held from the other side. Turkish policy would be wise to aim at getting one of those centers as early in the game as possible. [PRESPRING 1901] NEGOTIATIONS Austria: Turkey and Austria are not well situated to be allies. Austria lies across Turkey's best and most natural path for expansion. However, the alliance is not impossible and offers the prospect of blitzing Italy and getting into the Atlantic with all possible speed. The alliance also frequently works because it is so unexpected. Ordinarily, however, the best these two can achieve is a temporary truce. Certainly the Turks should do nothing to antagonize Austria, regardless of their ultimate plan. It never hurts to discuss the alliance. England: Initial negotiations with England will yield little save, perhaps, some information. Turkey's aim is to keep the Western powers stalemated against each other. If England indicates any intention of attacking anybody, pass it on to the victim immediately. Do so even if she didn't say so--lie, spread rumors, and in general malign the Perfidious Albion. France: Turkey should seek French help against Italy if a Lepanto Opening in in the making. If Italy succeeds, her navy will be a huge threat to France. (So if the Turkish navy, but at least it's more distant.) Otherwise, any arrangement which keeps France out of the Mediterranean is a good idea. Germany: Germany should be encouraged to attack Turkey's first victim (Austria or Russia). She will ultimately have trouble holding her gains against Turkey's armies. Getting Germany turned against England is also desirable. Italy: Offer any inducement for an alliance against Austria. It is not necessary to be sincere. Lie, cheat and steal to prevent an Austo-Italian alliance. Turkey can ally with Italy, but the relationship is uneasy. The advantage of the alliance is that Itlay can quickly breach the Iberian line while Turkey is left free to send armies into the middle of the board. This arrangement is frequently to Italy's detriment. Sooner or later her exposed back is going to catch a scimitar. Turkey should soothe Italy's fears of this as much as possible, even while planning the inevitable (well, almost inevitable) stroke. Russia: Russia is Turkey's best potential ally. What to do with the Tsar's Black Sea fleet is frequently a problem. Turkey should negotiate aggressively and persuasively with the Russian player. A commitment to neutralize the Black Sea is an essential arrangement whether Turkey's intentions are sincere or not. One very daring plan, but one which puts to work a usually neglected unit, is to allow the Russian fleet to enter the Black Sea in Fall 1903 to 1904. It then gets to Constantinople the following Spring and to the Aegean in the Fall. It then proceeds into the Mediterranean area where it can help Turkish naval units. In return, a Turkish army on her right flanka assists Russian landward advances into Germany. OPENINGS Preliminary Note: There is no substitute for (A Con-Bul). The orders for the other two units may vary. 1. F Ank-Bla F Smy-Arm 2. F Ank-Con A Smy H 3. F Ank-Bla A Smy-Con 1. This opening poses all sorts of problems for Russia. If she has trustingly ordered (F Sev-Rum) she is in real trouble. Even if she ordered, (F Sev-Bla), she is going to have difficulty maintaining her position. 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. 3: Turkey can employ this opening when she is unsure of Russia but does not want to move to Armenia. It may be that she has at least a neutrality pact with Russia which includes a pre-arranged stand-off in the Black Sea. Among other things, this can be used to deceive players in believing Russia and Turkey are at war, even though they are allied. Without that intent, the opening is weak, but makes the best of an uncertain situation. MIDGAME Turkey's midgame should see a strong push of armies toward Munich and/or fleets toward Spain. If this can appear to be an intervention on behalf of a beleagured ally, so much the better. Once Turkey has reached this stage, she can concentrate more on offense and worry less about defense. With 6-7 units she hqs become difficult to attack. Turkey's position is more exposed if her alliance is with Austria. Her main strength is developping in Russia and Italy, on the flanks. The center is more vulnerable. Ideally, in this situation, Turkey owns Greece and Bulgaria. The two allies may agree to station armies in Rumania and Bulgaria, ordering each to attack the other every season. That will not prevent a stab, but may make it more difficult (or less rewarding). There are no guarantees in DIPLOMACY. (Well, almost none. Those familiar with frustration-aggression theory will tell you that you're guaranteed a lot of both in DIPLOMACY.) ENDGAME Allies with Austria or Russia, Turkey shoudl by now have some fleets in the Atlantic. If not, forget it. Stalemate. Allied with Italy, Turkey should have some armies in Germany, while Italian fleets are in the Atlantic. If not, forget it. Stalemate. If the game is moving toward stalemate, Turkey must begin to consider stabbing her ally. Austria or Italy will be easier to betray than Russia, generally speaking. With Italy, particularly, Turkey will be very hemmed in. Italy will receive Trieste and one other center at least (Greece rather than Vienna so Turkey's armies will be more free to advance. Italy will probably have demanded more and Turkey may have had to give in.) Turkey could thus optain: Bul-Ser-Rum-Bud-Vie, Germany, and 3 Russian centers for a total of 14. She might also get Hol-Bel-Par for 16. It is hard to see any other centers for Turkey, so a stab of Italy become almost inevitable. From loeb@nestor.greco-prog.fr/Danny Loeb: (To Mark Nelson, cced to me) Thanks for your letter. I read about the bridge program, and downloaded a copy. Now I want to play. If you organize any games, then please include me if possible. For the moment I am receiving your magazine via EP, so I don't really need another copy. However, I would prefer NOT TO GET IT BY EP, but rather to get it separately. I think most people would.... First of all, not all Diplomacy players care about Bridge. Second, the size of EP begins to tax the abilities of mailers. Third, I prefer getting little magazines frequently rather than having to do all my reading at one time. Eric Klien doesn't seem to agree that no efficiency is gained by sending two zines out together. I think people should be allowed to get ONLY the zines (and even the PARTS OF ZINES) that they want. Through automatization, this really is possible. However, Eric Klien has never learned how the JUDGE works and is not converted completely to the electronic publishing mentality. (If you don't know about JUDGE, then send the message HELP to JUDGE@U.WASHINGTON.EDU .) Why don't you do your part and REMOVE your Bridge zine from the EP. Replace it with a simple explanation of how someone can (automatically) subscribe to your zine or order back-issues. Yours, Daniel Loeb "Pas de Panique" From loeb@nestor.greco-prog.fr/Danny Loeb: Dear Editor, I agree with Michael Norrish's letter in Issue #239 of the Electronic Protocol, and would like to comment on your response. You said: >All games are published so it is easier for me to know which games are >having problems. It is also useful if the GM fails to make a game end >summary report and I need to dig up the information. If at least one >player in each game kept a copy of all the info needed for game summaries >plus informed me of any game delays, then I wouldn't need to publish so >many chapters. Unfortunately, players tend to neither inform me of game >problems nor compile game summaries. But one day... First, of all, the most efficient way for you to find out if a game is running well is not to waste network resources sending it around the world, but rather to keep an eye on it either yourself or through the chapter checkers you have. The players will also report any problems they are aware. After all, if they don't, that means they are no longer interersted in the game, and why continue a game which no one is interested in. People interested in watching any given game can join the spectator list. Your archivist should also join that list in order to keep accurate and permanent records of the game. The rest of your readers would then only receive instructions on how to receive more information about the game. You should note of course that the Diplomacy Adjudicator helps out on all of these functions. First of all, any problem in a game is signalled in the pseudo-game "CONTROL". Thus, by observing control you can find out when your games have a problem (without necessarily going through the trouble of watching each one individually.) By being a master of "control" you would have access to even more information. Secondly, the Diplomacy Adjudicator automatically keeps game records (until the are deleted by Ken Lowe to make room for new files). These records can be accessed at any moment. The Diplomacy Adjudicator recognizes separately the status of "alternate" and of "observer". It allows people to signon to these categories themselves and thus to follow the game (and even participate in it by writting editorials). Finally, the Electronic Protocol can help you write those one-line summaries of each game needed so that your readers can follow what is going on. I always viewed the Electronic Protocol as sort of the avante-garde of Diplomacy magazines. However, you haven't stopped thinking of Electronic Protocol as a traditional mail journal. The media has changed, so the content should change. I strongly suggest you personally participate in a moderated game on the Diplomacy Adjudicator (even Gunboat if you don't have much time). Chances are you will fall in love with the Diplomacy Adjudicator, and be able to streamline the Electronic Protocol through increased use of the Diplomacy Adjudicator. However, even if not, then at least you would better be able to direct players to their games run on the Diplomacy Adjudicator (of which there are already many in your magazine.) Yours, Daniel Loeb, Master, Austerlitz,Berezina,Guadal,Jutland,Tiberius "Pas de Panique" From: loeb@geocub.greco-prog.fr (Daniel LOEB) I would like to respond to the remarks of Steve Robinson on my latest posting in the Electronic Protocol. He says that Diplomacy (like Chess or Go) is a game of perfect information. In fact, this is not the case. In Chess of Go, each player moves in his turn, and that together with his knowlege of the board, allows the players in theory to always make the best moves possible. However, in Diplomacy, moves are revealed simultaneously. While you can all see the position on the board and while there is no luck in the resolution of the orders, you can only guess what moves the other players are writting. The classic example is Italian Fleet Tyrrhenian versus Turkish fleet Ionian. Italy can not defend both Naples and Tunis. He must guess which one to defend. Conversely, Turkey might assume that Italy will cover one of the two, and then prefer to advance his fleet into the Tyrrhenian instead of gambling on a 50% chance. Turkey's decision will be based on his perception of the probabilities. There is no "best" action in an deterministic sence, but only in a probabilitic sence. Yours, Daniel Loeb, Diplomacy Programming Project "Pas de Panique" From: AMT5MAN@cms1.ucs.leeds.ac.uk/Mark Nelson Subject: Elerctonic Protocol 226 Dear Eric, As a mathematician of sorts the discussion of Game Theory is of interest. However the interesting question posed by Daniel Loeb is the result of a game of diplomacy under ideal play. You may remember that last July I ran two articles by Lew Pulispher and Edi Birsan discussing the result of a game of diplomacy under ideal play, they were subsequently reprinted in EP. However the difficulty is in describing what ideal play is, this difficulty is reflected in the wide range of diplomacy rating systems that are used and discussed. ANother difficulty is that given a player who plays with a certain objective in mind we should also consider to what extent will he take a 'risk'. Here a 'risk' would be a set of moves which could increase the chance of obtaining a primary objective at the expense of lowering the probability of obtaining a secondary one. For abstract games it is easy to define ideal play...YOU PLAY TO WIN and then (in multi player games) draw. I suppose what I am trying to say is that it is impossible to have an ideal diplomay game because it is currently impossible to get a definition of ideal play with which everybody will agree. In my own mind IDEAL PLAY is playing to win and playing to prevent another player from winning. With these objectives shared by all seven player and with all players being tactically sound than the ideal game will end in a draw. Where I disagree with other people who have offered a similiar line of reasoning is that I do not discuss how many people will be in the draw. I do not believe that the ideal game has a predetermined a prior n-way draw. I would expect it to be smaller than a 7-way draw but bigger than a 2-way draw. Incidentally I do not believe that with 'best play' two-way draws can arise naturally within a game, that is to say unless two people agree before the games conclustion that they will play for a two-way draw and stick to that agreement. I might say that all positions leading to a two-way draw are dynamcally unstable. ONe aspect of the war I found interesting was the contrast in reporting between the States and the UK, although this contrast has existed for a long time...the Gulf War mearly showed it again. Namely that freddom of information is wider in the States than in the UK. A particular complaint that is aired frequently is that if you want information on Anglo-American millitary co-operation than you don't go through Parliment as the MOD will often claim National Security. No, you ask a Congressional representative to ask the same question... odds are that they'll get an answer| Strange, but true. It won't come as a suprise to hear that I concurr with you that the media (of any nationality) were far too free with information that might have been better kept under raps. However I find it difficult to suggest how the lead can be kept on...the ever increasing speed at which the media can report on events suggests that the only practical solution would be full censorship...hardly a proposition that commans support. SO whilst I agree with you that the media went too far I won't join in the media bashing...you have yet to suggest a practical alternative to our present system. IN some of your comments youn argue that millitary necessarity should be the only grounds for not reporting. THis is idealistic since home-front propaganda is often equally as important. The restrictions on the showing on US troops in pain may or might not be going too far. Certainly there is no millitary reason for this imposition. But what about the propaganda value? It is hardly going to endear the public to the fight. In times of need the Roman Republic would go against its better instincts and appoint a dictator. Perhapes we should resign ourselves to the fact that in 'times of need' the Goverment is going to want to keep us ignorant and accordingly impose censorship. Hmm. AN interesting issue but since it's so old I'll say no more except that the discussion contained some interesting comments. Mark. From: AMT5MAN@cms1.ucs.leeds.ac.uk/Mark Nelson Subject: Electronic Protocol 237 Dear Eric, I find the continuing discussion on the programming of computers to play decision based games very interesting. However I am yet to be convinced that present computer state-of-the-art is sufficient for much progress to made on games like diplomacy on anything other than a tactical level. I would be interested in reading more about actual results achieved. Which tactical games now have computers which can play (a) a good game (Bridge...Chess spring to mind) and/or (b) a better game than humans can. Did the allied forces in the Gulf War go out of their way to spare human life? AN interesting question on a philosophical level (at least) since the question is by no means as simple as it has been portrayed in the media. Sure the advent of high-tech weapons has ensured that most bombs/missiles hit the intended millitary target rather than unintended civillian areas. (As an aside I quibbile at the statement that there would have been a TACTICAL advantage in us levelling civilian targets...what advantage; you mean attempting to unite the Iraqii people against us?|) However we should also consider the effect of our attacks on power stations (we won't consider the thorny question of whether they really are millitary targets). A direct result of knowing out most of the Iraqii generating power is to create conditions ripe for the spreed of epedimics which could kill thousands (tens of thousands?). Would these casulties be classed as civillians killed by allied bombing? Of course not, we wouldn't want to break up the party...but they should be considrered. However...such talk is to some extent irrelevant. In mdern warefare the emphasis is not on doing the right thing BUT on being seen to be doing the right thing. SOmetimes this resduces the effectiveness of a millitary campaign. AT other times it has advantages...such as the low level of civillian casulties in the war. Cheers, Mark. My response: " I suppose what I am trying to say is that it is impossible to have an ideal diplomay game because it is currently impossible to get a definition of ideal play with which everybody will agree." You are right. " Namely that freddom of information is wider in the States than in the UK. ... SO whilst I agree with you that the media went too far I won't join in the media bashing...you have yet to suggest a practical alternative to our present system." I think the military should remove propaganda restrictions such as showing dead Americans or even dead Iraqis but at the same time it should make sure that CNN reports don't help the Iraqis with their targeting. "Perhaps we should resign ourselves to the fact that in 'times of need' the Goverment is going to want to keep us ignorant and accordingly impose censorship." Trusting the government is not a sane thing to do. "Did the allied forces in the Gulf War go out of their way to spare human life? ... what advantage; you mean attempting to unite the Iraqi people against us?|) I believe the best reason to spare Iraqi civilians is because it puts the Iraqis on our side. Killing them to help unite them against us would be a really dumb thing to do. "A direct result of knowing out most of the Iraqii generating power is to create conditions ripe for the spreed of epedimics which could kill thousands (tens of thousands?)." This is not a direct result. Without a civil war, most of these people would have lived. And destroying the infrastructure helped the rebels as the government was unable to coordinate its actions quickly. "Sometimes this reduces the effectiveness of a military campaign." Again, I think our saving civilian lives helped us by getting the civilians on our side. The civil war showed whose side the people eventually joined. I'll have Danny drop you a line. Eric Klien From: AMT5MAN@cms1.ucs.leeds.ac.uk/Mark Nelson Subject: Electronic Protocol 238 Dear Eric, Rereading the article by Andrew England on the triple alliance it struck me that the scribe didn't given the name of the editor of the zine concerned. OK, so in this particular case I know who it is; but I won't in general and I'd like to know the culprit who prints heir own comments after the article. So please include the editor's name. Mark. From: AMT5MAN@cms1.ucs.leeds.ac.uk/Mark Nelson Subject: Electronic Protocol 240 Dear Eric, One area where your scribes could improve the zine is by giving not the only the original zine (and issue number) an article appeared in but also when the zine was published. This may appear to be only a very trivial 'mistake' but it is one which I consider to be very important. Knowing when an article was firts published in useful for a number of reasons. Although it has always been recognized that there are many different ways of playing diplomacy and that it is the relationship between players that is important rather than between the powers at any particular time there is normal a concensus as to what the best openings/alliances are. SOmebody who is interested in the theory of the game is also interested in how this theory has devolped/changed in time since the beginnings of diplomacy. This is only possible if you know when an article was printed. Some articles may appear to suggest very strange moves or ideas, yet often this can be explained by referrence to articles published at the same time or to 'current thinking' when an article was printed. Reading the article many years latter this may not be apparent if the scribe doesn't give the data of originasl publication. Finally, articles may carry referrences to contemporary people and events...referrences that may not make sense unless the reader knows when an article was written. In short, please ask scribes to give details of when any particular article was published as well as which zine it appeared in. The eleven player variant is very similiar to Woolworth IID (except that has ten powers and normally five players take two each) in its structure. The game appears too cramped for my own personal tastes. If I were to run an eleven player game I'd fo for either an anarchy style line-up (possibly on the Abstractio II Map) or Mercator (the best multi-player variant, far superior to Youngstown in playability). It has been interesting following the American response to the situation in Iraq following the end of hostilites in the area. It appears that the Bush administration did not have any clear idea what to do once it had called off the troops. There was indecision as to whether they should aid the upraisings against Saddam, indecision as to whether they should then prevent the massacre of the Kurds and final indecision as to what they should do help the Kurds. I find this mass of indecision to be...dissappointing. Given all the time and preparation that went into preparing the land-war the amount of time that has gone into considering the consequences of victory appears to be very little. Indeed this applies to the majority of the Allied forces. I retain particular distain for the Turkish Goverment who once again show that they are not fit to be members of the EEC. Before we critize the Iraqii Goverment for ill-treatment of the Kurdish race we should remember that the position is little different in Turkey where the Kurds are treated as a sewcond-class race with no rights... until recently it was illegal to speak Kurdish in TUrkey. I have not yet read the issue where someone, apparently, suggests that Brits think poorly of Americans. Of course, it's difficult to talk about what any one nation does or think. It isn't really possible to construct meaningful average nationals...although this doesn't prevent TV producers from doing so. It's also worth noting that the relationship between Brits and Yanks is largely independant in the changing political relationship between our two countries. There was close political linkes in the Regan/Thatcher years which cooled down considerable when Bush took over. Now under Major we appear once again to be considers America's closest political ally in Europe. Whilst these changing political fortunes has some effect on the relationshi between average nationals it is not a major factor. OK, we feel free to comment on those aspects of the American way of life that we do not like. Private Health Care, American Soaps overrunning our own native channels, the whole legal system...the myth of the benefits of a free market in the media....I could list a whole bunch of items where the average Brit will not like what Americans take for granted. Oops, forget the American tourist who often comes in for hammering. DOubless the average American could list thing he dislikes about Brits/the UK. But when it comes down to it not only do we like Americans... we actually prefer them to any other nation. FOr one thing we share a similiar culture (past and present) and the same language. Being an island we have no close linkes with other European nations (either politically or culturally) and not suprisingly we have a prefference for a people who talk and think like us. Despite comments to the opposite effect Americans are in. I'd even go so far as to say that we respect you. And it's a respect derrived from friendship and admiration rather than animousity. Foreign aid is a tricky problem...it's something which is often popular with the folks at home rather than with the intended recipitents. But I think more care should be made in deciding who is to receive aid and what it is to be used for. FOr instance there is a famine in the Sudan the charities are collecting money to prevent a famine which could kill upto 25% of the population. Yet the Sudanese goverment not only refuses to officiasl recognize the existance of the famine they are activiely making programs/films commenting n how abundant the current harvest has been...shades of Stalinism. If a GOverment is unwilling to recognize the problem, should we be willing as a nation to contribute aid? Induviduals may feel that they should do so but a Goverment should take a firmer hand. I'm also against giving aid to Goverments which spends too much on millitaty programs or por human rights records. Aid should be used as a bargaining stick and not doled out to anyone who wants to claim it. We should not feal ashamed at our own prosparity and should not allos ourselves to be so easily blackmailed into handing out aid. We have to be realistic and recognize that often we are never going to get grants (as opposed to aid) repaid. Possibly we should be more careful in gving out grants or alternatively we should we should just recognise thi when we hand out the grant. I was suprised by your comments on Israel, perhapes I do not read enough good newspapers as I was under the impression that there was a Conservatve Goverment in power and not a socialist Goverment. Still your comments should be condemned. Not only is it a very simplistic view of the way in which the world works to suggest that the States should only help other capitalist nations but additionally it is rather arrogant to suggest that you know what is best. Would you end trade with the UK if a Socialist Goverment was elected by the British population? It is often politically desirable to support dictators and people who we might otherwise object to In the end, trade/grants are governed by political necessarity rather than need. Perhapes this is wrong, but it is the way in which thingswork. I personally am against mass immigration. IMmigrants should be carefully selected...many present race-problems in the UK stem from lax immigration standards from the late 1940's through to the end of the 1960's. I certainly agree with you that a command of the Englsh language is very desirable in all potential immigrants. The simple fact is that it may already be too late in the States to preent future racial unrest and disputes. There are probably to mnat immigrants from too many non-Western worlds who have made very little effort to integrate. Unfortunately I see no solution to the problem. Cheers, Mark My response: There has been a census. I believe it listed 700 players for North America. I have about half that in my zine. Obviously the other census missed a lot of people. I will break down my players by country later this year. "I find this mass of indecision to be...dissappointing." Actually, Bush did have a plan. To do nothing. But public opinion forced him to deviate from his plan. This was not too surprising. But the Kuwaiti government's lack of a plan for rebuilding their country was surprising. Not allowing fire fighting supplies to enter the country until they pass through a week-long custom wait? Amazing. "For instance there is a famine in the Sudan the charities are collecting money to prevent a famine which could kill up to 25% of the population." Obviously this money should be given to the resistance groups, not the evil government. "I was under the impression that there was a Conservatve Goverment in power and not a socialist Goverment." They have a conservative socialist government. " Would you end trade with the UK if a Socialist Goverment was elected by the British population?" Trade is much different than aid. "OK, so in this particular case I know who it is;" Who was it? Eric Klien He answered that he was the author in this case. Publisher comments: Quote is from J. Kenfield Morley, "Some Things I Believe". I need standby players due to the summer vacation season that is wiping out some of my college players. I also need scribes. ****************************************************************************** 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