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.
******************************************************************************