Diplomacy Zine -- Chapter Eight EP #243 From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1991 21:45:28 +0000 Issue #243 of ELECTRONIC PROTOCOL: ************************************************************************* Hard as it is to believe, the institutions had actually started to speculate in blue chips. This is a case of classic insanity. ************************************************************************* 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: Italy win from Diplomacy Digest #110 Letters from Steve Robinson Letters from Mark Nelson ---- The following was first published in EP #21: The following essay about an Italy WIN was taken from Diplomacy Digest #110. Unlike most of the articles in this zine, the article is not a reprint, it was written my the famous publisher of Diplomacy Digest, Mark L. Berch. 1976EN was my very first postal Diplomacy game, so this is a particularly gratifying victory. At one point or another I fought every country on the board save Germany, and the original GM to boot. This is my second Italian win, and, since I suspect that there are VERY few active players with two Italian wins (Italy is statisically by far the most infrequent country to win with) I will have some comments on winning with Italy in general. The game began in Cliff Mann's "The Watergate." Austria conducted little or no diplomacy, and failed to get orders in. Neutral orders were used in S01, with John Machir taking over in F01. With Turkey moving his fleet to Con, and Russia into Gal and Bla, attacking Austria did not seem any longer prudent, and I settled for a simple convoy to Tunis. With Russia taking Swe, Bud and Rum, and Turkey in Aeg, I was in big trouble. Russian F Bla would assure that Turkey would do pretty much as he said, and Austria, who blew his F01 orders, wasn't going to be much help. I began a vigorous attemp to unhinge the T-R alliance. At first, it did not bear fruit. S02 saw Russia bulldoze into Serbia, as Turkey convoyed to Gre, and swung his new fleet into Eas, in preperations from the first assault on Ion. Russia took advantage of English preoccupation with fighting Germany in the lowlands to expand into Nwy, I had no effective military allies, and powerful enemies. It was unquestionably, the low point of the game. Then an unexpected turn: Turkey decided, for reasons that he did not state, to move on Russia. His new A Gre supported A Bul into Russian held Serbia, and he shifted his fleets to Bul and Aeg. An interesting dispute arose at this point. Turkey had orgered "F Aeg- Bul". Cliff had disallowed the move because no coast had been stated. I argued that the Rulebook in no way required that information be given. I was unable to persuade him, but he an interesting provision in his HRs: In such a dispute, the IDA Ombudsman could be appealed to, and the GM would agree to abide by the result. This I did -- evacuation of Eas by the Turks would improve my security immensely -- and Cliff to his credit did abide by the ruling which went against him. S03 saw dramatic action in the east. I grabbed Tri, but Russia took both Ser and Greece. The fate of the Balkans was about to be decided. From Russia I received an offer: If I would leave him alone, he'd let me have all three Turkish home centers. This struck me as both impratcial and insincere. With Russian units stuffed in the Balkans, I'd have to go around them to get to Turkey proper, and even then would need considerable Russian help, which I doubted would be forthcoming. Turkey just asked for help retaking his lost possesions. I countered with a plan: I'd support him back into Serbia with my new A Tri only if he'd support my convoy into Greece. This is the type of deal I like: Faced with a common danger, the plan has something for both parties, and both are to get it at the same time. It worked like a charm. Russia's Balkan holdings were restricted to Bud and Rum. I ballooned to six centers, and my ally had five. Meanwhile, other things were happening. While my military activity was exclusively in the east, I kept up a steady correspondence with France. I feel that many Italian players neglect this, not being able to think of anything to say. But it is important to write! You are very vulnerable to a sudden French attack during this time, as you likely don't even have F Tyr in the area. Also, you want to get some idea of how he thinks, how he views the game, how good a player he is. Even if there is no possiblitity of joint military action, there is one matter that will frequently come up: F Mar. That's the one build that you don't want to see: The army route through Pie is narrow and easily blocked. Depending on your posture, you can either urge or insist that such a fleet not be built. Point out what a wonderful alliance you have, and how much it will be damaged by that build. Point out that F Mar is no way to against England because it takes a year to bring it to the fore and in that time, you could just build F Bre the following winter. And there is one other reason why the correspondence is so important: some day you will have to choose between your eastern ally and France as the next victim. To do this properly you want to know as much as possible about him, both as to what type of ally he'll make, and what type of opponent he'll make. You'll be finding this out about your eastern ally because of constantly having to work with him, but for France you have to find out deliberately. Of course, sometimes you don't have to make this choice. Perhaps your ally and France will get together and attack YOU. Or perhaps Russia will attack your eastern ally and you'll not participate, and instead ally with France against Germany. But these are the exceptions, rather than the rule. Anyhow, getting back to the game, the English player, Budke, NMRed out, and the new English player entered with a splash, taking Hol from Germany and Swe from Russia, even as Russia relieved Ger of Den, and Germany took Bel from France, so things were nice and roiled in the west, which is how Italy wants it. In W03 I built the predictable A Ven and F Nap, and concluded a very important deal with Turkey, with far-reaching consequences/ Turkey was to get Rum and Sev, I was to get Bud, and Vie (the latter from Austria). Russia had to be pushed back as fast as possible, with maximum speed. Turkey's F Con, F Ank were needed to take Bla, but the F Aeg could guard the open Bul only be entering the south coast, which would be useless. So it was agreed that I would move A Gre- Bul, even as F Aeg-Gre: A swap. This lead to a perculiar situation: An I-T alliance of equals in which ITALY had Bul, tho we agreed later we'd swap them back. One comic side effect was that Cliff, the GM, never quite got the hang of that, and kept leaving Bul off my list. 1904 saw the fall of Sev, but little else in the east. The sudden reapperence of Austria complicated matters. By then I had decided that I would attack France, and decided to do it sooner rather than later. Although he (Mueth) was a decent sort, he had violated our neutrality alliance by entering Wes in F02, and had delayed leaving until F03. Turkey by contrast had kept all his promises. Then in Spring 1904 -- actually beginning in W03 -- France made a profound error. France was as I said at war with Germany, and had been unable to retain Bel at years end, tho he took it in spring. He had driven into Ruhr, and by virtue of a S03 annihilation, had a build coming to him. I knew he was toying with F Bre, although A Par was clearly in order. He had hoped that England would accept the build as a necessary part of the assault on Belgium, or some such, and would be too busy with his own war on Germany to object. England on the other hand told me that such a build was out of the question, and indeed, said that he would not even bother to write S04 orders contingent on Build F Bre because it was so unlikely. Thus it was that in S04, France gave England support into Bel, even as he took the channel, while Eng moved F Lon-Nth. Any questions that I had about the timing of the attack on France were gone, and I was releived that I had been able to get my fleets ready. In F04 I entered Lyo, Wes, and Tyrr. Apparently having failed to persuade England, France switched sides again, and took Belgium against E-G cooperations, even as E-G cooperated against my other enemy, Russia. Thus, I had two allies in both areas. I might add that, while all countrys to some extent must rely on, and thus be dependent on, allies, no country is more dependent on allys than Italy. Because of the fact that early builds come slowly, and because Italy has limited mobility (Italy has no wideranging Nth sea, cannot barrel armies out of her borders as quickly as can Germany, cannot present as compact a front as Turkey, lacks Rusia's ability to wage a two front war, etc etc) she cannot go one on one as well as other, and even two on one will not be as quick for Italy as many other pairs on the board. Fortunately, Italy's central position makes her a useful ally to others, and relatively nonthreatening to others, as most other players will think that they can take Italy all by themselves if need be. You must work harder to gain allys when you are Italy than any other country. In Spring 1905 I decided that I could really trust Turkey, but needed some help from him. My fleets entered Mar and Spain, and, with F Tyr-Lyo, I had a rather large gap in my lines, and was terribly afraid that France would move F Mid-Wes/Naf in S05, threatening Tun, and even worse, a raider behind my lines. So I invited Turkey into the Ion. In the east, A-R cooperation was anticipated, and with A Ser involved in the assault on Rum, I correctly predicted that I would be expelled from Tri, so asked Tur to move a second fleet into Alb. He was actually reluctant to do this, as he felt that these forward fleets would just make me nervous. But I told him that as long as I was allied with him, I might as well reap the full benefit of the alliance, and use those extra fleets. Besides, I knew that he could not stand up to an I-R alliance even if he pulled off a good stab. In the fall, Turkey did indeed help me retake Tri, but since France used F Mid against England in S05, and we would need in for Por in F05, Turkey withdrew F Ion to Adr. In the east, we took Rum, but made no other progress. Thus, Turkey had taken both of his eastern targets, tho I had neither of mine, and with A-R holding Vie- Bud-Gal-Ukr we had plenty of work to do, tho England had taken Nwy from Russia. Thus, both England and Turkey were helping me in two different arenas. In 1906, France tried to make up with England by moving A Lpl, tho he knew England was in no position to retake that year. My growth continued smoothly, as I took both MId and Por in the west, and finally knocked out Austria by taking Vienna. By this point, Tur has withdrawn his fleets only as far as Gre and Alb. His next target was Mos, some ways off, and was behind me in S.C.s, 10-7 due to my unexpectedly rapid takeover of Iberia. Although Bud was promised to me, I proposed to loan it to him. In S07 I gave his A Ser two supports into Bud. He accepted. He also stabbed me. He knocked me out of Bul, and slid his fleet into Adr. All this in the season that he accepted my support into Bud. Fortunately, that move left Ser open for a retreat. Perhaps he was greedy in wanting Bud, perhaps he wanted to be sure of getting a build, perhaps he thought he could retake Ser in the fall, but his failure to annhilate the A Bul deprived the stab of some of its sting. At this point a diversion: 1976EN was about to undergo the final act in an almost unique type of turmoil. The players were getting disgusted with the GM. #15 had appeared a month late, in Oct 1977. By late Jan 1978, the issue had not appeared, and Cliff was telling us that it had already been mailed, and that he would reset the deadline. Cliff had been ill, but that had been cleared up before the end of 1977. By mid-Februrary, Cliff was saying that only a limited number of copied had been sent to "special players". All these stories were lies. #16 finally appeared in late March. A bizarre item, #16B appeared in mid May, but no games were moved. Another player, John Sokol was also being lied to about this matter. The game was being very poorly run, with Major errors every season, almost. Cliff had promised to restart the QKD games, but had marely taken John's issues without returning them. Meanwhile he had been phoning players trying to get hold of a set of his own Houserules. In late May John and I agreed that we were no longer interested in Cliff's fresh sets of lies and would look for a new GM. My first choice was McLendon, who was quite familiar with Cliff. He required that all players consent to this transfer, as it was being done without Cliff's consent. Germany (Kador) was quite agreeable. Russia (Fraser), who had just NMRed, was not interested in the game in any location, telling me on the phone that the game had become irremedially stale. England (Jerry Smith) was an even sadder case. He was in four games, all of them in THE WATERGATE. He become totally disallusioned with postal diplomacy, and left the hobby at that time. He felt that he had been totally burned by Cliff and did not want to risk this with anyone else. Finally, Mueth (France) agreed to go along with this, although he said that he'd be sending a set of orders to Cliff as well. Thus, four were willing to move the game, and the other two were not willing to play in the game wherever it was played. Cliff of course was furious. He stated at that time that he fully intended to continue with the game, and that as far as he was concerned, so long as the GM stated that he intended to carry the game, the players could not under any circumstances vote it out, even if the vote were unanimous. He also said at that time Mueth would never agree to the sending in of new orders to McLendon, because, he hinted, Mueth was dependent on his help in another game (which I later found out was in NINTH CIRCLE). Alas, two snags developed. Mueth, despite repeated promises to me, did not send in orders to Steve. And Smith failed to get his resignation in. So things were delayed. Then in Mid June, 1978, Cliff published #17, and set a July 4 deadline. Cliff then persuaded another player to give him a chance. We sent in orders to him and it looked like things might get back to normal. When the next issue became many weeks overdue, and cliff became completely impossible to get hold of by phone, and would not respond to letters, I started up the entire process again. Then Cliff suddenly called, saying that he was willing to let the game be transfered, but only because he was being transfered. He said that he planned to publish one final issue, and then the game would be moved. I asked him if had informed Steve; he had. Then another wait began. It became clear to me that no such final issue was going to appear, and that I would be a fool to wait for it, so I asked Steve to restart the game. After a short delay caused by the need to reassemble all the records, the game was restarted in early Nov, 1978. Mueth dropped out, but Kador, Sokol and Berch remained, giving the game plenty of continuity. So far as I know, this is the only game to escape the wreckage of THE WATERGATE. This is due, in part, to the fact that Cliff was able to get various GMs to print in their zines (in LDNS in 1978, and THE 9TH CIRCLE in 1979) that the games should be restarted once Cliff got that last issue out. Unless there has been an issue not sent to me, it has not been published in over 13 months, and the rest of the games are probably dead. Restarting EN took an enormous expense in phone calls, but it was worth every penny, and I'd say that even if I hadn't won. The poin is that the GM should NOT HAVE THE LAST WORD when he is killing a game by neglect. If the players care about a game, they should move to have it transfered, even if it has to be ripped from the clutches of its GM. Cliff, I might add, is still playing in some T9THC games, even joining a new one, and has never returned by deposit. Anyhow, back to the game. When the F07 dust settled, I had correctly determined the manner in which Tur would try to retake Ser, and for his pains, all he had was a Bul/Ser Swap, plus Bud. I snatched Lpl from France, so we both had builds. Tur at this point began the first in a series of insincere apologies, though he blamed me for pulling so far ahead. Germany took Bel back again from France, reducing him to Par and Bre, no longer a major power in the game. An alliance was formed with Germany to divide these two, a continuation of our earlier anti-France deal, even as the new English player, Ron Kelly, took Stp from the Russians, and positioned himself against Germany. Turkey wanted to make up, and I was inclined to go along. But then he build F Smy in W07, so it was back to war again. I tried to enlist Russia in this, but he was more interested in attacking Germany, so he stripped his southern defenses. 1908 followed the same pattern as 1907: Bud and Ser were exchanged, giving us both clearer lines, as we both scrambled elsewhere for builds to fuel the battle, me taking Bre, him taking War. However, I got in a crucial tactical move. At the risk of weakening my Balkan positions, I convoyed A Alb-Syr. In that F08, we were groping toward some sort of truce. Turkey had moved F Adr-Alb, but didn't want to get in (F Greece held!), just comply with his agreement to move out of Adr. I took no other action against him, nor did he attack me. Again in W08 we had another of our how-can-we-end-our-war powows. By this point, it was clear to me that I had the upper hand, if only slightly, but I had run out of other centers to take easily. I was also tired of Sokol's unforfilled promises. I resolved that since Sokol had stabbed me first, I would stab him ..... last. I set up a limited agreement whereby I pledged not to do some things (especially enter Aeg) that I didn't plan to do anyhow, and permitting battle in certain border areas (esp Galicia) where I wanted to place my pieces. I got Russia to agree to move to Sev, to cut any support from there. Turkey agreed, further suggesting that I annhilate a fleet, so that it could be rebuilt as an army. I took this as a green light to try to dislodge F Smy, the only available fleet. But Sokol supported it, saying that he meant in another season. But at least I had an excuse. A similar deal was set for F08. Turkey took no S08 against me, instead expelling Rus from Mos. That season F08 was to be my big splash of the entire game. I masterminded a four nation attack on Turkey. The retreating Russian army was given support into Rum. I smashed my way into Serbia. I got England to do A Stp-Mos, cutting support, so that the German attack on War would succeed. The only target not taken was Smy, which I could have had if I had thought that he would not use A Con to defend it. The only country not participating was the one center France! Though he gained Mosc, the loss of War, Ser and Rum meant that he could not stand in my way of victory. That was not all I did that season. In addition to supporting Germany into Paris, I also attacked England, taking Lon, which along with F Bre-Eng, assured that I would take Edi next year. I must say that this is the one move of the game that I was and am, not particularly proud of. True, it was a grand gesture to attack both T and E, the 2nd and tie-for-third strongest powers on the board, both in the same season. And I did want to be sure of my victory. There was at least the possiblity of a GTE grand alliance, which was the only thing that could stop me at that point. England would be building from the seizure of Stp, and an army would emperil my Lpl. Plus Ron had told me that he was not negotiating with others in the game, so I figured that the game probably didn't mean all that much to him at the time. Finally, my longest term ally at that point had been Germany, who was under attack by England, so there's the my- friend's-enemy-is-my-enemy rationale to rely on as well. However, my attack on Ron was entirely UNPROVOKED, so I did it with some regret, and probably a good measure of paranonia. Anyhow, 1910 was just mopping up, as I took Smy, Gre, Edi, and Mos. S10 was fun, in that I had a chance to do a rare "half annihilation". This is when you dislodge TWO pieces, each of which have just the one, same retreat place (here, Con) forcing one of them to be disbanded. I ended up with home centers of every country except Germany under my belt, which is quite an accomplishment, considering that I finished with just the regulation 18, and was playing Italy. I was at various points, both the enemy and ally of every country except Germany, with who I was never at war. I'd like to thank the other players of the game who survived to the end, plus Bill Schiwautz, who took over a hopeless French position and played it out. But most of all, my thanks goes to Steve McLendon, for taking over this game. There was certainly nothing "in it" for him. And it was certainly well run. As long as there are people like Steve McLendon around, providing such services to the hobby as the creation of a new rating system, and a splendid global variant, work with the new Postal Tournament, picking up a troubled orphaned game, and publishing a highly readable zine, it is easy to be hopeful about the future of the hobby. From: "STEVE ROBINSON" <SHR@CLEMSON.CLEMSON.EDU> > "Is this at the University of Waterloo, not too far from Toronto?" > > Yes. Small world. I plan to take a trip to Toronto on business with my wife sometime in the not too distant future. We will probably make the side trip to Waterloo so I can see where she has spent so much time. She likes the place. > "We even pushed the UN security council to abandon the idea of > stipulating in the cease-fire resolution that Saddam not oppress the > Kurds and other rebels." > > The UN security council just passed a resolution condemning the > surpression of the Kurds. This is only a toothless slap on the wrist, a flogging with a single strand of boiled spaghetti. If it had been included in the cease-fire resolution, it would have been backed by the possibility of renewed military action. Not that renewed hostilities are likely, but at least the threat *might* have a deterrent value, and we would have the UN backing we want if we felt it necessary to intervene due to further attrocities. I'll give Bush this: he did *exactly* what he said he would do. He liberated Kuwait and didn't target Saddam. We encouraged the Kurds to revolt, but we made it clear from the start that we wouldn't help them militarily. This is fair, but is it right? Is it just? I can't convince myself that it is. Getting mixed up in someone else's cival war is like getting mixed up in someone else's domestic dispute. It can drag out forever, it gets messy fast, both parties end up hating you, your involvement gets to be greater and greater, and the good you might derive from it gets to be zilch in a hurry. My head says we should leave it alone, but my heart and my gut say my head needs to go soak itself. We went to the UN and got the backing to kick Saddam out of Kuwait. We did it, and the world is with us. The world is also against what Saddam is doing now. Maybe we need to go back to the UN and push for a resolution authorizing the arrest of Saddam on war crimes charges and the use of sufficient force to accomplish it. Then the coalition forces still in the region could go get him if they can find him, and the $#*&% could be made to face the music for the rotten things he has done. I'm dreaming I know, but wouldn't it be nice? > The truth is that Iraq's neighbors aren't thrilled about the Kurds and > Shiites winning. The U.S. is currently listening to these countries. > If Saddam kills too many of his own people, we and most of the > coalition will change our minds. Bush is going to start airlifting food > into Northern Iraq tommorrow. I'm not thrilled about the Kurds or the Shiites winning either, especially the Shiites. We want one government for Iraq not two or more and certainly not an anarchy. The government should be strong enough to hold the country together, but not strong enough to launch any more external attacks. I hate to see Saddam lead that government though. A victory by either rebel faction would *not* result in a democracy, and whichever one won, the other would rebel against *it*. The airlift of food is fine, but it is too little too late. This is more useful for appearances than for anything else. > A democratic Iraq would be a great symbol of success for > other arab nations to emulate. See my previous reply. There will be no democratic Iraq in the near future except in the unlikely event that the Baathists replace Saddam and allow free opposition by other parties, those other parties actually do form and field strong candidates, and a significant portion of the influential govenment posts is won and retained by the opposition. Don't hold your breath. Bye for now. Steve My response: "I'm not thrilled about the Kurds or the Shiites winning either, especially the Shiites." The Shiites aren't as bad as people think they are. Remember that they fought against the Iranians in the Iran/Iraq war. And they are too tired of dying to fight the Kurds. And the Kurds are too tired of dying to fight the Shiites. I hope the rebels eventually win, watch for them to step up their attacks within 7 days. "The airlift of food is fine, but it is too little too late." Now Bush is asking for UN permission to use land convoys to truck food in. What I really like about the current situation is that everyone is now talking about shipping food to the rebels but they aren't talking much about shipping food to Baghdad and other Saddam strongholds. This can cause riots in Baghdad. From: "STEVE ROBINSON" <SHR@CLEMSON.CLEMSON.EDU> > The Shiites aren't as bad as people think they are. Remember that > they fought against the Iranians in the Iran/Iraq war. And they > are too tired of dying to fight the Kurds. And the Kurds are too > tired of dying to fight the Shiites. I hope the rebels eventually > win, watch for them to step up their attacks within 7 days. I still don't trust them. They fought Iran when Khomeni was in charge and their own homes were being invaded. Now Rafsanjani is in charge and Iran is not invading. If Iran promised them help against Saddam, they might well follow Iranian direction. They fought in the Iran/Iraq war and still weren't too tired of dying to fight Saddam. The Kurds have a long history of war too. Eventually, they both *will* become too tired of fighting or too few to matter, but is it that time yet? Their capacity seems unlimited. The endurance of the Kurds may be waning, at least for now though. Seven days? What have you heard that I haven't? > Now Bush is asking for UN permission to use land convoys to truck > food in. What I really like about the current situation is that > everyone is now talking about shipping food to the rebels but they > aren't talking much about shipping food to Baghdad and other Saddam > strongholds. This can cause riots in Baghdad. True and good. It could unfortunately also cause renewed attacks. If it does, I hope the good guys clobber their tanks, troops, and helicopters. That's tough country for trucks; we'd better get started soon. From: AMT5MAN@cms1.ucs.leeds.ac.uk/Mark Nelson: Subject: Electronic Protocol 239 Dear Eric, Why didn't the Iraqii Military forces use Chemical Weapons? Not, I believe, because the men at the front disobeyed a direct order but becuase that order was not given. We don't know for sure, but I suspect that S.Hussain had one of his moment of clear thinking. I don't think the threat of nuclear action from the States prevented this order...I don't think that the States would have dared used these weapons under ANY circumstance. Additionally I don't think he was too worried about the possibility of a Chemical attack from our troops. Although this would be more likely (and as I understand it existing Chemical Weapon Treaties only band FIRST USE of such weapons... hence licensing secondary use) I don't think that we ever had that much too gain from using such weapons. I think that it was realized that the Iraqii army would gain very little from such an act (given the training that allied troops have in dealing with such weapons) and that it would be a bad move for publicity using such weapons. You'r talk of democracy in Iraq is naive on two grounds. Firstly you overestimate the strength of internal opposition to Saddam. He will oly be overthrown if the Army (ie the Republican Guard) turns against him...the rebels are very poorly equipped and we all know that Saddam has no qualms about putting down upraisings with force. Secondly if he is overthrown he won't be replaced by a democracy. WHy, oh why, oh why do people go on and on about how everything will be solved by the creation of a democractic state. THe vast majority of the world is simple not able (ready) for democracy. The colonial powers give up their colonies and tried to set them up as democracies...how many of them are democractic now? (This is one of the reasons why I consider much of the talk on South Africa to be irrelevant...I'm not convinvced that whatever the WHite Goverment does that that a black dictatorial power won't araise... is the black population capable of supporting democracy? It seems very unlikely.) Cheers, Mark My response: "Not, I believe, because the men at the front disobeyed a direct order but becuase that order was not given." True. "I think that it was realized that the Iraqii army would gain very little from such an act (given the training that allied troops have in dealing with such weapons) and that it would be a bad move for publicity using such weapons." Possibly. "THe vast majority of the world is simple not able (ready) for democracy." This is a very elitist attitude. In the past few years, about every country in central and south America has gone democratic. Why are these people ready but the Chinese not ready? My answer is that the Chinese are ready, only brute force has kept them in line so far. "Goverment does that that a black dictatorial power won't araise..." So far this year, two african nations have gone democratic, the seeds of democracy are being sown on the african continent. The african people are losing their tolerance for brutal dictatorships. Eric Klien From: AMT5MAN@cms1.ucs.leeds.ac.uk/Mark Nelson Subject: Your letter (14/4/91) Dear Eric, Some comments on your previous letter, MN "I think that it was realized that the Iraqii army would gain very little from such an act (given the training that allied troops have in dealing with such weapons) and that it would be a bad move for publicity using such weapons." EK Possibly. ((Of course we don't really know)) MN "THe vast majority of the world is simple not able (ready) for democracy." EK This is a very elitist attitude. In the past few years, about every country in central and south America has gone democratic. Why are these people ready but the Chinese not ready? My answer is that the Chinese are ready, only brute force has kept them in line so far. The same goes for the Iraqis. MN Was I being 'elitist' or realistic, I think that there is a very subtle difference on this question. Perhapes I have grounds for accusing you of elitism and 'political imperialism' in suggesting that democracy is the 'one true form of goverment' and is the only suitable form of goverment for all nations...(this last bit is slightly toungue in check...but there is somethig in it) It isn't a question of how many countries make reforms and have a brief fling at democracy...it's a question of how many of them stick at it and remain democratic. Send me a list of central and southern American countries that you consider to have gone democratic...I don't think that in 10 years time many of those countries will still be democractic (although I'd like to be proven wrong). Also how do you reconcile aims of creating democratic countries with American Foreign Policy in this area...there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the last thing that the American Goverment is interested in is establishig democracies (it's belief in the applicability of international law can only be described as 'convienent') From: AMT5MAN@cms1.ucs.leeds.ac.uk/Mark Nelson Subject: Electronic Protocol 225 Dear Eric, Although this issue came out some time ago it warrants some comments as it illustrates some points on GMing games...a topic which an't be given too much coverage. It also illustrates some of the differences which have arisen between what is acceptable in postal diplomacy and what is acceptable in email games. 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 this case it is probably better to report on last season's play rather than try to predict what will happen next. By sticking to what has happened the GM should be safe from players complaining about interference in the course of the game (although I have to admitt that I view any such comments with great disdain...it's seems difficult to envisage a GM pointing out something which isn't obvious to a player of any talent). I would never use an adjuticator for any of the games that i run, setting up the pieces and adjuticating the game is one of the most enjoyable aspects of running games and I wouldn't want to miss out on it. However pressures on email GMs are greater...they often run more game seasons per month and so have less time to spend on getting it right. 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. In Daniel's disdain for local games he overlooks the fact that many games are run locally over University networks. 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. Games which run black press sections are fairly pointless unless all press is black press (as indeed is the common practice). In fact thoughtful players can always get around Black Press restrictions and issue press which obviously can only come from that player. Hence I do not personally see the point of Black Press games. Should the GM write press? Certainly. I prefer to wait until the players have started writing press and then make injections as appropriate...press is one of the most enjoyable aspects of the game (second only to winning in my book). As GM I only write press which merges in with the other players press and do so so that there is no clue that I wrote it. (This often spoils the fun in press wars.) 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 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. There is no point not allowing illegal orders except when players ask you to on grounds of strategic necessity. Firstly the player fools no-one as it is clear that the GM has only printed the illegal order because he was asked to....the remaining players then just ask themselves why that player would want to submitt illegal orders. Secondly if the GM is not using an adjuticator then he should allow illegal orders to be sent in and he should not correct illegal orders mailed in by mistake. THis at least allows some room for doubt amongst the other players. (Of course if he is using an adjuticator then this imposes restrictions on orders allowed.) 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. 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? For postal games I allow somebody to sign over units as long as he wants to...provided he still has a valid subscription. The email practice of GMs throwing players on grounds that the GM personally doesn't like their style of play strikes me as being a misuse of position. Just report the fact the units are being signed over and let the game take its natural course. Experienced GMs put too much emphasis on ambiguous convoys and Pandora's box...they occur all too infrequently./ In GUnboat games I wouldn't reveal who wrote which press...if the player concerned wants to claim credit for the press then he has the opportunity to do so in the endgame statement. If I leanrt the identity of another player in a Gunboat game (this has happened in one or two games) I certainly wouldn't tell the GM if this would lead to my expulsion from the game. AFter all whilst the GM might have few ethics I certainly do have them. 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. 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. Games which do not use DIAS rules are not 'variants'. Allan Calhammer has at LEAST implcitely sanctioned them and they do not break the rules to a significant extent (certainly no more than other rule changes used for postal/email play). However DIAS games are superior in that they prevent the kind of dodgy fixing of resultsd that Daniel mentions. 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) Mark. From: AMT5MAN@cms1.ucs.leeds.ac.uk/Mark Nelson Subject: YOur letter (14/4/91) Take Two Dear Eric, SOmebody mailed me some programms designed to make the Leeds University Comp Systemn more user-friendly. I am still trying it out and I seem to have mailed you a letter by accident.... My last letter was incomplete...here's the rest of it I am not sure that democracy would work in China...and even if it work I am not sure that it is deirable at the present time...China may be too physically large for democractic structures to work. Perhapes it needs to be broken down ito smaller chunks? This is one reason why reform in the Soviet Union has little chance of working until the leadership realises that the first reform must to pass powers to the Republics and not to continue centralising them. There are too many different and conflicting interests. EK So far this year, two African nations have gone democratic, the seeds of democracy are being sown on the African continent. The African people are losing their tolerance for brutal dictatorships. South Africa has a good chance of becoming the third democracy on the African continent. MN Again, it is one thing to set up democractic structures but another one to maintain them. I don't believe your comment that it's the African people who are losing tolerance for dictatorship since more reforms in Africa tend to ignore the people. However I concurr that things are better now, and hopefully they will cotinue to get better. I tend to be pesimistic about the success of change and you seem to be more optimistic. Perhapes between our conflicting opinions there exists the reality of the situation? Cheers, MARK. My response: Only time will tell if the democracies stick. I think they will. Eric Klien Publisher comments: Quote is from p. 73 of "A Random Walk Down Wall Street" by Burton G. Malkiel. I am looking for some wacky quotes unlike what I have been publishing for the past six months. Please send me some! 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