Diplomacy Zine -- EP #204 Chapter Seven From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com Date: Wed, 10 Oct 1990 04:53:17 +0000 Issue #204 of ELECTRONIC PROTOCOL: ************************************************************************ Marlene shrugged, then reached in her pocket for a cigarette. Ric frowned. "You seem not to be reacting to that, Marlene", he said. "Robbing a hospital is serious, plastic explosive isn't?" She blew smoke at him. "Let me show you something." She went back into the living room and then returned with her pouch belt. She fished in it for a second, then threw him a small aerosol bottle. Ric caught it and looked at the label. "Holy ---", he said. He blinked and looked at the bottle again. "Jesus Christ." "Ten-ounce aerosol bottle of mustard gas", Marlene said. "Sixteen dollars in Starbright scrip at your local boutique. For personal protection you know? The platinum designer bottle costs more." Ric was blinking furiously. "Holy ----", he said again. "Some sixteen-year-old asshole tried to rape me once", Marlene said. "I hit him with the gas and now he's reading braille." ************************************************************************ Chapter One contains: BLITZKRIEG, GETTYSBURG, and PASSCHENDAELE And is published by uunet!cti1!rlister or rlister@cti.com/Russ Lister Chapter Two contains: DRAGONSLAYER, JACAL, MANHATTAN, VERSAILLES, DRESDEN, and KHAN And is published by sinhaa@mcmaster.ca/Anand Sinha Chapter Three contains: DAWN PATROL, BERLIN, EL ALAMEIN, SQUALANE, UNGAWE, CAPTAIN CAVEMAN, BRUSILOV OFFENSIVE And is published by cwekx@htikub5.bitnet/Constantijn Wekx Chapter Four contains: NICKEL, OZARK, DEADLY DAGGERS, YORKTOWN, MONTREUIL-SUR-MER, FIRE WHEN READY Chapter Five contains: ARCHANGEL, BORDEL, ERIS, MASADA, and YALTA And is published by jjcarette@watami.waterloo.edu/David Gibbs Chapter Six contains: TOKUGAWA, BERLIN WALL, HIROSHIMA, GENGHIS KHAN, SEA LION, VIOLENT PEACE And is published by ps9zrhmc@miamiu.bitnet/Peter Sweeney ------------ Chapter Seven ------------ No games in this issue. Publisher comments: Quote is from Facets, p. 75-76, by Walter Jon Williams. ******************************************************************** QUIZ ******************************************************************** Here is the rest of the quiz from loeb@moon.greco-prog.fr (Daniel Loeb): Special Comments: 1) VI.3.b applies 12 times in Spring 1901 and otherwise once in each Fall season inwhich a supply center goes unowned. 2) VII.3b.a can apply with regards to conflicts or to supply center ownership. 3) VII.3b.(c,d) must be examples of supports of the "nonadjacent" coast. (legal in case c, illegal in case d). 4) VII.3c.(b,c) must be moves which are illegal because of this nonadjacency. 5) VII.3c.c must be a LEGAL reference to the coasts Sweden might have if not for this rule. 6) VII.5 applies in Spring 1901 7) IX.2.d applies in the case (Army X Sup Army Y -> Z) when X and Y are not adjacent 8) IX.4.a and IX.4.b can not apply in same province 9) IX.5 applies when a unit remains in its province after receiving two attacks of greater strength than itself 10) IX.7.b applies only if a 3rd (and possibly 4th) unit does retreat there. 11) X.a only applies if X.b and X.c doesn't apply. 12) X.b only applies if X.c doesn't apply. 13) X.c only applies if otherwise X.b would have applied 14) XI.(b,c,d). Only one can apply for any given retreat. Each applies only in the case of an attempted retreat to the space mentioned. 15) XI.1. applies whenever there are multiple retreats. 16) XI.2(a,b) never can apply at the same time. 17) XII.1.a applies only to "short" convoy attempts 18) XII.3.b applies to the sort of attack that can cut a support, but can not disrupt a convoy. 19) XII.4 applies only when there is a convoy with some routes disrupted and other routes still valid. 20) XII.5 applies if otherwise the army could prevent its own convoy from being disrupted. 21) XIII.1.a applies when a SC changes hands in the fall 22) XIII.1.b applies in the fall when SC remains empty 23) XIII.1.c applies in the spring if otherwise XIII.1.a would apply 24) XIII.2.a applies if the excess units are not in fact removed 25) XIII.2.c applies if any units are removed 26) XIII.2.(e-j) apply only one at a time on certain illegal builds 27) XIII.2.(k,l) can not be both used for the same player 28) XIV.3.a applies whenever there are insufficiently many legal orders for a country (for the unordered units) ) All cases of cut support or uncut support must be critical to the success or failure of a move. Otherwise, the rule in question was not really applied. ) If a move is illegal for several reasons, then only one is counted. For this purpose, rules regarding what moves are allowed at what time and by what units, and how they must be written have higher priority than the rules regarding the resolution of combat. ******************************************************************** QUIZ ******************************************************************** Here is another quiz from loeb@moon.greco-prog.fr (Daniel Loeb): *** QUESTION *** Yes, any map can be colored with 4 colors, or so they say in Urbana. However, can we do better on the diplomacy map. That is, can the diplomacy map be colored red, white, blue without having two adjacent provinces with the same color. If yes, then how. If not, then how about if we define "adjacent" as "adjacent for a fleet" or "adjacent for an army". ******************************************************************** QUIZ ******************************************************************** Here is another quiz from loeb@moon.greco-prog.fr (Daniel Loeb): "Here is a Diplomacy problem sent to me by Jamie <PL436000@brownvm.brown.edu> followed by my attempted answer, followed by a general letter from him. Use this information BEFORE the rules question since I'd like a chance to come up with a BETTER rules question. Of course check if Jamie wants to revise his question or submit his own answer. And don't publish the answers until about a week after the question. ****PROBLEM Let us define the "minimal distance" between a pair of regions to be the smallest number of moves that it could take one unit to move from one to the other in the course of a legal game. For pairs like <Paris, MAO> we'll say the minimal distance is undefined. What pair(s) has/have the largest minimal distance? ****LETTER Let me also add one note. I've found several of your questions very valuable. A quiz Eric published a while ago, including questions about the board (which regions border no supply center, etc), raised my "Dip Geography Awareness Quotient" by about 200%. The question about connectedness increased my grip on the importance of controlling the relevant seas. The question a while back about which power is hardest to eliminate sharpened my fairly dim understanding of the initial tactical and diplomatic situation in the south. ******************************************************************** QUIZ ******************************************************************** Here is another quiz from loeb@moon.greco-prog.fr (Daniel Loeb): I just thought of another contest. How many legal arrangements of units are there on the Diplomacy board? Here is an article from apple!well.sf.ca.us!well!jwarren (Jim Warren): GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE SUPPORTS ELECTRONIC FREEDOM & PRIVACY Folks, we have a good chance of having a **State Governor** who (a) understands and favors technology, and -- more important -- (b) has signed and released the following statement (he just fax'ed a signed copy to me; I'll fax it to anyone who requests it). -- Jim Warren, 9/16/90 [jwarren@well.sf.ca.us, or 415-851-7075/voice] STATEMENT BY JIM GALLAWAY, CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR OF NEVADA I am the Republican candidate for Governor of the State of Nevada. I have been in the private telecomm industry for most of 20 years, and have been a principal in several telecomm and computer start-ups. I understand, support, and have practiced technological innovation. My wife and I have known Jim Warren for well over a decade. He has outlined some of the current issues about which owners and users of systems for e-mail, BBS, teleconferencing, electronic publishing and personal computing are deeply concerned. These are my positions, relative to some of the recent law enforcement practices by some government agents: 1. Government responses to alleged misdemeanors and crimes must be no more than comparable to the seriousness of the wrong-doings. 2. Simple electronic trespass without harm must be treated as any other simple trespass. It does not justify armed raids on teenagers, forced entry of private homes, nor seizure of telephone handsets, answering machines, computer printers, published documentation, audio tapes and the like. 3. The notion that equipment can be "arrested" and held inaccessible to its owner, without promptly charging the owner with a crime, is absolutely unacceptable. The practice of holding seized equipment and data for months or years is a serious penalty that must be imposed only by a court of law and only after a fair and public hearing and judicial finding of guilt. 4. Teleconferencing and BBS systems must have the same protections against suppression, prior restraint, search or seizure as do newspapers, printing presses and public meeting places. 5. The contents of electronic-mail and of confidential or closed teleconferencing exchanges must have the same protections against surveillance or seizure as does First Class Mail in a U.S. Post Office, and private discussions among a group in a home or boardroom. As Governor of the State of Nevada I will vigorously support all of these positions -- both statewide and nationally. /s/ Jim Gallaway, candidate for the Governor of Nevada ============================================================================ Folks -- This is real. I've known Jim and Feona since the late '70's. He has an excellent chance of winning the Nevada governorship in November. And, he will have an even better chance if we all contact folks we know in Nevada and make sure they know of Gallaway's strong position statements. (It would be even more enchanting if we could show we delivered thousands of votes -- especially a swing-vote -- in that race. Can you imagine the value that would have in our Congressional and legislative efforts to assure basic Constitutional protections for electronic communications and privacy. Tidbits about Gallaway -- and his opponent: This will be Gallaway's first public office. Until now, he has been a businessman and entrepreneur in telecom and computing, including successes with several start-ups. Like his opponent, Acting Governor Bob Miller, he's a millionaire. Unlike Miller, however, he earned it. MIller inherited it from his father. Miller also has huge donations from the casinos -- which the Nevada voters seem to really distrust. One other thing -- If there was ever a time to make a political donation regarding Electronic Freedom, this is it. (It's one of the few such donations I've ever made in my life.) I'm inclined to post the donation address, but don't want to polute the net's purity. So, e-mail me or call (415-851-7075), or you can call Gallaway at 702-255-2828 regarding his position statements or anything else. --jim The following article was scribed by snow@coloasp.bitnet/Martin Snow: From the Flying Dutchman #9: A GUIDE TO EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE by John Daly. A person has to be pretty much on the ball to do well on job application tests. It takes a good education and a high IQ to even be considered for a job these days. And keeping a job is often more difficult than getting it was. Why? Because of periodic performance appraisals that do not make clear to the person filling them out what the difference is between a "good" employee and a "poor" employee. Most everyone is familiar with employee performance appraisals. At least once a year the boss sits down with each of his subordinates to tell them what he thinks of their work. Unfortunately, the appraisal form that the boss fills out is not usually adequate for the job, not when you consider that the form will be placed in the employee's file for life. For one thing, many forms use a grading system on a 1 to 10 scale. Now does a "10" mean that the employee is perfect, or just the best the boss has ever seen? The form below solves this and many other problems of the typical appraisal form. Take a look at it and see where you stand in your job. Area of Quality Promptness Initiative Adaptability Communi Performance of Work cation Far Exceeds Job Leaps tall Is faster Is stronger Walks on Talks with Requirements buildings than a than a water God in a single speeding locomotive bound bullet Exceeds Job Leaps tall Is as fast Is as strong Keeps head Talks with Requirements buildings as a as a bull above water angels with a speeding elephant under stress running bullet start Meets Job Can leap Would you Almost as Washes with Talks to Requirements short believe a strong as water himself buildings slow bullet?a bull with prodding Needs Bumps into Misfires Shoots the Drinks Argues Improvement buildings frequently bull water with himself Does not Meet Cannot Wounds self Smells like Passes Loses Min.Requirements recognize when handling a bull water in argument buildings gun emergencies with himself The following article was scribed by snow@coloasp.bitnet/Martin Snow: Taken from Why Me? #17: A FEW THOUGHTS ON "THE TUNISIAN PRONUNCIATION" by Russell M. Blau A recent article in Diplomacy World by Fred C. Davis Jr. has shed new light on the long-neglected question of how to pronounce "Tunis". This matter, though seemingly trivial, has perplexed the most devoted scholars of Diplomacy for years. But until now it has never been given the examination in the general hobby literature that it so richly deserves. Although Davis' study of the subject is most welcome, one cannot help noticing that all of his examples are drawn from the "long-U" school of thought (i.e. those who pronounce Tunis as "toon-is"). Little or no attention was paid to the opposing "short-U" pronunciation (i.e. "tun-is"). It has been rumored that short-U evidence has been suppressed by a cabal of long-U'ers in Diplomacy zine publishing circles, but there is no proof of this charge. In recent weeks, however, the long-lost Calhamer Papers have been located in a remote and dusty sub-basement level of the stacks in the Library of Congress. These documents, donated to America's national library by a temporary clerk under "Diptheria". Since stumbling over the Papers accidentally while searching for a novel by the Norwegian author Olav Dipholsen, I have been studying this invaluable collection for further insights into the Tunisian question. This research is still far from complete, but some preliminary results may be of interest to the readers of this journal. In a letter to Allen Calhamer written by one of the first playtesters of Diplomacy, Roger Wilberham, appears the following limerick: A corporal, just back from Tunis, Said, "Africa, that's where the fun is! Every man in our corps, Except one, bought a whore; The other played poker and won his." It is worth noting that the Wilberham letter mentions a series of limericks previously sent to Calhamer; it is hoped that further investigation will determine whether these deal with the Tunisian problem, so that Davis' total of three limericks may be equalled or exceeded. The following article was scribed by snow@coloasp.bitnet/Martin Snow: From The Flying Dutchman #10: Written by Jack Brawner. Basically, I think that there are three major differences in the postal play of the Grand Game as compared to face-to-face Diplomacy. Immediately they may come to mind--winning strategy, secret alliances, and the limits imposed by the lack of back-and-forth banter in negotiations. In high school, our group played as many as ten or twelve games a week during the summers and three or four games a week during school season. At one point, there was a game being played one year at a time during lunch. What follows are the things that I immediately noticed (well, maybe not IMMEDIATELY) when I entered my first postal game. In our local games, we would play until the leaders became obvious, and then we'd usually either concede victory to a player with 11 or 12 centers, or concede to a strong alliance, or more often, the stronger powers in two evenly matched alliances would each stab their ally and call it a two-way draw. No racing to victory, just a two-way draw. In postal play, it usually takes 18 centers to win, or it must be obvious that you can easily reach 18 centers. Therefore, it postal play, it is my belief that the big strike for 18 or a winning position must be timed, and carefully at that. The other players in the game are not going to concede merely because you have 11 or 12 centers. (Of course, there are exceptions, but these are rare.) In general, I would rather have 8 centers and an 8 center ally than to have 12 centers without an ally. Very different from a party-type face-to-face game. When one plays in a face-to-face game, it's obvious who's talking with whom. While it is possible for two non-adjacent countries to exchange a few words and affect the game balance, it would be next to impossible to coordinate, for example, the international supports that may be necessary to eliminate or successfully reduce one member of a three-way alliance. Or to stab your ally in coordination with the country that you and he had been attacking up until that season. Your ally would naturally be curious as to why you and his enemy are bent over a conference map. Postally, these things are easy, for it is possible to communicate with every country in the game...every season. And you should. A long-range secret alliance can be as powerful as a normal lets-you-and-I- gang-up-on-him agreement. When I play Russia, I try to do a lot of negotiating with France. Avoiding a England-Germany alliance can be accomplished by sheer diplomatic pressure and rumor-spreading. This is only one example, but there are many. And I'm convinced that the best postal players are masters of the geographically separated alliance as well as the alliances with their neighbors. When negotiating with another player in a face-to-face game, as many as five proposals and counter-proposals may be made. In just a couple of minutes. But when writing a letter in a postal game, several considerations must be made. What does the other player consider a fair split of centers? Can I propose specific moves without offending him? I think it's better if I take the next center, from a tactical standpoint, but will he look upon this view as an indication of greed? (Or, if you're a greedy sort...) How much can I get? It is often impossible, postally, to "sound out" an opponent. While I have been known to cheerfully tell someone to go to hell without passing go in a face-to-face game, I've been unable to do this without causing any hard feelings. Once, in a postal game, I tried to smooth out a refused offer by saying that frankly, Ron, I think you're asking too much right now, but I can't blame you. After all, this IS Diplomacy, right? Why don't we do such-and-such instead. It may not be as strong as your moves, but it won't leave me a nervous wreck for the next few seasons either.... I was stabbed on the next move, and was prepared for it, too. This probably wouldn't have happened if we'd been able to talk and I could have made a joke out of refusing his suggestion. The point is that writing letters is just not the same. Postal play is very different from face-to-face play, but I honestly can't say which I prefer. My patient alliance style of play seems more suited for postal play, but I do miss using those friendly jokes as part of my negotiations. Whichever you prefer, enjoy! I do. The following article was scribed by snow@coloasp.bitnet/Martin Snow: Taken from Why Me? #25: ETHICS IN DIPLOMACY by John Kador Let's talk about ethics in Diplomacy. For readers who believe I've just committed a non sequitur, please skip this article. The question for today concerns whether a Diplomacy player has an obligation to report postal errors. To narrow the problem down, let's consider cloaked errors in general (a cloaked error is apparent only to one player) and cloaked to your advantage. Perhaps an example would help. Let's say you are playing France in a postal Diplomacy game. You have a unit in Ruhr and you have a shot at either Munich or Kiel. Germany, your enemy, has only one unit to cover two supply centers. Finally, through whatever tactics you choose, you decide to go for Munich and your orders state: Army Ruhr-Munich. When the gamezine arrives, you rip it open to your game to see what Germany did. "The son of a bitch!" you murmur. "He covered Munich." But something doesn't add up. You've gained a supply center. But where? You look at your orders as reflected in the gamezine and you see that your Army Ruhr moved to Kiel, not to Munich as you ordered. You confirm your records and realize that the GM has somehow goofed. But it's clearly a goof in your favor because you've gained a center. And furthermore, it's a cloaked error because the error is apparent only to you. What should you do? Suddenly there's a ringing sound and a little, squeaky-voiced guy over your right shoulder whispers that you should report the error to the GM. "After all," he insists, "you've gained a center through no skill or intelligence of your own. You're not entitled to the center; it would demean the game if you accepted it now." "Don't listen to that turkey," your alter-ego suggests to your sinister side. "It's all part of the game. If your orders got lost in the mail and your opponent benefited, would he insist on an extension for you? Not on your life. It's all the same: orders getting lost or getting garbled. You take your chances and suffer or celebrate as the case may be." "Stick that pitchfork where the sun don't shine! How'd you like to be the German player, losing a unit despite brilliant play? It reduces Diplomacy to the level of 'Go Fish' or even 'Risk'." "Oh yeah! What's wrong with 'Risk'? Me and the boss play it all the time. Besides, I figure Germany had a fifty-fifty shot at losing a center. That's even odds. I don't know what you're crying about." This dialog continues for a while, but when you see how unproductive it is, you filter it out. You have better things to do than to listen to buzzing in your ears. You have the obligation now to apply great moral and ethical truths to resolve this dilemma: do you have to report this GM-generated error? Let me reserve my answer to the dilemma until I describe a situation which led to an examination of my ethics. I'll share the situation with you and then give you my thinking which led to this article. Then I'll wait for any reactions to my handling of the affair. I've never heard of anything quite like what happened to me. The situation was apparently unique because, while there was indeed a GM error and only I could detect it, the cloaked error helped me and hurt me simultaneously. The situation follows. (I am changing a few facts to protect the identity of the game. The specific game itself is not important. There's no reason to involve my fellow players.) In the game in question, I was allied with another player in an immensely successful alliance. By 1907, we had split the board between us. We both stood at 13 centers. But, from my paranoid perspective, our agreement to go for a two-way draw looked remote. His position seemed better than mine and I smelled an ambush. But I couldn't be sure. And I wasn't prepared to launch a pre-emptory strike. So I compromised. He asked me to hit an enemy unit to cut its support. I didn't want that support cut. But I had to have deniability. So I used the old deliberately-miswritten order trick. I intentionally miswrote my order so as to make it illegal. My order, as written, would not cut support. This way, if I was wrong and my ally was sincere, I could reasonably offer my apologies for a momentary lapse. And if I was right, and my ally did stab me, he would encounter an unbargained-for hole in his flank. But what happened? You guessed it! The GM apparently deciphered my orders as correct. Whether he made an honest misreading of my order or took it upon himself to correct my "obviously unintended goof," I can't be sure. But whatever the reason, the illegal order was declared legal by means of a cosmetic fixup. And my game-long ally? You'll be pleased to learn that he was trustworthy. He didn't stab me. We eventually shared a two-way victory. But that didn't change the ethical implications of the situation. An illegal order succeeded and I was benefited. I was also hurt (at least potentially) because had the illegal order failed, I would have been in a good position for a solitary victory. (Now you know why I don't want to identify the game.) What was my ethical responsibility, if any? I did not report the error. Here is my logic: I am consistent. I have never called a GM to task for any alleged error, in my favor or not, in six years of postal play. I had detected errors before, but never had a need to report them. Other players or the GM himself always caught the inaccuracies. I didn't see (and don't see) why I should have started reporting that error. On another level, how is this type of error different from "acceptable" errors; for example, orders lost in the mail? If lost orders are analagous to lost military orders in the real war, aren't misread orders parallel to garbled diplomatic traffic? Most GM's are generally scrupulous in their gamesmastering, which allows me to retain my liberal philosophy. Errors are exceedingly rare, and when they do occur, they are generally fixed without my involvement. I intend to keep it that way. If anyone has other thoughts on this matter, I'd like to consider them. --------------- Comments by Lee Sr. I'd like to comment briefly on John's article. I once had a game that an error occurred in that was to my advantage. I never noticed the error, and I was unaware of it until game's end. In the endgame statement of the player that I stabbed for the win, he said that I did know of the error and asked him not to tell the GM. This was an out-and-out lie (for revenge?), but the GM seriously thought of calling the game irregular because of my unethical behavior!! Only after I convinced the GM otherwise, and the other player could not produce the letter that I supposedly had said this in, did the GM let the game go through as a normal game. So there's some food for thought also. The following article was scribed by snow@coloasp.bitnet/Martin Snow: Taken from Why Me? #27: CLASSIFIED ADS FOR DIPLOMACY ZINES?? By Jack Masters As related income (game fees and subscriptions) publishing a Diplomacy zine is an expensive proposition. It is surprising that publishers have not sought other means of generating income. Such as incorporating CLASSIFIED ADS. Not only would classified ads generate income, but they would solve another publishing problem--filling space. Some examples of what we might see when pubbers do resort to classifieds follows! --------------------------------------------------------- COMPUTER ALLIANCES In your next game, let our computer choose your ally; no longer rely on chance or hunches. Our computer will carefully match the personal data along with the playing ability and experience of each player in your game--and will choose the perfect ally for you. Reasonable fees, write: Computer Matching 1000 Hart Ave. Somewhere, N. C. --------------------------------------------------------- QUICK REVENGE No longer wait for another game, or even a standby position to avenge a vicious stab. You can get immediate revenge through our unique new service, and we guarantee results. For full particulars write to Mail-A-Bomb: M-A-B 1000 Arnett Ave. Anywhere, Virginia --------------------------------------------------------- DIPLOMACY INSURANCE Insure your game? Certainly we will insure against any contingency, e.g. (1.) against the game becomming orphaned, (2.) against your country being the first eliminated, (3.) against and NMR by you or your ally, (4.) against Russia opening to the Black Sea, (6.) or, anything else--you name it. Rates will vary with the risk involved and in many cases will be rather high, write for particulars: Boyd's of Bothnia 1000 McClendon Ave. Houston, Texas --------------------------------------------------------- LEARN GMing BY CORRESPONDANCE Earn thousands in your spare time. We teach you all of the ins and outs of this lucrative venture. For more details write: American Correspondance School 1000 Linsey Ave Wayout, New York --------------------------------------------------------- ASSUMABLE POSITIONS Why take a chance and start a game precariously from S'01 when choice positions are available from Red Carpet? We currently have dozens to choose from--for instance, and 8 center England with an A in Mos and a F in the Med. Many other 7 and 8 center positions available. Some of these positions may be taken over for as little as $1.00 per supply center. Terms available. Contact: Red Carpet Brokers 1000 Brown Ave. Bakersfield, Cal. --------------------------------------------------------- LEAVING THE HOBBY? Don't NMR; your position may very well be sellable through Red Carpet. We have hundreds of buyers available and even three and four supply center positions can be sold. We work on a commission--for more details contact: Red Carpet Brokers 1000 Brown Ave. Bakersfield, Cal. --------------------------------------------------------- PERSONALS Honey! Meet me in Tyrolia in the spring. You know who --------------------------------------------------------- Do you like Pina Coladas? Box 98 --------------------------------------------------------- The following article was scribed by snow@coloasp.bitnet/Martin Snow: Taken from Why Me? #40: GERMANY: THE RUSSIAN ATTACK by Al Pearson In most cases it it extremely unwise for the German player to initiate the game with an attack on Russia. Occasionally though there arise much much to recommend the early attempt to remove the eastern neighbor. Of major concern is the incompetent Russian player; usually he should be removed quickly because he will not prove to be a good ally, and someone else will quickly pick up the Russian centers. If anyone gets Russian centers, the German should want it to be Germany. After a review of the many possible openings to launch an attack on Russia the following seven will be discussed: 1. A Mun-Sil A Ber-Kie F Kie-Den 2. A Mun-Sil A Ber-Pru F Kie-Hol 3. A Mun-Sil A Ber-Pru F Kie-Den 4. A Mun-Sil A Ber-Pru F Kie-Bal 5. A Mun-Kie A Ber-H F Kie-Den 6. A Mun-Ruh A Ber-Kie F Kie-Bal 7. A Mun-Kie A Ber-H F Kie-Bal In all but one case the fleet moves are to either the Baltic or Denmark to pressure the Russian expansion towards Sweden. This second alternative is considered anti-England and Russia opening, and Germany should consider this only if France and Turkey are guaranteed partners in the attack on these two victims. Because Germany is usually better served by concentrating forces on one victim, this alternative is not recommended. The other attacks either directly push on Warsaw or put pressure on Sweden and/or Livonia. Rather than look at the individual plans, first the implication of the alternative movements of the individual units will be reviewed. Army MUNICH In the above listed attacks on Russia the unit in Munich has only three real choices: Silesia, Kiel, or Ruhr. A move by A Mun to Ber can be considered, but it accomplishes the same as if A Ber holds and A Mun heads elsewhere (except in the case of Prussia, and Prussia is not a preferable position). In Silesia, the unit threatens Warsaw, possibly with the support of the Berlin unit now in Prussia. The unit in Silesia causes the Russian to guard the Warsaw center immediately, distracting from previous plans. If Austria has moved into Galicia, the German army in Silesia can be a bargaining tool to give or receive support into Warsaw. A move by A Mun to Kie also offers a number of favorable options: this unit may occupy Den if the final goal of the fleet is the Baltic, or take Hol for a second build. Another point to remember is that A Mun-Kie in itself is not threatening to Russia, so with the appropriate other moves the upcoming attack on Russia is slightly camouflaged. The final choice for the unit is the Ruhr. Which is not directly threatening to Russia, while allowing the German some protection against the French. In the Ruhr the unit can proceed to Holland, cause trouble in Belgium, or head towards Burgundy if Germany is foolhardy enough to want a two-front war. Army BERLIN The army in Berlin has only three real choices for an initial move when Germany is attacking Russia: Prussia, Kiel, or Hold. When A Ber holds, the burden of the offensive effort falls on the other two units, but the unit in Berlin is in a position to react to any outside activity as well as be convoyed in the fall turn. Armies can be convoyed from either Ber or Kie with the same effect, which will be discussed later. When the unit moves to Prussia, this almost always in conjunction with A Mun going to Sil, giving Germany a 2 on 1 against War. If the Russian has ordered the Moscow unit to either StP or Sev successfully, German armies take War. The unit in Ber also has the option to move to Kie. This can be useful in several instances. The German Fleet may first go to Den, then to the Bal with the Army moving into Den for the build and setting up a good position to attack Sweden. In addition the unit in Kiel may take Holland if necessary. Sometimes the unit goes to Kiel while A Mun goes to Sil, which give the German a preferable position to the alternative in which A Ber to Pru and A Mun to Kie. The unit in Sil is more powerfully placed than in Pru, so A Mun-Sil and A Ber-Kie is better than A Mun-Kie and A Ber-Pru. Fleet KIEL The fleet in Kie gives an attack on Russia great diversity, not in first season moves, but in the number of options available in the fall pertaining to targets and convoys against Russia. In only one instance is the fleet not ordered to the Bal or Den; in plan 2 the fleet in ordered to Hol while both armies attack War. This is a rather odd position in that Germany gives Swe to Russia while attacking War; this move also does not set up a next move attack on Swe which would be a saving grace. If the fleet moves to Den, it has two choices in the fall, keeping Russia out of Swe or moving to the Bal either to set up an attack on Swe in the spring or convoying into the heart of Russia, Liv. If the fleet first goes to the Bal, it still can keep the Russian out of Swe in the fall, and it is still in a position to attack Swe or convoy an army the next turn. The major drawback to F Kie-Bal is that Russia is immediately notified of German intentions. The German Offensives There are 7 initial German attacks on Russia outlined at the start of this article which will be briefly discussed as to advantages, drawbacks, and fall alternatives. While the 7 plans listed do not include all possible alternatives, this list does include the major attacks. Players are encouraged to seek out additional plans, but these do offer a good group to select from. Plan 1 puts slight pressure on Russia with the unit next to War, but by itself, the unit can't take War. Russia may be convinced that Germany had been told of Russian plans to move to Sil and the German move was purely defensive. If Germany was attacking would not more pressure be put on War? This explanation may work. This opening allows Germany to get 2 builds (Hol & Den) with luck and still keep Russia from Swe in 02. this attack on Swe is usually successful, and the unit in Sil still pins down at least one other Russian unit. Plan 2 allows Germany to get a build for Hol and get a 2 on 1 against War. This attack on War can succeed if the A Mos has moved out of position. Unfortunately the fleet is now out of position to even contest Swe, therefore allowing the Russian a build with no hope of attacking Swe in early 02. This attack does allow the German at least one build. This plan leaves Den open to the English if he wants the center instead of Bel or Nwy. This opening is not recommended unless Germany has firm committments from France and Turkey to keep things hot for England and Russia. Plan 3 is normally much preferred over plan 2. From Den, Germany can keep Russia from Swe in '01, and the attack on War is in full force. This attack shows little regard about the fate of the low countries, and hopefully for turning Bel & Hol loose, Eng & Fra will be otherwise occupied while Germany carries out the eastern attack. Care must be taken to keep E/F off the German's back until Germany is prepared to face the problem. This attack gives Germany a good chance for two builds while limiting Russian growth into Swe, and costing Russia two units to hold War if it is possible. Plan 4 is an out and out attack on Russia. The placement of the fleet reduces the possible builds for Germany if the Russian is kept out of Swe. But if things look bad for the prospect of taking War or there is an attack from elsewhere, the fleet can still move to Den for a likely build. ONce again Germany gives up Bel & Hol, for a quicker assault on Russia. If the fleet is used to stand Russia out of Swe, it is in position to convoy an army to Liv if necessary. If A Sil is used to take War, A Pru can move to Liv while the fleet can still harass Swe or move to Bot to support an attack on StP. The build obtained from this opening can be used to guard against E/F or to take Den with the fleet's help. Taking Den should be high on Germany's list in 02 if it remains available. Plan 5 does not appear to be much of an attack on Russia, not challenging for War and moving A Mun away from the front, but this does allow for a delayed attack. After seeing how the other nations have moved in the spring, Germany can still easily move into the Bal or keep Russia out of Swe, use the A Kie to take Hol if possible, and protect Mun if the French prove to be a problem by going to Burgundy. If Russia gets heavily involved in attacks with Austria & Turkey, Germany may try to ease the Ber unit into Sil to "support" either Russia or Austria. This attack, more than any other on Russia, is like the waiting move in chess, giving the opponent the wrong move for the situation. Plan 6 offers Germany the possibility of getting Hol & Den for builds in 1901, having some say in the fate of Bel, giving some good defensive possibilities if E or F pose a problem, and still keep Russia from Swe. In addition, Germany is in position to press the attack on Swe in Spr 02 or convoy a unit into Liv to wreak havoc next to the 3 Russian centers. The move to the Bal once again alerts Russia to the threat, but options in the west are still kept open. Plan 7 is a modification of plan 5. The army in Kie can move to Den or Hol keeping Germany somewhat active in the west. A Ber can move into Russia, be convoyed to Liv or Den, or move to protect Mun if needed. The fleet can keep Russia out of Swe, take Den, convoy A Ber to Den or Liv, or move to Bot for an attack. This last move (to Bot) is not recommended. REFLECTION It would seem that any plan which would get Germany two builds in 1901 while keeping Russia out of Swe would be the most attractive to the German player. Also any plan in which the fleet ends up in the Baltic with the possibility of convoying an army to Liv gives Germany a major card to play versus Russia. The threat of a German army in Liv is enough to tie up two or more Russian units and color his thinking on the entire northern front. One unit should be in a position to guard Mun as well as protect from a major push by England and/or France. Negotiations should be used to firm up the est while Germany concentrates on the east. All-out attacks on Russia leaving the back door open often invite an attack from E/F, and this is the probable cause for so poor a showing by the Germanies which undertake this plan of action. Germany in this case must not only be a good planner but also a smooth negotiator. -()--()--()--()--()--()--()--()--()--()--()--()--()--()--()--()--()--()--()- PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT -()--()--()--()--()--()--()--()--()--()--()--()--()--()--()--()--()--()--()- Mail for Army, Air Force and Marine Corps in Saudi Arabia or on the ground in another Persian Gulf nation may be addressed as following: Any Servicemember Operation Desert Shield APO New York 09848-0006 Mail for Navy and Marine Corps members onboard ships in the Middle East: Any Servicemember Operation Desert Shield FPO New York 09866-0006 Mail to specific service members -- identified by name, rank and service number -- should be sent directly to the appropriate APO/FPO number provided by the service member's individual unit. Here is a letter from fmcwilli@oracle.com/Floyd McWilliams, let me know what you think of his variant idea: Well, there is a Diplomacy variant that I would like to test: all "neutral" supply centers are one-army or one-fleet Minor Powers, each owned by a separate player. Do you think it's feasible? I'd need 19 players! I don't think I have the time to run it right now, but maybe in a month or so I can get my schedule under control. -- Floyd McWilliams 919 Hillsdale Blvd. (415) 358-7335 ****************************************************************************** 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