Diplomacy Zine -- EP #192 Chapter Seven From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com Date: Tue, 14 Aug 1990 03:28:11 +0000 Issue #192 of ELECTRONIC PROTOCOL: ************************************************************************ "This is not the time for the making of jests, for the Evil Ones are afoot in the lands, and danger is abroad." "But--" "Strange things are stirring in the East ..." "But--" "Doom is walking the High Road ..." "But--" "There is a dog in the manger ..." "But--" "... a fly in the ointment ..." "You mean ... you mean, THERE'S A BALROG IN THE WOODPILE?" ************************************************************************ Chapter One contains: BLITZKRIEG, GETTYSBURG, RED STORM RISING, and PASSCHENDAELE And is published by daybell@aludra.usc.edu/Donald Daybell Chapter Two contains: DRAGONSLAYER, JACAL, MANHATTAN, VERSAILLES, DRESDEN, and KHAN And is published by tedward@cs.cornell.edu/Ted Fischer Chapter Three contains: MULHOUSE, DAWN PATROL, SNIKKEL-2, BERLIN, SNIKKEL-1, EL ALAMEIN, SQUALANE, UNGAWE, CAPTAIN CAVEMAN And is published by cwekx@htikub5.bitnet/Constantijn Wekx Chapter Four contains: NICKEL, OZARK, DEADLY DAGGERS, YORKTOWN, MONTREUIL-SUR-MER Chapter Five contains: ARCHANGEL, BORDEL, ERIS, MASADA, and YALTA And is published by bmers58!dgibbs@bnrgate/David Gibbs Chapter Six contains: TOKUGAWA, BERLIN WALL, HIROSHIMA, GENGHIS KHAN, SEA LION, VIOLENT PEACE And is published by sinhaa@mcmaster.ca/Anand Sinha ----------- Chapter Seven ----------- No games this issue. Publisher comments: Quote is from Bored of the Rings, by the Harvard Lampoon. submitted by matt@severian.chi.il.us (Matt Crawford) ********************************************************************* QUIZ! ********************************************************************* WORLD'S SHORTEST POLITICAL QUIZ For each question answer yes, no, or maybe. There are no right answers, it would just be neat to see how many Libertarian, Liberal, Centrist, Conservative, and Authoritarian subscribers we have. Quiz: Military service should be voluntary. (No draft) Government should not control radio, TV or the press. Repeal regulations on sex by consenting adults. Drugs laws do more harm than good. Repeal them. Let people immigrate and emmigrate freely. Farmers should farm without quotas or subsidies. People are better off with free trade than tariffs. Minimum wage laws eliminate jobs. Repeal them. End taxes. Pay for services voluntarily. Europeans & Japanese should pay for their own defense. I received the following info from Ron Dawson: RESULTS OF THE 1990 HOBBY AWARDS ROD WALKER AWARD for literary excellence: A tie between Francois Cuerrier and Larry Botimer JOHN KONING AWARD for outstanding play of Diplomacy: Gary Behnen DON MILLER AWARD for service to the hobby: Fred Davis MELINDA ANN HOLLEY AWARD for quantity participation in the hobby: Melinda Holley A total of 61 ballots were cast, close to 20 were from PBEM people. The following was scribed by AS365156@Orion.YorkU.CA code named Video Dienstag: Lies from Fol Si Fie #94 Lying in Diplomacy is a time-honoured tradition. From the moans of the old pros, more went on ten years ago than now. It is reasonable to say that a good player must necessarily be a good liar -- not all the time, of course, but as the occasion demands. Without trying to add insult to injury, a practical example appears in 1976-CZ in this issue: Harry's inability to lie (or lie convincingly) has made his apparent attempt at a win difficult where it could have been easy. While a reputation as a truthful player will take you a fair distance in this game, and a good grasp of tactics and strategy will carry you even further, it's almost impossible to win without the occasional untruth. Most players recognize this and have no inhibitions about lying when it suits them; unfortunately many go overboard --- where have I read about weaving tangled webs? For classification purposes I normally divide lies into four categories: Big and Little Lies, and Big and Little Cons. Different players favour different types. The Little Lie is a single-season, tactical/strategic lie aimed at picking up 1-3 centers in an immediate stab. For example, F/G agree to demilitarize Bur in Spring 1901, but Germany goes for it anyhow. The center may not come immediately, but a successful A Mun-Bur certainly gives the German the jump. If he doesn't face a lot of other enemies, one of Mar, Par, or Bel should fall into his lap by the end of 1902. Such lies have a lot of drawbacks, however. Unless you're 100% sure of being enemies with X, it very rarely pays to rip off one of his centers by such means. Apart from creating one permanent enemy, consistent use of the tactic will soon get you the appropriate reputation as a gratuitous stabber. Even when success would guarantee two centers, it's rarely worthwhile. (These comments are based on postal Diplomacy. The face-to-face games I've participated in involve little lies as everyone's stock in trade. Perhaps nothing more complicated can be devised in the time periods, or it may be tougher to face the opponents in person in the course of bringing off something nastier.) The Big Lie must be used with care or it becomes a simple insult. It is a multi-season waffling process, either repeatedly soothing the ruffled feathers of an enemy whom you're creaming , or the consistent denial of aid to an "ally" which would suit his purposes but might not suit yours. Quite distinct from puppeting, where the relationship is more open and mutually understood, and depends on one partner being on the ropes. The big lie often comes into play when your ally is your equal *now*, but you'd like to change that. Unfortunately it is fairly easy to detect after a couple of seasons, and unless it has accomplished its purpose by that time, it is difficult to maintain against a competent opponent. In a sense, then, a long-standing big lie *is* an insult. Cons are attempts to dupe opponents concerning the existing and potential diplomatic situation. Many players never bother with them and are only vaguely aware of their existence and potential. You can win a game by sticking to the Lies, but it's a lot more fun doing it with the Cons. A Little Con is a fairly common ploy designed to get X to stab Y so that you (and Z) can clean up. "If you don't do it to him, he'll do it to you.", or, "Why split this four ways? Y and Z don't deserve it, I'll hit Z if you hit Y at the same time." Cons play more on Fear and Greed, whereas Lies depend on Faith and Hope (no such thing as Charity in this game). To be sucked in by a little con is therefore more shocking and, ultimately, depressing, since it often involves making enemies of the one guy that could have saved you ... which was of course the idea of the Conner all along. Ah, now a Big Con is the soul of Diplomacy. I don't think even the best players practice it much, since the lesser resources are usually sufficient. I've only found occasion to use it twice in my own playing career. Big Cons may require assistance from a confederate, and here's where things can get hairy. The BC is a multi-season dupe of one or more of the other powers concerning the strength of an alliance between two neighbours. (It's theoretically applicable between *any* two countries, but if there's something going on between England and Turkey, how can they themselves *know*. And among the other nations, who *cares* (maybe Russia, but ...)? Close tactical cooperation is all part of the con.) Big Cons may involve: inflammatory letters and nasty press about the other player; several units attacking each other according to a prearranged plan; and other cut-ups which stop just barely short of being self-defeating. If the allies suspect the GM may fumble the ball, even he may be kept in the dark and receive complaints about the other players! Big Cons *can* be carried off by a single player if the other is solid but not up to a lot of shenanigans. A low-key "No, he never writes to me, either ... I'm not too impressed, as you can tell from my attack on ..." will usually keep everyone else in the dark until the right time. The great thing about Big Cons is that you never know for sure until the game is over (sometimes not even then). As an outsider, you won't even *suspect*, much less know, if the Con is a good one. As an insider, where are your guarantees that your ally isn't playing a similar game with every reliable player on the board. As England, can you *really* trust that French army in Wales to move as arranged? Big Cons often require a Teflon-coated gut to avoid ulcers. The following is from the August 13, 1990 issue of Insight: DEMOCRATS ARE DARED ON $19.90 BUDGET CUT A day after House Democrats repeatedly denounced a proposed balanced budget ammendment to the Constitution as a poor substitute for political courage, Robert S. Walker offered to measure their conviction. Saying that some of the calls for courage "brought tears to my eyes", the Pennsylvania Republican proposed a cut of $19.90 -- roughly 0.0000002 percent -- from $9.6 billion in nonentitlement spending for the Agriculture Department. Calling it an across-the-board cut, he warned that the move could set back major programs "as much as 50 cents". The taunt drew boos and hisses from Democrats. When GOP colleagues asked to except specific programs, he insisted "We have to have the courage to take that 50 cents." Indignant, Democrats charged him with wasting the $480 it costs to print a single page of the Congressional Record, and Illinois Democrat Cardiss Collins offered Walker $20 of her own, which he refused. New Hampshire Republican Robert C. Smith noted that $19.90 was little compared with the bill's $80,000 for milkweed and pod research to replace goose down in pillows, or $75,000 for research on Belgian endive. The cut was rejected 175-214. and here is one more article from that issue: BAR CODING PLAN RILES POSTAL UNION The Postal Service plans to contract out jobs in its new remote bar coding system to private firms, a move that has the American Postal Workers Union furious. "We will fight it on the beaches, on the Hill, in negotiations, wherever." said union President Moe Biller. The new system is designed to handle mail addressed by hand, which cannot be sorted by optical scanning computers that read type. A video camera captures the address and displays it on a large television screen. A worker types part of the address into a computer, which then determines the letter's ZIP code, and bar-codes it so it can be handled by automatic sorting machines. "The activity requires much less knowledge of the mail and is, in fact, a simple data entry operation", said Postmaster General Anthony M. Frank. By using private firms to employ nonunion workers, Frank expects to save $10 to $12 in wages per work hour. He said the Postal Service could save $4.3 billion over 10 years. Two remote bar coding systems are being tested. Equipment made by Bell & Howell Co. is being used in western Nassau County, NY, and a system manufactured by TRW is being tried in Louisville, KY. Whichever system or combination of systems is chosen will be used nationwide by the end of 1995. ****************************************************************************** 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