Diplomacy Zine -- EP #189 Chapter Six From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com Date: Sat, 28 Jul 1990 03:21:01 +0000 Issue #189 of ELECTRONIC PROTOCOL: ***************************************************************************** The government has decided that we should celebrate Washington's birthday on the third Monday of February, because that way the nation gets a long weekend, and, what the hell, Washington is dead anyway. (When I say "the nation," of course, I mean "government employees and maybe six or seven other people.") I think that if the government can mess around with the calendar for its own convenience, the rest of us should be able to do the same thing. For example, most people find April 15 to be a terribly inconvenient day to file income tax returns, coming as it does right at the beginning of baseball season. I think this year on April 15 we should all send the government little notices explaining that we observe Income Tax Day on December 11. ***************************************************************************** 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: BIG WILLIE, NICKEL, and OZARK And is published by dm8sstaf@miamiu.bitnet/Douglas M. MacFarlane Chapter Five contains: ARCHANGEL, BORDEL, ERIS, MASADA, and YALTA And is published by uunet!bnrgate!bmers1!dgibbs/David Gibbs ----------- Chapter Six ----------- No games in this issue. Publisher comments: Quote is from Dave Barry, "Birthday Celebration" submitted by dougi@astro.as.utexas.edu/Doug Ingram ***CLASSIFIED AD*** I got the following message from cap@hitkub5.bitnet/Joris Pinkse "I still don't have living space in London :(. If you'd know anyone who does know, or you'd be willing to put a note in your chapters I'd be very grateful." I recevied the following from loeb@rita.laas.fr or loeb@geocub.greco-prog.fr/ Danny Loeb: KIBITZING by Danny Loeb In case you don't know, Kibitzing is a great Yiddish word introduced into the English language via bridge which means being a spectator who talks too much, as in "Stop Kibitzing. We're trying to play here!" (This is of course, as opposed to the "post-mortum" which is only done by the players, and sometime before the hand "dies".) The game "Cosmic Encounters" contains a variant for when you have one player too many. The extra player is called the Kibitzer, and he is allowed to look at any game materials whenever he wants. He can look at the cards about to be picked up from the deck, at the players hands, at the secret location of the bomb chosen by the Terrorist, etc. But not only that, he is allowed to divulge any information he wants. Of course, not all of it may be true. But what is the point of all this you ask? Well, the Kibitzer secretly choses a player before the game who he thinks is going to win, or a group of players he thinks will draw. If the Kibitzer is EXACTLY correct at the end of the game, then ALL of the players LOSE, and the Kibitzer is the one who wins. In fact, if the Kibitzer choses you to win, then the only way for you really to win is if you draw with someone. The game become rather psychological, since if the Kibitzer is seen to be helping someone, then people will think that person was chosen, or maybe the Kibitzer is using reverse psychology! My suggestion is that Kibitzing would be even more fun in a Diplomacy game. The Diplomacy game would be played as an ordinary (or a variant) gunboat diplomacy game with no regular press. However, the Kibitzer would be given the names and addresses of the players, and visa versa. Therefore, all communication between players would have to pass through the Kibitzer. The Kibitzer secretly sends the GM the name of the country he expects to win (or the winning coalition). If this actually comes about, then it is rather the Kibitzer who has won. If the country (or any of the countries) picked by the Kibitzer is eliminated, the Kibitzer can longer win. Optional rules: (1) When the Kibitzer arrives in the above mentioned no-win situation, then he is eliminated, and the game continues as a normal diplomacy game, or as a normal gunboat diplomacy game (with press). (2) The Kibitzer is required to forward the messages unaltered to the recipient(s). A copy of the message is sent to the GM by the player and the Kibitzer in order to confirm compliance with this rule. (3) All correspondence with the GM (including orders sent in) must be sent to the Kibitzer as well. However, last moment changes in orders can be used to prevent the Kibitzer from revealing your moves to everyone. (4) Generally speaking the GM shouldn't play in his own game, but you might consider allowing the GM to be the Kibitzer if there is not enough players. I am proposing this game for play in the Electronic Protocol, and I prepared to play as a country, GM, or play Kibitzer. Optional rules and any other rule changes will be decided before game start. Please write to me with your comments. Yours, Daniel Loeb ------------------ TOULOUSE BORDEAUX EMAIL loeb@rita.laas.fr loeb@geocub.greco-prog.fr (or else try loeb@frbdx11.bitnet) MAIL (H)13, boulevard des Fontanelles 150, cours Victor-Hugo; Appt B21 31240 L'Union France 33000 Bordeaux France MAIL (W)Group O. L. C. Departement des Maths et d'Info L. A. A. S. Universite de Bordeaux I 7, avenue du Colonel Roche 351 cours de la Liberation 31077 Toulouse Cedex France 33405 Talence Cedex France PHONE(H)xnational+33 61 09 68 15 xnational+33 56 31 48 26 (W)xnational+33 61 33 63 17 xnational+33 56 84 60 88 FAX xnational+33 61 55 35 77 xnational+33 56 80 08 37 SUPER DIPLOMACY by Danny Loeb In DMing role playing games, I tend not to tell the players what system I am using. This uncertainty gives me more flexibility and it adds to the realism. After all, in the real world, you don't know what the rules are. With that in mind, I am proposing a diplomacy game without specifying all of the rules. All the players should know is that the game starts out similar to 10-player diplomacy (I can send you the rules if wish) except that each captial is worth 2 supply centers. Thus, each country begins with its ordinary collection of units, and may use its additional build as it wishes. One possible use of builds is to conduct research. You tell me where you want to do the research and toward what end (or in "general"), and I will tell you the results if any. A new discovery sometimes will usually involve new rules which you'll be informed of as necessary. There may be other possible uses of builds, but they are for the players to discover. You will be told if you try something which is inherently impossible. In addition, there may be random events that will occur occasionally some of which might require new players to join the game in progress. Please tell me if you are interested in playing, and also give me more ideas for events that could happen. Please write to me with your comments. Yours, Daniel Loeb The Diplomacy Programming Project --------------------------------- by Danny Loeb There are already several programs on the net which adjudicate the game diplomacy; however, very few programs can actually play it. As opposed to two player games such as chess or othello which lend themselves easily to computer implementations. Diplomacy as its very name suggests involves negotiations and agreements with the other players. This is a task which is not so easily accomplished. But I do not feel it is impossible. As soon as I have at least seven volunteers, I suggest to start a Diplomacy Programming Project. That is to say, each participant would write a computer program to play one of the seven countries. I would run the programs in parallel, and send the results of the game to the participants. Then some of the participants might rewrite their program and so on. Obviously, the first thing we must do is agree on the protocol the programs will be using. I suggest that the programs be written in LCS which is an extension of the language Standard ML (see Ake Wikstrom's book "Functional Programming Using Standard ML). LCS included all of the commands from SML (almost) plus some commands to operate processes in Parallel. Two ports will be provided between every pair countries allowing communication of arbitrary character strings in both directions. (Except during retreat and build phases when no communication is allowed.) Messages between countries should conform to an agreed syntax. Each process will have access to the following data according to some agreed syntax: (1) the move number (2) the orders for all previous turns (3) the results of those orders (4) supply center control listed by supply center by year (5) number of supply centers, number of armies, and number of fleets for each player by year (6) list of all units for each player requiring orders for this phase (7) list of all supply centers (8) list of all spaces (9) list of the neighbors for each space by land and by sea (for each coast). Moreover, each process will have read access to the port "TIME_LIMIT". When a message is sent through that port, then each process must submit a set of orders "immediately" or be in civil disorder. Each process may output in addition to his orders, a set of "notes" which will be used as input for that countries process next turn. These "notes" could consist of the moves your ally process promised to make, for example. Any process which generates an error condition is also considered to be in civil disorder. Yours, Daniel Loeb I received the following from m.i.nelson@gdr.batch.ac.uk/Mark Nelson: Dear Eric, Here are some pieces from my current issue (editorial and waiting lists). Mark THE MOUTH OF SAURON VOLUME VI: XIII (July 1990) PUBLISHER: Mark Nelson(Postgraduate), School of Mathematical Sciences, The University, Claverton Down, BATH. BA2 7AY. ENGLAND. (0225)--826826 x (5747) [from about 9.00am to 8pm. If I'm not in, leave a message ---I won't ring you back but I'll try to be in when you ring again.] The Mouth of Sauron is a purest postal diplomacy zine which prints diplomacy articles and runs diplomacy variants. I also tryto fit some bridge and sf in along the way. If you do not like these subjects, why are you reading this? Do me a favour and go somewhere else! (Non--International) Game only issues appear every month. International Game Only Issues appear every six weeks. Issues such as the one that you are currently reading come out sf whenever I have the time, money and inclination to produce them. About six times a year. They are normally 32-40A5pp, but it was a rush job to get this out in time for ManorCon. This issue costs 50pence. AUSTRALIA & NEW ZEALAND: 10 issues for $ 20 from John Cain 76 Banool Road, Balwyn, VI 3101. AUSTRALIA. USA: $1 an issue from Paul Gardener PO BOX97, Battleboro, VT 05031, USA. CANADA: $1 an issue from Randy Grigsby 93 St Vincent Street, RR #3, Barrie, Ontario, CANADA. HELLO TO ERIC BROSIUS, 41 Heywood Street, Milford, MA. USA 01757 Jean--Yves PRIOU, 16 rue de Chateaudun, 94200 IVRY. FRANCE EDITORIAL When I left my terminal an hour ago (after working all day on it) I had a five page editorial. Upon my return it had gone. No longer tobe found in my files. I do not feel inclined to re--type it, so what was a 24page zine will now become a 20 page zine. GAMES IN PROGRESS: Diplomacy (3), International Diplomacy (2), Round Robin Gunboat (1--vt), Gunboat (1), Cline Man VIII (1--vt), Everybody Plays (2--vt), Coolbop Downfall (1--vt), International Hardbop Downfall (1--vt), Intimate Diplomacy 1a (1), International Minimalist Diplomacy (1--vt), Railway Rivals (1) & National Express (1). WAITING LISTS 1. MIDDLE EARTH IX: A five player Tolkien variant, rules were printed last issue. G.Wright, A.Patience, J.Breakwell (An/C/A/D/H) R.Tew. 2. IMPERIALISM VIIR A large 1960's dip variant by Rod Walker based on the regular map. There is no Austria, and the map is greatly expanded -- the remaining countries start with seven units. There are 75 supply centers. The game looks fun. Currently signed up: Anthony Dickinson (UK), Mark Firth (UK) \& Dave McCrumb (USA). Three more overseas players are required. THROUGH THE LETTER BOX JOHN WILMAN CAMBRIDGE I wasn't aware that I was ``noted for my tactical ability'', unless it shows up in my consistent failure to win overwhelming positions, matched only by my fame at losing drawn positions. What I can do is defend hopeless positions for an inordinadly long time, a singularly useless talent. However, you asked for comments on your article. Two general points first; my approach to tactics is very different from yours, and narrower --- more purist, if you like. I don't regard deliberate misorders as falling under the heading of ``tactics'' at all--- I class them under ``dirty tricks''. Also, the article was long and unstructured, but contained plenty of ``meat''. I particularly liked the story of the successful ``loop'' manoeuvre, and I am also taken with the idea of ``schizophrenic supports'', which I have used; I think I vaguely remember the original Mark Berch article. What does amaze me is how bad the average player is at spotting a sure line of play to capture or defend a vital supply centre, by cutting all possible supports. One thing you may have missed is the ``snatch back defense'', when an apparently unstoppable attack is countered by the attacked unit moving against its attacker, supported by one or more non-adjacent units--- eg GERMANY: A(War)-Mos. ENGLAND: A(StP) SGA(War)-Mos. TURKEY: A(Sev) SGA(War)-Mos. RUSSIA: A(Pru)\&A(Gal) SA(Mos)-War. This stops the otherways unstoppable Russian attack. I share with Richard Sharp a distrust of the esoteric idea of frustrating a self--standoff --- it might work once in a blue moon, but usually, the unit(s) involved can be put to better use. In your example (which didn't actually make sense as published, but I think I know what you meant as Austria I would have ordered A(Vie)-Gal, A(Ser)SF(Alb)-Gre (or some other support). As Russia, I would have gone A(Gal)--Boh, intending to build A(War) and then support A(War)-Gal. (( I can see your reasoning on misorders as they seem to fall between tactics/dirty tricks but I think I was right to include a section on them ---an article which concentrates on how to order your units to good effect should, perhapes, include a section on how not ordering units may produce good results. The article was long (I wanted to put everything in) but there was some attempt at structuring, I can't really see how I can improve upon the format used. Ideas? And yes, I should have mentioned that Austria ordered A(Ser)-Vie, A(Bud)-Vie.)) STUART EVES READING Thanks for TMOS Vol VI Nos 8--9, very enjoyable reading, especially your article on tactics. It's an area which I feel is too often ignored, and perhapes the area of Diplomacy that I'm best at. (Pity I'm no good at the persuade people to do what you want part of the game!)\pagebreak There is a small error in the example in the middle of page 32. If France plays F(ENC)-IRI then London falls to the Germans attack while F(Lon) sails into the channel. Hence the phrase ``Now whatever is ordered London is safe'', is not entirely true. (( Yes, a minor error. In the actual game it was obvious that there would be a direct attack on English soil)) The LOOP is I'm sure correct according to the rulebook, but it seems to point in a slight philosophical inconsistency. In the case of the AMBIGUOUS CONVOY and the UNWANTED CONVOY the army has two routes to move from A to B, and if one of those routes fails, (through a fleet being dislodged) the army may not move. In the case of the LOOP, the army would also seem to have two routes to move: directly by land, or via the convoy. The situation seems very analagous to the Unwanted Convoy, exept that this time it is the land route which fails rather than the sea one. Consequently, I don't think that the loop should be allowed. (( The LOOP is an (unintended?) result of rule XIV.5 para three which states: ``Two pieces may exchange places if one or both of them are convoyed'' Calhamer obviously wanted to include such actions when they were agreed upon by the concerned players, I see nothing wrong with extending them to more sneaky situations.)) In the second example on page 36, the play is indeed sneaky. However, I think that the allies must have known that England was planning the moves to be played. If the English support was the other way round (ie A(Yor) SA(Wal)-Lon rather than A(Wal)SA(Yor)-Lon) then the plot fails. [Well, actually it's more true to say `France does not capture London'' which I presume was the point of this complicated exercise.] In the example, if England did play as printed I think he could have lost two supply centres as the dislodged German fleet can retreat to Edi. [I'm assuming England holds Edi, which may not be true!] If, however, the orders were reversed as I've suggested, England can only lose one [Edi]. Hence, the example relies for its success on a non--optimum defence. [Interestingly, the same play cannot be used if England reverses his orders to A(Yor)SA(Wal)-Lon. France can order F(ENC)CA(Wal)-Lon, of course, but the French fleet in Belgium cannot participate in its dislodgement. Indeed, with the moves you printed by the allies, the most naive defence by England ie A(Wal)-Lon, A(Yor)-Edi leaves them with nothing!] The above points are not criticisms, just an attempt to support my assertion that the allies must have had a fair idea of what England was planning; again emphasising that it is a perfect example of the unwanted convoy is operation. (( I do not have the original article on me and so I can't comment what it says/implies in there. However I think we can discount the possibility of the naive defence since a supported attack on Lon is the most obvious move for he attacking allies.)) I think I've come across another variation on the schizophrenic theme, which I'll tentatively entitle the SCHIZOPHRENIC DEFENCE until someone comes up with a better name for it. I don't recall all the diplomatic considerations (such as who held various supply centres at the time, and where the other units were on the board) but what happened was as follows. The units were: AUSTRIA A(Gre), F(AEG), A(Rum). TURKEY A(Bul) RUSSIA A(Sev) Austria feared an attack on Rum, and did not wish to take Bul from Turkey unless forced to do so. Hence Austria ordered A(Gre)-Bul F(AEG) SA(Gre)-Bul, A(Rum)STA(Bul), pointing out to Turkey that any attack on Rum by Russia would cut its support, and Turkey would lose Bul. The ploy worked perfectly in the game I saw. One small typo I spotted on page 32, at the top. I think Kie-Bal (third para) should be Den-BAL. (( Yes, thanks for pointing this out!)) 'Tis a pity that Francois may be wimping out of our debate!! I hope someone over there will take up your challange! MARK MALONE EDINBURGH Your piece on the tactics of Diplomacy was good and I must admitt that the unwanted support had never occured to me before (well at least not as an offensive weapon). But I can't help feeling a little uneasy about both the LOOP and unwanted convoys. The LOOP surely falls into the same category of moves as RA(X)--Y, AA(Y)-X and so fails. My1962 edition of the rules simply states ``If two units are ordered each to the space the other occupies, neither may move,'' Thus I would imagine that: RA(X)--Y, RF(Z)CRA(X)--Y, AA(Y)--X would have to result in a stand--off unless newer editions specifically allow this. (( Which they do, see my comments above in response to Stuart. Many people who have the 1971 rules do not notice that this play is specifically allowed by the rules because it is hidden away at the very end of the rulebook.)) The unwanted convoy on the other hand worries me because I can't believe that a foreign fleet could kidnap an army in this way. Which army is going to board the warships of an enemy power? I must admitt however that such a move could add to the enjoyment of the game, but I'm not sure if this compensates for the loss of realism; a quality which makes the game like war rather than the shuffling of plastic counters on a piece of cardboard. I notice that you invoke the rules discussing the ambiguity of a move, where the existance of more than one `channel' doesn't cancel the move, but the cutting of anyone of these does. Surely then a player should be allowed to guard himself against this by writing, say, `by sea' or by `land' after the relevant orders. Obviously the adjuticator isn't necessarily going to be able to distinguish wanted from unwanted convoys purely on the evidence of the orders submitted on a given turn. So it can be argued that such orders are legal, but equally a player should have the opportunity to specify which of the many possible channles he has in mind when he first submits his orders. (( Diplomacy is an abstraction of war, and I never go by realism arguments to settle disputes. No, I prefer to go by the rules. The rules do not outlaw this play, and I feel that anything which can make the game more cunning should be encouraged! It should be pointed out that this play is very, very, rare and that most dip player will go through their entire playing career without actually seeing an example of it in play.)) STUART EVES READING Can I thank you for chasing up the Diplomacy Digest stuff I ordered. I think you must be right and that I am cursed. I've sent pounds7.50 to Doug Rowling for the Canadian Zine Pack, which never arrived, and money to Mark Berch for DD (I thought I'd try my own subscription because I enjoyed reading your copies so much) [NO REPLY] , Steve Arnawoodian for Masters Of Deceit [NO REPLY], and Larry Perry about the Diplomacy World Anthologies [NOREPLY]. Yes, I'm definitely jinxed! I very much like he ROHAN system which you used in your last game--only issue. Indeed, I think I prefer it to underlining. I won't be sorry if you stick to this system in the future! ((MN: Doug Rowling has written to me and tells me that he sorted out your Canadian problem when he visited Toronto this Summer, so hopefully you should start to see some zines arriving! Mark Berch is reading this so perhapes this will stir him into action! There have been long delays between issues of Diplomacy Digestin recent times and it may be that your order arrived during one such delay. I have heard that Arnawoodian is very slow at dealing with orders and I am slightly suprised that MoD is still being plugged by Tom Nash, so I think we can expect Tom to have a look at this for you (how about it Tom?). Larry normally replies to mail, but he receives so much of it that there is a largish time--lag. BUT what is slightly worrying is that I have also been having problems with recent orders through the ISE and at the moment I have not been given any satisfactory explanations as to why this is the case. If Doug goes to ManorCon then it may be that we can clear all this mess up there.)) Eric Klien's zine Protocol operates a no--NMR houserule. I'd be interested to know your views on this idea. Also in a zine such as yours, where the game deadlines are more flexible, do you think it would be worth seperating retreat/build seasons from the Autumn moves in the UK system. (({ I am not sure how Eric operates his no--NMR houserule, and will wait until after I find out how he does it before I comment on it. I don't like seperation of seasons on the grounds that it makes an already lengthy postal game last even longer. Also seperation of seasons leads to diplomacy about builds/retreats in a way that goes against the rules of the game. I suppose that I could have a houserules covering such an event, if a majority of the players asked for a seperation then I would grant one. But since I do not really see any advantage in allowing a seperation I doubt that I would add such a rule to my houserules.)) JOHN BREAKWELL READING A ounds13000 salary straight from University seems a little hopeful but then you have had an extra year on a MSc so you should get it. It does depend on the market, though, as I've gone from pounds7000---pounds12000 in three years, gaining only an HNC in the meantime. (({ The graduate recruitment officer for Rolls Royce and Associates told me that they take on new graduates with my qualifications at \pounds12000, and as you say add a little something for the MSc.)) ****************************************************************************** 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