Diplomacy Zine -- EP #175 Chapter Six From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com Date: Mon, 18 Jun 1990 01:58:30 +0000 Issue #175 of ELECTRONIC PROTOCOL: ******************************************************************************* "You have now given the MFN treatment in China after Tiananmen and Peking", Gorbachev's foreign policy advisor, Yevgeny Primakov, said. "What shall we do? What should we do for you to give us MFN? Maybe we should introduce presidential rule in the Baltics and at least fire some rounds in the Baltics." ******************************************************************************* Chapter One contains: BLITZKRIEG, GETTYSBURG, RED STORM RISING, and COMRADES IN ARMS And is published by daybell@aludra.usc.edu/Donald Daybell Chapter Two contains: DRAGONSLAYER, BISMARK, COLD WAR, JACAL, MANHATTAN, VERSAILLES, and DRESDEN 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: FIRE WHEN READY, DREADNOUGHT, JUGGERNAUGHT, BIG WILLIE, NICKEL, and OZARK And is published by lord_zar@ucrmath.ucr.edu/Wayne Wallace Chapter Five contains: ARCHANGEL, BORDEL, 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 the June 2 Boston Globe. The following was scribed by AS365156@Orion.YorkU.CA code name Video Dienstag: ************************************************************************** CONTEST ************************************************************************** Le Front de Liberation du Diplomacy September 8, 1979 Volume III Issue 10 You Be The Player Contest Here you sit, Austria, allied with Germany. Italy and Russia have been keeping you pinned down, while France nibbles at Italy. Submit moves for the combined Austrian-German alliance and countermoves for the Russian-Italian alliance, with moves for France. The object is not to allow Italy to grow by even one unit, and hopefully, not allowing the Russian to grow. Best entries will be published. Such entries will be considered winners in this contest, with winners receiving a $1.00 game fee towards any game in this zine. All entries should be accompanied by full name, complete mailing address, telephone number, and choice of games and country preferences. And now, the positions and supply centers owned. It is a Spring move season coming up. ENG F Lon FRA A Bre, A Spa, A Tus, F Lvp, F Mar, F Lyo, F Tyn ITA A Rom, A Ven, A Tri, A Alb, F Ion, F Smy. GER A Mun, A Kie, A Ber, A Sil, A War, F Bel, F Edi, F Nse, F Nwy, F Stp/s AUS A Vie, A Bud, A Ser, A Sev, F Bla RUS A Rum, A Fin TUR F Ank ENG Lon FRA Bre Par Mar Spa Por Tun Lvp ITA Nap Rom Ven Tri Gre Smy GER Mun Ber Kie Hol Bel Den Swe Nwy Stp Mos War Edi AUS Vie Bud Ser BUl Sev RUS Rum Mos TUR Con Ank (operating one unit short) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- The following articles were scribed by rlg@ai.mit.edu/Bob Givan: Saint George and the Dragon - No. 34 page 5 November 13, 1978 DRAGONFIRE "The Play of Russia" ((By way of introduction let me say that the author of this article, who prefers to remain anonymous, has played Russia 6 times in FTF, postal and tournament play. He won all six games outright. So he knows what he's talking about. I have done only limited editing, to preserve his anonymity, only.)) I feel that Russia is the most powerful country on the board and if through diplomacy you can stay at peace in the north in 1901 and have only one enemy in the south in '01 and '02 you become almost unstoppable beyond that point. First I will agree to anything Germany wants in '01 in order to gain Sweden and I will never send a second unit north as it can only irritate Germany and/or England and force a second front before Mother Russia can handle it. In the south I will negotiate very hard with Austria and Turkey as well as Italy. I will agree with Austria to take out Turkey and with Turkey to take out Austria, but will always go with Austria and attack Turkey. Double-dealing Turkey is important as you will then have an inside track on his moves. You can then cover this by telling Austria how you set up Turkey, so if they compare notes you already were super open with Austria. You must also give Austria any information which will help him against Italy, Turkey or Germany, making him think you are really a nice guy and can be trusted. The reason I would always go with Austria is simple; Turkey has his back to the board and it is almost impossible for Russia to take out Turkey alone but not so in reverse. Only if Austria is played by a super player and Turkey by a novice would I consider changing this philosophy. In regard to Italy, I would ask him to let me know who he wanted to attack because that's also who I would attack so as to get the inside track on his thoughts. I would use the soft-sell to try and steer him after Turkey, but only the soft-sell! I would also give this information to Austria as per reason above. Long range I would feed him any information that would help him in the West and any info about Turkey which would help my cause. If the above is successful you should be at 6 centers after 1901. My specific moves would be F Sev-Bla, F StP(sc)-Bot, A War-Gal, A Mos-Ukr. Many of you will question A War-Gal and rightly so as this threatens Austria, but it virtually guarantees Rumania. For after this move is made and then you don't his Austria in the Fall, you can actually strengthen your alliance. In any division of centers, remember it rarely works out that way in the long run. Keep Austria on your side by both diplomacy and strength and promises of the lion's share. It is important to get Austrian and Italian fleets into the war with Turkey because Turkey must fall quickly for the best diplomat can only keep the north quiet until 1903 at the latest. In the north I try an steer England and France together, or France and Germany together, whichever seems more probably. England and Germany is the worst possible combination for Russia as it provides a solid front against Russia. I feel England/France is the best combination for Russia for it forces Germany into your camp and you can slowly move in behind Germany out of necessity, for he will need your armies and navies to support his units in defensive position. Then when the break comes because of added Russian builds in the north, because of gains in the south and a strong relationship with Italy because of all you are doing for him. This allows Germany to eventually go to the offensive and when he does, France and England scramble and you save them by walking in Germany's back door. Note: be sure England and France have been adequately reduced so a comeback is impossible. Back to the south: Once Turkey is reduced, Austria can only move after Italy if you have done your diplomacy, for Italy will have more to gain by hitting Austria and you are, of course, his buddy because of all you have and will do for him. Also you must maintain a position of power. Don't open yourself up. Allies are easier to keep if they can't gain by hitting you. Once Austria has moved far enough out of position you move in his backdoor, taking as many as 4 centers in one year. If you keep your diplomacy one country ahead of your stab, you are never without an ally and you need one in both the north and the south. The north should take care of itself simply because the odd man out will need help. In the south very heavy diplomacy must be used. If you want to win consistently, you must use the phone and talk to everyone every move, but then that's another article ((which you are invited to submit)). Using this plan of attack, you should go as follows: 1901-6, 1902-8 or 9, and 1903-10 to 12. After 1902, you can stop carrying your hat in your hand and start demanding your share. By this time, you are not only strong enough to fight on both fronts, you have also allowed natural enemies to get good and mad at each other. Death for Russia occurs when Russia gets too aggressive and makes enemies in the north before 1903 or loses the odd man out diplomacy fight in the south. After this, Russia becomes almost impossible to stop unless everyone stops fighting and takes out Russia, and how does this happen with France and Italy almost enforced allies if they want to grow. Most how-to-play country articles generally deal with tactics and less on diplomacy, but I have found diplomacy is more important, especially in postal play. I have beaten many players I consider better than me tactically ((I have withheld their names because I think you might be able to tell who wrote the article from some of the names on the list. I will mention that I am one and he has indeed beaten me)). You may question my methods as to the number of knives I am willing to use, but if you do then settle for fewer wins and more friends. To me, winning is what the game is all about. Ed. Note: I think this article admirably repeats the philosophy of playing this game with _all_ players, and not merely making a single alliance. His instructions show that he clearly tries to take command of what's happening in the game. A good article. From Impassable: MUST A STAB PRECEDE SUCCESS? By John Kador A lately-developed school of thought disparages Diplomacy players who are adverse to violating alliances or stabbing other countries. Gary Behnen, for one, in "What's Diplomacy Coming To?" (DW, Spring 1976) cites "an alarming number of these 'pure of hearts'" (he calls them 'pure of hearts'--who am I to argue?), who won't break an alliance, tell a lie, or even move their units because their alliance doesn't call for it. The implication in this line of thought, as in others, is that since treachery and perfidy are clearly allowed in the Gospel according to Games Research (Avalon-Hill), player-proditors should make sacrosanct the Word and stab away. Of course, the argument is a little more elaborate. The usual qualification is that smart players stab when it's to their advantage in the _long_run_. Most everyone, happily, heaps consistent abuse on the casual stabber. But is stabbing an end in itself as some players indirectly claim ("It makes the game more exciting") and must a player stab in order to win? I'd like to argue that the practice of stabbing, although clearly permitted (perhaps even encouraged) in the rules, is not made advantageous by such endorsement. My feeling is that a stab is almost always counterproductive because the energy and initiative used in setting up a stab can usually be more effectively employed elsewhere on the board. If the primary purpose of an alliance is to further the interests of a number of parties who individually cannot realize such interests, then the "pure of hear" approach to alliances makes more sense. If the primary purpose for allying is to set up your neighbor for a stab, then of course the following does not apply. What's the good of allying if your constant worry is the Stab? A stabbing situation cannot exist in a vacuum; it must be preconditioned by mutual suspicion--a condition that negates much of the advantage of the alliance. Two countries, in alliance (in the standard sense), ever aware of each other's darker motive, have to moderate their common goals in order to "protect" themselves from each other. It matters little if the other party would rather quite Diplomacy than stab an ally, the suspicion exists. They maintain lame duck units in their home centers, consider the good fortune of one ally as a function of the doom of the other, and generally subordinate success to "security." Of course, those who play in this fashion call the security prudent, and of course it is, but it is also wasteful and counterproductive. During the course of a conventional alliance, the participants may miss many an outstanding opportunity because 91) their full resources cannot be mustered as indolent and ineffectual units are perched like vultures facing each other on their common border, (2) they cannot agree which one will take a new center, so neither does, (3) one ally uses the opportunity for a stab, usually termed "pre-emptive," or (4) one ally anticipates a stab and moves accordingly. Doubtless there are other problems associated with alliances, and all because players are so fearful of the stab. However, an alliance can work grandly if the participants assume the other is trustworthy. An early alliance based on such an assumption locks the participants into an association that is not easily open to a stab. Consider the possibilities. Initially, the alliance should prosper. The first two seasons should generally reveal how successful the partnership might be. In this situation, if an ally considers moving himself into a propitious stabbing position, he will usually find himself worse off viz a viz the rest of the players than had he concentrated on extending the good fortune of the alliance. If an ally waits a few seasons, he will generally find the other players more or less united against the original alliance. A stab in this case is obvious folly. Finally, as the end-game approaches, the allies find themselves sharing a victory, for a stab against a formidable enemy is risky indeed. Should the alliance falter, with both players hurting, then there's not much to lose, is there? The allies may as well sink together, because selling out your partner will rarely buy you anything but time, and usually little of that. Indeed, you'll probably last longer by sticking together. The most delicate possibility is when one ally is prosperous but the other is stagnating or otherwise hurting. In this case, all bets are off and assumptions have to yield to face reality: the alliance is effectively negated. The risks, of course, cannot be ignored. Simply assuming trustworthiness does not insure it. But it does increase the chances of winning. In the last analysis, the probability of coming out victorious in a pure of heart alliance outweighs the reciprocal (but less probably) chances of being stabbed. Assuming trustworthiness is a superior option to assuming the converse. As for the argument that long-term alliances make for a dull game, nothing makes a game so insipid as endless, drawn-out, making, breaking, and re-making of alliances without the rhyme of reason. The pure of heart (and smart of head) alliance style of play makes for a shorter, cleaner game that is just as valid as the merciless, cut-throat, triplicity of the game's more celebrated combatants. ((I thank John for his excellently written article! _Impassable_ is hoping that John will become a regular contributor! Pretty please? How about a fixed alliance for 1977BB?)) I am enjoying publishing this zine. Keep that mail coming! Eric Klien Up