Diplomacy Zine -- EP #176 Chapter Six From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com Date: Mon, 18 Jun 1990 02:03:19 +0000 Issue #176 of ELECTRONIC PROTOCOL: **************************************************************************** MARTIN SNOW ISSUE! **************************************************************************** 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: All the articles in this issue were scribed by snow%zodiac@spot.Sun.COM/Martin Snow Taken from Fol Si Fie #79: THE AUSTRIAN NAVY As a preamble, I should note my own bias towards a balanced strategy permitting tactical flexibility, which I feel is the major non-Diplomatic lesson to be learned by most novices. Certainly one of the best indicators of the possible future of a given alliance, as viewed by an outsider or incoming standby, is the distribution of fleets and armies. Their position is of lesser importance (except where the two-front Russian fleets are concerned), since an atmosphere of goodwill usually suffices to rearrange a battle line within one game year. Players often get hung up on giving units an orientation (*direction* of action) based on relative positions which arose some time ago under different conditions. 90% of the time this is valid, but need I say that the opportunity of the remaining 10%, *if taken*, provides the most spectacular reversals of the game and generates most of the interest? France, Italy, Russia, and Turkey are traditionally freer in the initial years: that is, they build armies or fleets as the situation demands without being thought unusual by observers. England is usually tied to fleets while Germany needs armies; the tendency is usually emphasized when the two ally, and it may even be said that the "wrong" build by either bodes trouble for the other, immediately or later, even if there has been prior agreement on the subject. Austria is, in practice, the worst "offender" of all. Unless sparks fly in 1901 on the Ven/Tri border, an Austrian player commanding more than his one initial fleet at *any* stage of the game is a rarity, even when doing well. If either Italy or Turkey is willing to deal, naval responsibilities are left to the ally; while if *neither* is friendly, more fleets will be badly outnumbered anyway, and of little use for the defense of the homeland which will probably be necessary. It's my suggestion that an Austria who is holding his own in the southern negotiating and is self-confident enough to try for a really good finish by pre-Winter 1901 does well to build fleets from the beginning. This cannot be an explosive process with an obvious maximum of one fleet per year, so unusual attention to diplomacy with I/T is necessary. Your trump card is that each is naturally eyeing the other over the supremacy of the southeastern waters. For several game years (until your fist enemy is on the run) your own naval interests can be represented to your ally as a support effort: "two navies are better than one". Unless you are comfortable with a Turkey permanently deflected north in an attempt at Russian expansion whileyou continue west after taking out Italy (which almost begs for the stab), you must ultimately resign yourself to (1) having your laboriously engineered fleet committment languish, e.g. after taking out Turkey while Italy has squared off against France, or (2) lacing into the remaining sea power in the Mediterranean. The first option is clearly inferior unless forced, so the fleet-building strategy is only useful if you are confident that either Italy or Turkey can be persuaded to leave you an opening for a middlegame stab. Ally with him, crush the other, and then .... In the middle game, unless your northern neighbors are aggressive, the maritime emphasis is indirect protection of your home centers as well in the event of successful counterattack. That is, you will be at war with one of I/T first, then the other; then England or France in Iberia. If they can throw you back, they are fleet-oriented themselves and your landlocked home centers are likely to remain pretty secure no matter how badly you fare against them. Where does Russia fit in? He must be neutral at least, since a Russo-Austrian war requires armies on your part. Given initial neutrality, a long-term alliance should be easy to promote once he notes your committment to the south and few worrisome armies on his border. The best course is to urge him north to maintain the balance among E/F/G. If he insists on southern action, look out; but it's a rare Russian who will fight Turkey and think of challenging Italy in the face of Austrian discouragement! Such an announcement may be a signal that he's eyeing you as well: better re-evaluate your optimism. The most critical stage of this strategy usually comes after your southern ally has the power to continue against his major enemy and still hold you off, while Russia is being tempted by your lightly-defended home centers. That's not to suggest that you should hurry to get past this phase: you don't **want* the quick destruction of your first southern enemy, since you need three game years to pile up fleets and set Russia some imperative problems up north. Thus Italy should move west to the extent that Russia moves south if the first enemy is Turkey; while you must keep things cool in Bla if you ally with the Turks, or you'll be dragged into a premature war in that area. Actually, if you concentrate on maintaining the balance at tyhe other end of the board by whatever method, the situation in your area should unfold properly with you in the driver's seat. Ah, you're saying "No wonder we never see this one, too many conditions". Most of them arise with only the gentlest nudges from a competent Austrian, perhaps because of the emphasis is so unexpected by your neighbours. I've had no trouble applying an Austrian naval strategy in two games as superficially different as night and day. The unorthodox game is a nice change and can give you more mastery of your fate: you can control a pool of 8-12 centers with armies very nicely, but Austria is never a winning threat without either a rather foolish puppet--or a strong navy. So if you want to finish before 1915, get started early! Taken from Liasons Dangerouses: A SHORT HISTORY OF THE BOARDMAN NUMBERS by Rod Walker The first postal diplomacy game began in 1963 under John Boardman, the editor of GRAUSTARK. Even in those early days, Gamesmaster Boardman set standards for the reporting of his game which would put some American Gamesmasters to shame now, nine years later. This first game was for a short time the only postal game in the world, so there was no need to differentiate it from any others. In GRAUSTARK #11, however, John announced that a second game was under way, being run by Dave McDaniel in RURITANIA. In so doing, John took a step for which, as we will see, there was no need, and yet, as we will also see, was extraordinarily foresighted. John declared that he would number postal games on the same basis as new comets are numbered: the year of sighting plus an alphabetical designator. In this case, he would use the year of beginning. Thus the GRAUSTARK game was 1963A, and the RURITANIA game was 1963B. It is that declaration, on 23 October 1963, which laid the basis for the Boardman Numbers, still in use more than 8 years later. Why do I say that there was no need for this system? The early concept of postal Diplomacy was one of quite limited numbers of people being involved. Boardman had in fact not been able to obtain 7 players for his own game and had begun a 5-man game under the then-current rules. For some time, GRAUSTARK could publish complete address lists for all postal players and rather complete reviews of completed games, since there were only a few dozen of the former and a handful of the latter. Therefore, anyone who was interested could subscribe to all of the very few postal 'zines then published and follow the games directly without any strain. Furthermore, the earliest concept of a postal 'zine was that it would carry only one game. For instance, when Boardman opened a game while a game was still active in GRAUSTARK he also started a new 'zine for it, FREDONIA. It was thus possible to speak of "the GRAUSTARK game", "the WITDIP game", "the TRANTOR game" and so on, with perfect clarity. Everybody would know what you meant. Neither of these two situations remained true for very long. Within a few years, postal Diplomacy underwent a rapid expansion. Very few games began in 1963 or 1964, but in 1965 the Boardman numbers reached 1965W, and in 1966 they reached 1966BP (starting from "A" each year, of course), and in 1968 we reached 1968CX. This was the record until 1971, which reached 1971EK. ((1971EN because of games discovered in early 1972 as having begun in 1971. LWL)) As the games increased, so did the number of people playing them, so that it was no longer an easy matter to keep track of games or players, as it had been in 1963 or 1964 or even 1965. Furthermore, the single-game 'zine died almost as soon as it was born. Game 1963A ended after 6 game-years, and Boardman organized a new 7-man game. It began exactly when 1963A ended. (Note: It began in 1963, but is 1964A, since Boardman assigned numbers on the basis of Spring 1901 deadline date. This policy was later changed, so that the date of the game's announcement is now used as the criterion as to what year the game begins). But John did not start a new 'zine. The new game ran in GRAUSTARK, so that there were now *two* "GRAUSTARK games," the old one and the new one. Then in the fall of 1964, Charles G. Brannan of Los Angeles *really* upset the applecart by bringing out WILD 'N WOOLY. WNW would have not one game, or a series of games one after the other, but several games at once! It would not be possible to speak of "the WILD 'N WOOLY game" with any precision. The need for the Boardman Numbers quickly then became manifest. As a side note, Dan Brannan himself had a scheme for numbering games. He proposed the same scheme idea as Boardman's, but having a unique alphabetical designator for the 'zine involved, followed by a designator for the game given in order the game begins in the 'zine. Aside from the obvious clumsiness of this, it presupposes there will be no more than 26 'zines, nad there are more than twice that number now. As the number of games rose, GRAUSTARK HAD A PROBLEM. If the 'zine went over an ounce, it would become too expensive to maintain. Even though it appeared every two weeks, the 'zine still did not have enough room to contain the new listings, changes, and the completed game resumes which would ultimately arise. Eventually John felt it necessary to ask someone else to take over the obligations of the Boardman Numbers. In September 1967, Charles Wells became the second custodian of the Boardman Numbers, publishing the relevant data in his excellent (but unfortunately now defunct) gamezine LONELY MOUNTAIN. It was under Charles that the Numbers achieved very nearly their present format. Charles instituted two important improvements. First, he no longer listed games which obviously were not regular games. Team games (where several countries were in permanent alliance--usually two teams of 3, with or without the 7th power played independently) were the rage in 1965-66, and recieved Boardman Numbers. With the institution of Miller Numbers for variant games, there was no further need for this. Secondly, Charles instituted the use of a prefix (#) to denote games which, while more or less regular in appearance, were in fact not quite so. Thus, my #1970E, for instance, is a 5-man game instead of a 7-man game, #1970BQ was a "local" or "telephone" game (in this case, with deadlines 7 days or less apart), and so on. In March 1968, Charles transferred the Numbers to John Koning of sTab. John published them, much as Charles had, for a little more than a year, until July 1969. Scheduling difficulties then caused a lapse in John's publishing. In October 1969, when sTab had not appeared for three months, I called John and asked him if he would like me to take up the job of the Numbers. He said that he did, and I have assigned them for a little more than 2 years. The Numbers appeared (and still appear) in NUMENOR. That was intended to be a gamezine as well, but soon got so huge as to be unmanageable. It was broken up, and the NUMENOR segment now contains the Numbers and related data, plus other statistical things as there is room. Thus, from a little idea involving only 2 games, the Boardman Numbers have grown to a project requiring the facilities of an entire magazine. In the process of administering the numbers, I have noted the following policies carried over from previous custodians, and which I contine to follow: 1. The Boardman Numbers are not connected with any organization; they are an independent entity. 2. Boardman Numbers are assigned to all postal Diplomacy games which use the GRI board and rules and which are not manifestly and obviously variant games. 3. There is no connection between the Numbers and the criteria established for any rating system. (In the specific context, my own. Numbers are assigned to a great many games which I won't include in my ratings.) 4. The Boardman Numbers are the sole responsibility of the custodian, acting on behalf of postal Diplomacy generally. If he is unable to discharge that responsibility, he must make suitable arrangements for the transfer of the Numbers to a new custodian. And that's it. See what happens when you ask for a "short note"? Taken from the Pocket Armenian #5: THE ORIGIN OF FLAGS -- PART I by Greg Costikyan FRANCE Originally, the French flag was a number of fleur-de-lis on a background of some sort. The first French flag was used by King Clovis, in the 500's. It was nothing more than three fleur-de-lis arranged triangularly on a dark blue background. Later kings used more or less the same arrangement, changing the number and position of the fleur-de-lis and the color of the background. Many kings, in fact, had no flag at all. The colors of the modern French flag come from those of the American flag. Red, white, and blue were associated with the American Revolution, and, by extension, with freedom. The three colors were also associated with the three tenets of the French Revolution. Bleu, blanc, et rouge: liberte', equalite', et fraternite'. Thus, it was only natural that these three colors should be used in the French flag. The French flag is more than just the French flag. In the same way that the red flag is the flag of international revolution, and was also the flag of the early RSFSR, the Tricolor was the flag of the French Revolution, of revolution everywhere, and of freedom from feudal oppression. Thus the tricolor is still, in many people's minds, a symbol of freedom. ENGLAND English flag is a rather curious mixture of the crosses of St. George (for England), St. Andrew (for Scotland), and St. Patrick (for Ireland). Originally the English kings used a quartered flag, with two quarters red and two blue. The red quarters were charged with an English lion, and the blue with a unicorn. The coat of arms today shows the same thing, with the unicorns replaced with lions. However, the bearers are still a lion to the right and a unicorn to the left. Before this, however, Richard I had used a red field with three lions guardant, vertically. And before that, William the Conqueror had used a curious three-tailed blue, green, and yellow pennant. But enough. Starting in about the thirteenth century, the English began using the cross of St.George: a red cross on a white field. A little later the Scots, not to be outdone, adopted the cross of St. Andrew, a white X-type cross on a blue field. When England conquered Scotland, and became Great Britain, they combined the two flags to form a new one. The red English cross was superimposed on the scottish flag, with an outline of white for the English cross representing the white field of the English flag. Thus the new flag had a blue background, a white X cross, and a red normal cross, with the red cross outlined in white. When Great Britain conquered Ireland, they added the Irish flag to the British flag. The Irish flag was a red X-type cross on white. However, a problem arose. If the red cross was to be superimposed on the white cross of the Scots, bringing along a little bit of its previous white background, how was one to differentiate between the white of the Scottish cross and the white of the background of the Irish cross? If you will examine a picture of the British flag, you will note that the white on one side of the legs of the red diagonal cross is larger than the white on the other side of the leg. Passing through the red upright English cross, you will note that the thick white side shifts places; where the thick white band was is now thin, and where the thin band was is now thick. If you examine the other diagonal of the cross, you will see that the same holds true. This is how the differentiation is made. The thin band is the background that the Irish cross has taken with it; the thick band is the Scotch cross. ITALY You will note that the Italian flag is similar to the French one. The only difference is that the Italian flag is green at the hoist, while the French is blue. This is no coincidence. When Napoleon conquered Italy, he made one of his innumerable brothers king of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Nepotism on a grand scale.... It is said that it was Napoleon who made the change; he replaced the blue of the French flag with green. After Napoleon had been defeated by the Allies, the house of Savoy adopted the flag. With the Risorgimento, it became the flag of Italy. AUSTRIA-HUNGARY Ever since God knows when, red and white have been the colors of the house of Hapsburg. Thus, the flag of the Austrian Empire was vertical rows of red/white/red, with the coat of arms of the Hapsburgs in the center of the white row, the crown overlapping into the topmost red row. When the Austrian Empire became the Empire of Austria and the Kingdom of Hungary, a change was necessitated in the flag, to represent the equal status of the Kingdom of Hungary. The colors of the Magyars have traditionally been red, white, and green. After Hungary became a kingdom, its parliamentary body adopted a flag with vertical stripes of red/white/green with the coat of arms of Hungary in the center of the white stripe, with the crown overlapping into the red row. To represent the unification of the two countries into the Dual Monarchy, the Emperor adopted a flag with vertical stripes of red and white, and with the bottom-most stripe divided horizontally half red and half green, the red part being toward the hoist. The two coats of arms were displayed in the white stripe, again with crowns overlapping into the red stripe. End of Part 1 Taken from the Pocket Armenian #8: THE ORIGIN OF FLAGS -- PART II by Greg Costikyan GERMANY The Polish flag today, as well as the flag of Monaco and that of Indonesia, is red and white, divided horizontally. This flag was formerly the flag of the Hanseatic League. During the liberalism and unrest of the 19th Century the Burschenshaft (student association) adopted a flag of black, red, and gold, divided horizontally. The colors of the Hohenzollerns have traditionally been black and white. These three elements are the major influences on the German flag. The black Imperial Eagle on a field of red of the Holy Roman Emperor also plays a part. With the formation of the Empire, the black-red-gold flag of the Burschenshaft was adopted. This flag had been derived from the uniform of the Lutzow Friekorps. In 1867, the colors of the Empire were changed to black, white, and red, with the consequent change of the flag to the same colors, divided horizontally. These colors were a combination of those of the Hanseatic league and those of the Hohenzollerns. After a period of near anarchy in Germany after the close of WWI, the black-red-gold flag was once again adopted by the new government. And, with Hitler's rise to power in 1933, the country's colors were changed back to black-white-red. However, rather than adopting the old Imperial flag, Hitler invented a flag of a white disk on a red field, charged with a black swastika. After the Allies' defeat of Germany, the flags of the respective occupying nations were flown, until 1948, when the Russians allowed the Germans in their zone to fly the Weimar flag, the black-red-yellow tricolor, and until 1949, when the allies did the same for their zones. Since then West Germany's flag has remained the same; however, East Germany has added an emblem composed of a hammer, a compass, and two sheaves of wheat. TURKEY Originally, all nations under Moslem domination flew a totally red flag. Islam has four proper colors: red, green, blue, and white. Red signifies militaristic acceptance of Islam, green signifies religiousness, and I've forgotten what the other two are. Never mind. Thus, it was not until 1793 that the Ottoman Empire added the decrescent and star. The decrescent and star were the symbols both of Diana and of the Virgin Mary. As Diana was the patron of Byzantium, and Constantinople was the last hold of Christianity in Asia (well, besides the Armenians, heh, heh, heh) the decrescent and star have long been associated with that city. The Janissaries got rid of the charge, but it was restored in 1826. Because of Turkey's long use of the --do I have to say it? I've said it three times in as many paragraphs--oh well--decrescent and star, and the Ottoman Empire domination of the Middle East, the (yes, damn it) decrescent and star came to be associated with Islam, and are thus used on many Middle Eastern flags today. RUSSIA The flag of the Netherlands, since its revolution against the Hapsburgs, has always been a red, white, and blue horizontal tricolor. Because of its revolt, the Dutch flag was also associated with freedom. This association was strengthened by the French Republic's adoption of the same flag with the modification of the position of the stripes--it became a vertical rather than a horizontal tricolor. It was also strengthened by the Americans' adoption of a flag with the same colors. However, that has nothing to do with the Russian flag. As part of his westernization program, Peter the Great adopted the Dutch flag as the Russian Navy's flag for a short time. However, this was quickly replaced by a white-blue-red horizontal tricolor. Russian domination of the Balkans led many of the Balkan states to adopt similar flags. The Red flag, as well as being the Moslem flag of militancy, was the flag of International Revolution. During the Russian Revolution it was adopted. However, an emblem of a gold hammer-and-sickle was added later, as well as a gold star. So you think I've milked that one dry, do you? I've done all seven player countries, have I? Well, you're wrong. You have three or four more installments in store on the flags of Portugal, Spain, Tunis, Belgium, Holland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Balkan states, and so on. Also the flags of may of the provinces on the Diplomacy Board! Including Armenia (of course), Bohemia, Venice, Prussia, and many others. Ah well, what do you expect at 10/$2? I am enjoying publishing this zine. Keep that mail coming! Eric Klien Up