Diplomacy Zine -- EP #168 Chapter Five From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com Date: Fri, 18 May 1990 03:17:32 +0000 Issue #168 of ELECTRONIC PROTOCOL: ************************************************************************** "Looks like it stayed in the dryer too long, " Bayshore said. "Ten-inch disc?" "Yep." "What have you found out?" "It's still a cipher, just as Shan said it was. It doesn't exist." "Don't tell me that. The bloody thing is here." "What would you call it? The label doesn't exist. The format doesn't exist anymore, not even as a novelty. RCA was the last one pressing this size, and they gave it up twenty years ago. And none of the songs has been copyrighted or listed with the performance payments registry." ... "You haven't heard the best one. We flew a cartridge out to Denver to play for Collins, the putative performer. This is a quote -- 'It sounds a lot like me. If I had a sister, that might be her. But it isn't me, and there isn't a song she does I'd want in my repertoire.'" ************************************************************************** Chapter One contains: BLITZKRIEG, GETTYSBURG, BUSHIDO, 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 ------------- Nothing has happened since the last issue was published since I just published it 15 minutes ago. New results will start again in issue #170. I needed to catch up in publishing the chapters. Publisher comments: Quote from From p. 272 of Alternities by Michael P. Kube-McDowell I need some standbys and some scribes. If anyone wants to type in some new articles, I would love to send them to you! The following is a reprint from PROTOCOL #4 (my postal zine) Taken from Vienna #10 (Published in England) WEAK SISTER'S DIPLOMACY By Richard Egan Two of the seven Diplomacy powers are to be consistently found at the foot of a preference list -- when as a conquence of the survey of Vienna readers recently carried out, we published a 'Preference Index'. It was no surprise that they were close to each other, but well below the rest in the final tally. After all, these same two powers can between them claim both the poorest win record and the benefits of the clean water of the early bath. I write -- but of course -- of Austria and Italy, the 'weak sisters'. The 'weakness' of these two is often blamed almost exclusively upon the single border shared by Venice and Trieste. Allan Calhamer, the games designer, himself admitted "...Italy and Austria are considered to be the two weakest powers in regular Diplomacy. One of the reasons for this is their mutual lack of security, because each has a home supply centre adjacent at the start of the game..." ('Variations on a Theme by Calhamer'). The adjacency of Venice and Trieste is certainly a unique situation on the gameboard. Inevitably it is a real handicap to both Italy and Austria, since from their opening moves each will be wary of the other attempting to 'steal' their home centre, a security problem which often limits the options each is prepared to consider. France, for example, can ordered F (Bre)-MAO content in the knowledge that if England slips into the Channel, he can retrace his steps to minimise the danger and at least stand England out of his home centre in Brest. By contrast, Austria and Italy have no such 'buffer' between them, and the natural emphasis placed on home centres is exaggerated by the fact that Trieste is Austria's only coastal home centre, and thus the only place for fleet builds. For one of the Weak Sisters to trust the other sufficiently to move out of the offending centre is a risky venture indeed -- hence the 'Balkan Gambit' title for Austria's optermistic F(Tri)-Alb, A(Vie)-Tri, A(Bud)-Ser opening (and even this guards Trieste from Vienna, if other versions of this particular 'Gambit' do not). Yet the alternative is for each to sit units like mother hens on each centre, hardly a constructive approach, and surely unlikely to benefit either's poor performance records. All too often, one or other will move out at last, only to be stabbed, and it is the emphasis placed on the 'natural' unease between these powers that sponsors the lasting popularity of the 'Tyrolia Attack' opening for Italy of A(Ven)-Tyr, A(Rom)-Ven, F(Nap)-Ion. Yet this is also symptomatic of another problem. To quote Calhamer again from the same article "...Italy is unable to expand initially; it is restricted to a purely defensive fole in the middle years; and its prospects are limited to a minor share in a draw or a low place...". Since Italy is all but surrounded by sea provinces, ajoining only three land provinces (two of which are coastal), Venice, and more especially Piedmont, act as bottlenecks which deny Italy manouvrability early in the game with its single fleet. Yet unlike the other sea-bounded powers, England and Turkey, Italy is centrally-place, and unable to claim the protection of a 'corner' position. Consequently, most recommended openings for Italy aim at either 'breaking out' or in shoring up the defenses to play a 'waiting game', perhaps long enough to establish a role in the Mediterranean. Prime examples of the former are the aforementioned 'Tyrolia Attack' and the less popular French Attacks (which feature A(Ven)-Pie and A(Rom)-Ven/Tus). No prizes for guessing why the French Attacks are less popular -- the answer is the dread of Austria slipping into Venice. Yet also it is harder to force a way out of Piedmont in the early moves (before fleets can be brought to bear via GOL), and thus Italy tends to look to Austria when in an attacking mood: Venice borders two of Austria's provinces, not one, and unlike Piedmont, Italy starts with a unit in Venice, the springboard of Eastern Adventures. A defensive or cautious Italy will prefer stand-offs over Venice and Trieste (possibly arranged with Austria), perhaps moving A(rom)-Apu to support Venice if under attack, or to be convoyed to Tunis by F(Ion) for a build and a Lepanto (which follows the F(Ion) CA Apu-Tun opening with a F(Nap) build, then F(Ion)-Eme, F(Nap)-Ion in Spring 1902, and in Autumn 1902 a convoy to Syria or Smyrna to attack Turkey, Italy's maritime rival in the Mediterranean). Yet this accepts either zero or negligible building potential beyond out-of-the-way Tunis in the early years. In a game where you win by capturing supply centres, is it any wonder (for all that patience is a virtue) that such a power has a poor win record? The other six would seem to have head starts in the race to what George Anderson has dubbed 'the Magic Eighteen'. Likewise, it is hardly surprising that Austria, surrounded and threatened on all sides and as concerned with survival as expansion in the early years, has distinct problems and inferior performance records. The rising popularity of the 'Southern Hedgehog' opening for Austria, F(Tri)-Ven, A(Bud)-Ser, A(Vie)-Gal, is testament to the invalidity of the claim that 'all that counts is good diplomacy'. If diplomacy was all, it would be the Balkan Gambit that gained ground. The Southern Hedgehog is in fact a sorry statement: an opening that will stand off Italy and Russia and make sure of the only secure supply centre against Turkish of even Italian ambitions. It is a confession that only by defending on all fronts can Austria even hope to survive. Yet it is too a realistic assesment of Austria's situation -- a Balkan Gambit that leaves Austria with Trieste and Vienna at the end of 1901 is a rare gem indeed. Thus, in a way, Austria and Italy are different faces of the same coin: one has many options for openings, a great potential for fluidity of movement, and surveys the biggest bundle of neutral centres on the board (Balkan shaped), but is surrounded by three hungry wolves and has trouble simply defending itself with only three units. The other is initially easy to defend, if perhaps less than England, put has a potential for growth. It is when you consider the adjacency of Venice and Trieste as compounding these handicaps that the very real weakness of Italy and Austria seem so unfair. Some disagree. In ZEEBY #34, Nick Kinzett in answer to a letter on the subject, argues that "...their problems are in part exaggerated and in part a self-fulfilling prophecy of Doom (for example, postally they frequently get left to inexperienced players who haven't bother with preference lists)...", and the belief that the two countries are simply 'not used properly' is widespread amongst experienced players. Personally, I myself have maintained that the imbalances of the regular game are one of its assets, not a weakness, in that a 'perfectly balanced' game would seem bland by comparison. There is something of a challenge playing Italy, and who knows -- maybe one day I'll decide Austria isn't so bad after all. Yet it is obvious that as long as the great majority of players dislike these two countries, as long as they remain at the foot of preference lists, most games are to suffer -- if only because the people playing these countries may feel hard-done-by and, as Nick suggests, allow the prophecy to become self-fulfilling. With this in mind, some people have sought a solution in subtle adjustments to the standard game -- "variations" rather than outright "variants" -- which are intended to give Austria and Italy a better start to the game. The problem with attempting such 'improvements' is that even if they were to prove successful, they are unlikely to achieve general acceptance. For all that Fred Davis may allude to rumours that Allan Calhamer "...once considered amending the regular board to include a solution to the problem of Austrian and Italian weakness...", Calhamer himself seems not to have heard of this. In the article refered to 'Variations on a theme by Calhamer', he states, "...Why change the game at all? The worthy statisticians and tactical analysts can tell us where its weaknesses lie, but most purchasers of the game would never play it enough to be greatly concerned, so the manufacturers will have little interest in change..." Yet as the designer responsible for the game, perhaps Calhamer feels naturally protective towards his progency. Certainly a means to start the 'Weak Sisters' on an even footing with the other five powers is desired by enough people to have inspired several attempts to 'improve' or 'ammend' the original, and it is to these attempts we must look too. F(ROM) - THE FAILED EXPERIMENT ------------------------------ One of the simplest suggestions which seeks to reduce or eliminate the disadvantages we have examined above is the 'Fleet Rome Variant', which gives Italy a fleet in Rome instead of an army so that she starts with two fleets and an army, like England. This simplicity is attractive -- the board remains unchanged, and consequently the problem of ajacency between Venice and Trieste is unaddressed. Several postal games of F(Rome) games have started (the "Fleet" game in Vienna is one such example), especially in Britain, and records are being kept to see if this adjustment is to Italy's advantage By all accounts it is not, and if "Fleet" is anything to go by, I'll second that. The reasons are not that hard to fathom: the theory behind F(Rom) is that since Italy borders only three land provinces (two of them coastal), and extra fleet would enable that power to commence the maritime expansion most Italian players seem to prefer at an earlier stage. Tunis becomes an unfettered gift now, since it can be taken without passing up an offer of, say Austrian support into Greece from Serbia, whilst the possiblities for attacking Turkey or France at an earlier stage then expeceted draws Italy's attention away from Austria so that although the adjacent centres still remain, its effects would be minimised. However, for all that the intention was to spread Italy's horizons, in fact this variant reduces the initial options to a choice over the army. Most likely F(Rom) will move out to TYS, leaving F(Nap) to consider either Ion or Apu -- and don't laugh at the latter either. Without an army in Rome, an aggressive Austria can move A(Vie)-Tyr and this finds Italy's A(Ven) quite without support unless F(Nap) opens to .. Apulia! The Tyrolia Attack is no longer an option for Italy (though I suppose the intention WAS to pull Italy and Austria apart) and Italy is that much more conspicous to a France jealous about Spain and Portugal that the latter might no longer be content to ignore Italy in the early years. Gone is the Lepanto and though Austria might be more confident to consider the Balkan Gambit, it has to be said that F(Rom) offers no real solutions if we are interested in truely rectifying the 'imbalances' for both players. TUSCANY VARIANTS ---------------- Another solution suggested more than once has been the transfer of the Venice supply centre to Tuscany, often coupled with moving the Naples centre (or even Rome) to Apulia. The strongest version of this starts with Italy with F(Apu), A(Rom), and an army or fleet in Tuscany. A fleet in Tuscany tends to make Italy a western power, whilst an army often heads into Venice supported by (or supporting) A(Rom), and perpetuates the Italy-Austria conflict, though at a safer distance. We have tried this several times in face-to-face games with the Bristol cabal and found it quite interesting, but we never gave it enough playtesting to seriously evaluate it. It does make Italy look more dangerous to France, and creates a two-empty-province gap between Tuscany and Muncih thus distancing Italy and Germany (which is either good or bad depending on circumstances; on the whole I think this tends to make the game more stagnant for both). Moreover, it denies Italy the potential to hit Austria with much force, but then this is always going to be a problem with the issue we are dealing with. You can't have your cake and eat it, so they say, but one would prefer a variant which allowed Italy and Austria as many options as possible, as in consistent with giving each better prospects in the game. MILAN - A STRONG CONTENDER -------------------------- A more radical approach than either of the above has been to accept that only by adjusting the board itself, in its division of provinces, can a fairer balance be achieved. Here the Venice and Trieste problem is named as the Weak Sisters Bane, and credited with scapegoat status. In HEIMSKRINGLA 1 (then a sub-zine to the ACOLYTE), John Norris suggested his MIlan Diplomacy variant. Milan Diplomacy adjusts the board in the north of Italy, and Italy starts off with an army in Milan rather than Venice. Italy starts the game with A(Rom), A(Mil) and F(Nap), and since re- drawing the map in that particular area it is possible to keep an Italian centre bordering Tyrolia whilst seperating Trieste and Milan, it would seem that Milan Diplomacy overcomes the ajacent centres problem admirably. In his introduction to the variant, John argued that it offers Italy a wider choice, especially in the early years. With A(Mil)-Tyr replacing A(Ven)-Tyr as an opening, the ever-popular Tyrolia Attack is still possible by ordering A(Rom)-Ven. Attack is still feasable, whilst A(Mil) S A(Rom-Ven) gives Italy a 'fortress' opening the equivalent of the French A(Mar) S A(Par)-Bur, which is known as the 'Maginot Opening'. Looking west, France cannot stop Italy moving A(Rom) S A(Mil)-Sav or vice-versa, which is certain to gain Italy access to both Burgundy and Marseilles. Thus Italy is likely to consider a French Attack far more seriously than in the standard game, a factor which (it is hoped) will operate to make Austro-Italian conflict less inevitable to the benefit of both. Milan Diplomacy offers exciting positiblities for Italy, and allows Austria the opportunity to take advantage of the neighboring Balkan supply centres with greater assurance. However, I for one felt that this is an over-compensation. France begins to look perilously weak, and there is a danger of France falling back to the Maginot Opening (see above) as the only safe option against the possiblilty of German-Italian hostility. Burgundy is simply too crucial to France for that player to allow it to fall into the hands of another power, and I can't help thinking that allowing Italy easier access to it simply transfers much of Austria's 'open house' dilemma to France. If it is more historically accurate to turn the French from an adventurous lot to a manically defensive power then Milan Diplomacy scores very highly, but as far as the game goes, it seems to rather undermine the whole French diplomatic position. Remember that a Southern Opening for England is always in the offering, and it is simply too ridiculous to give any credence to the argument that a good French player will avert attacks from all three neighbouring powers simply by his diplomacy -- it is a plain fact of the game that someone, somewhere is usually leading you up the garden path, and you rarely know which one it is until he strikes. After all, how many people have received letters of the 'hello, I'm going to attack you next move' variety? Hands up ... yes, I thought so. THE AUSTRIAN ALTERNATIVE - AND CROATIA SPLIT TRIESTE... ------------------------------------------------------- Milan Diplomacy is not the only alternative to adjust the mapboard in seeking a solution to the weakness of the Weak Sisters. A variant once played fact-to-face in California is one such alternative. It had but just a single adjustment to the standard board -- the insertion of a 'Province X' between Venice and Trieste. Province X borders on Ven, Tyr, Tri, and Adr (but NOT Vie or Bud). Apparently it was a huge success. Indeed one of those present, Larry Peery, was so impressed he tried to make a postal game of it, but he made one more adjustment of making Province X a neutral supply centre. However Italy and Austria spent most of the game fighting over it, and Russia won the game with ease. Yet so long as it is not made a centre, the extra Austrian province would seem a worthy adjustment to the mapboard. In several of his variants, Fred Davis divides Trieste in half, naming the northern half Croatia, and the southern half Zara or Split (both were Austrian naval ports). Unlike Province X and Peerijavo, Croatia borders Vie and Bud, whilst Zara/Split borders Cro, Adr, Alb, Ser, and Bud. I should think that a compromise of the two - with Cro adjoining Vie but not Bud, and Zar/Spl being the province to join both. Of course, it is Zar/Spl which is made the supply centre, not Croatia. Here both Italy and Austria are afforded some security and can deal with the other problems they face on a more even footing on their other neighbors... In conclusion, it has to be said that the balance of the board is so delicately tuned that any adjustment can upset the whole game. Making Italy and Austria stronger inevitably makes Germany less the 'dominant' central power, and gives France more to worry about (inevitably in the favour of England - profound - that if only Italy and Austria could overcome the adjacent centres problem in the standard game, then they could prove a truely formidable alliance. Yet of course Diplomacy games are played on a one-to-one basis, and one can rarely draw upon and then take advantage of the lessons of one game in another, unless the pair playing Italy and Austria are the same and have had success before. The likelyhood of such an occurance is minimal, without unfair manipulation. In the final analysis, one is left to ponder if it is the responsibility of the games designer or games player that the Weak Sisters remain weak. I am enjoying publishing this zine. Keep that mail coming! Eric Klien Up