Diplomacy Zine -- EP #172 Chapter Five From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com Date: Tue, 05 Jun 1990 04:41:27 +0000 Issue #172 of ELECTRONIC PROTOCOL: ******************************************************************** If I multiply this crude number times the number of people in North America -- half a billion, another rough guess -- then I end up with a billion trillion, or on the order of 10^20. That is the number of intelligent beings on the face of the Earth at this moment -- neglecting, of course, the entirely negligible human population. ******************************************************************** 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 ------------- No game reports in this issue. Publisher comments: Quote from p. 155 of Blood Music by Greg Bear. The following was scribed by AS365156@Orion.YorkU.CA code named Video Dienstag: From Fol Si Fie #32: Power Vs. Strength Most rating systems consider relative positions at the end of the game as the indication of player "success". This is valid, and perhaps the only workable system; however, it may be misleading to a player in the middle of a game. Is the largest military force always the most dangerous, the most successful, the "one to stop", if you're into that? Dictionary definitions of "strength" and "power" are similar, but highlighting the difference in a Diplomatic context may demonstrate my own opinion. Relative to "strength", "power" has vague connotations of greater flexibility and a motion component; hence, a powerful engine vs. a strong wall. Power is not always purely physical: a powerful man vs. a strong man. I may be strong (especially when I slip off my shoes) but in today's civilized society (?) it's much more useful to be powerful. So the difference is real, if elusive of definition. Consider a concrete, if fictional, example of the difference in a game: A: Owns Home, Ser, Rum, Ven, Mun, War, Sev (9); Has A's Mun, Sil, Boh, War, Lvn, Bur, Gas, Ukr, F Tri. E: Owns Home, Den, Hol, Bre, Spa, Par, Bel, Swe, StP (11); Has A's Par, Pic, F's Bel, Eng, Lvp, Nth, Den, Bot, StP(sc), Spa(sc). F: Owns Por, Mar (2); Has F's Por, NAt. G: Owns Kie (1); Has A Kie. R: Owns Mos, Nwy, Ber (3); Has A Ber, F's Nwy, Nrg. T: Owns Home, Bul, Gre, Tun, Nap, Rom (8); Has A's Pie, Rom, Smy, F's Bla, Aeg, Ion, Tyr, Wes. List the countries in order of strength: EATRFGI. The game is very much alive, however, who really has the best chances, the greatest "power"? Obviously one of the big three, but is it ... England, the "strongest" nation, whose German ally has sadly faded before southeastern pressure and his own greed in the northwest? The remains of France and Russia are committed against him after stabs, and even in isolation these two could hang on for several game years with a little bit of luck. Austria, a member of the dominating A/T alliance which presently controls half the centers between them? Perhaps it's a classic example of "too many friends"; future possibilities are badly limited without a credibility- destroying stab which will net very little additional profit. Turkey, third in absolute strength at the moment. The one enemy responsible for his military growth has disappeared entirely; he has one strong ally who seems to trust him completely (perhaps *too* much?). He can choose his enemy in the west, having had no involvement with either England or France until now. The military strength of either England or Austria can still do more to affect the outcome than that of Turkey, but the result of exercising most of the theoretical options is suicide. In the extreme case, each could give the power of his choice all of his centers. In the real game, each has too much self-interest to be very flexible at this stage; is there any doubt that all the options lie with the Turkish player? The situation of two 16-centre nations racing for the win, and a two- centre pygmy deciding who the victor will be, is only somewhat analogous. The fate of the small survivor is fixed -- third place. His moment of glory can be used to gain revenge for a stab or some other personal consideration, but does not alter his own result. In the above example, the decision-making capacity of the Turks enables him to greatly improve his own chances for an excellent finish. Keep in mind that Turkey can by no means stand alone. *Strength* is immaterial to an astute player until he's driving for a win, and the Turk presently wishes to maintain and extend his *power*. Should he ... 1) Continue his alliance with Austria in good faith indefinitely? 2) Ally with England and stab Austria now? 3) Stab Austria without firm commitments elsewhere, trusting to the resulting confusion to obtain maximum gains? 4) Become a "nibbler", negotiating vigorously for Sev, Rum, Ser, Ven in return for his continued support (or neutrality)? 5) Make no decision and drift along waiting for an Austrian commitment? Well, what are the probable outcomes? 1) An A/T draw is almost certain. A good result; perhaps the best in terms of security and reputation. To go to the trouble of breaking with his ally at this stage is a brilliant signal that his goal is higher, i.e., an outright win. However, do the other options offer a good chance at succeeding at this? 2) As a rule, stabs of this nature will recoil. England is no fool -- he hasn't reached eleven centers by being completely incompetent. Probably the *worst* of the listed options, since the power now moves to England, who can choose to accept the Turkish alliance or leak the news to Austria. Either way, foreknowledge of an A/T war gives him a good shot at a victory of his own. 3) A bit premature with only eight units to his name, if he's after an 18-centre win. It may be necessary if a two-way draw is simply unacceptable and Austria intends to shore up the southern defenses ... but risky. 4) This is an excellent resource for staunch allies if one is blocked from further expansion but is still "doing his bit" in pinning down a third party. It's only fair that he is able to maintain a reasonable military balance by a controlled occupation of his more fortunate ally's accessible centers. In this case, however, the near-absolute potential of option #1, and the Turkish possibilities in Franco-Iberia, make it impossible to rationalize this course to Austria. The latter player didn't reach nine centers with weak knees, so he's unlikely to agree passively to second place behind the Turk. The stab might as well be a big one (option 3). 5) Did some of you smile at this one? Is indecision always a sin? Of course, vigorous commitment is often necessary; but here the basis of the Turkish power is the ability to do almost anything, including *nothing*. Austria, on the other hand, must act. A stab will involve the alienation of the smaller powers with whom he has been cooperating. With England just a bit weaker and Austria friendless apart from the Turk, the time is ripe for a *real* decision. (The choice between #1 and #5 depends on the relative competence of Turkey and Austria. Can an unscrupulous Turk succeed in fooling Austria after a long period of cooperation? Most players, including this author, would probably settle for #1 to avoid the possibility of mistrust blowing the game wide open.) (The history of the game will probably affect its future. The position is unlikely unless Turkey is the type of player who would choose #1 without hesitation. In fact the choice was made several game years ago, and the present Turkish options are probably a temporary phase in a smoothly working two-way alliance; both allies may not even be aware of their existence!) Two pieces of advice, to conclude: (1) Don't be obsessed with counting centers to determine potential. England's basic weakness in the above example is obvious. Alliance systems are a better indicator, but still changeable. Austria has good reason to keep his eyes open. (2) When the true seat of power has been determined, act accordingly, particularly if you find, to your surprise, that it lies with you. (Often power, like strength, is distributed among various nations, but that's a future topic.) As Turkey, you may never *use* #5, but keep it in mind; when lucky enough to hold the initiative, you might as well appreciate it. Even if Austria is a great guy and you don't *wish* to deviate from #1, you must still consider your power (perhaps as a *liability* to the strongest possible alliance). In this case, try to reduce it. Power has tremendous possibilities. With the right diplomatic climate, one of its best uses is its own well-advertised neutralization! How wordy of me. Be good. The following was submitted by ebrosius@lucy.wellesley.edu/Eric Brosius: What Ten Years have Wrought by Eric Brosius Reprinted from _Diplomacy World_ As we near the end of the decade, it's appropriate to look back at where we've been. What has changed in the postal hobby in the past ten years? What has stayed the same? I've read a lot of old zines lately, and I'll try to answer these questions. To be honest, when I was asked to write an article for _Diplomacy World_ describing the ``ten big events in the hobby in the 1980s'', I scratched my head in amazement. Doesn't Larry know I only joined the hobby in 1987? Maybe he solicited articles from a number of sources, and wanted an uninformed commentator so he could cover all the angles! A historian's most difficult job may be to decide how important the various events of an era were. When you're working from documentary evidence, as I am, it's hard to know just how things felt to the average person. I found it easier to focus on conditions in the hobby at the beginning and end of the decade, and I made two lists: things that have changed and things that have stayed the same. Let's start with things that have stayed the same. Four hobby facts that have not changed during the past ten years 1. Drop outs. Ten years ago the hobby was plagued by players who signed up for games and disappeared without a trace. Publishers started zines and folded after a few issues, leaving games and players hanging. This is a problem today; it will be with us forever. Some people jump in head first without checking to see whether there's water in the pool! 2. Feuding. You may think feuding was invented in 1984, but it's just not so! Ten years ago the hobby was racked by bitter feuding, not only between individuals, but between rival organizations. In fact, the last few years have been the most peaceful of the decade; we still have disagreements, but at least we're keeping them in perspective. 3. You won't get rich. If you joined this hobby to make money, you're in for a big surprise. Anyone who tried to make money in Diplomacy during the eighties came out wiser but poorer. Players periodically complain that publishers' fees are too high, but it's a rare publisher who so much as breaks even. Look at it this way: it's cheaper than golf! 4. Differing goals. People have never agreed about the goals of the game. Of course it's best to win, but what if you can't? Should you try to draw, come in second, or just have a good time? Differences of opinion can be a blessing; it would be harder to satisfy everyone if they all wanted the same thing. The Indians traded Manhattan for twenty-four dollars worth of beads; the Dutch though it was a steal (but what if the twenty-four dollars had been put into a bank for three hundred years to collect interest?) In 1980 people worried about ``ratings players'', who wanted to climb to the top of the ratings lists then popular. Ratings players, like hypocrites, are often complained about, but no one admits to being one! Ratings lists have fallen out of fashion (I've seen none since the Calhamer Point Count list in Diplomacy World two years ago), but the problem remains: it can be infuriating when other players in your game have goals which are incomprehensible to you. Just view it as a challenge: identify these people and give them what they want (while you go after what's *really* important.) Speaking of ratings, e-mail/postal crossover hobbyists have been debating them furiously recently. Instead of complaining about a nonexistent problem, why don't you folks get together and produce a list? If no one takes it too seriously, it might be fun! We've seen some things which did not change during the past decade. What things *have* changed during that time? Would a time-traveller from the hobby of 1980 notice any differences? Perhaps a few---here are some things which are definitely different, whether for better or worse. Six hobby facts that *have* changed during the past ten years 1. Slower mail. Many of us still remember the sixties---bygone days in which most letters arrived within two days, even if they were going from coast to coast! Games with one-week deadlines were possible, and two-week games were common. This was no longer true in 1980---publishers complained that some letters took up to *four days* to arrive! Still, ten years ago a game with four-week deadlines was considered slow. Today it's as fast as you can go. Mail service continues to worsen; my copy of _Rebel_ rarely arrives within four days of the date of the postmark---and it's only going from West Virginia to Massachusetts. Oddly enough they raise the price for this ``service'' every year or two! 2. The graying of the hobby. In 1980 most hobby members were in their teens or early twenties---many were still in school. When John Leeder tried to run an old-timers game in _Runestone_, he had a terrible time filling it---to be an ``old-timer'' you had to be at least twenty-five years old, and such graybeards were hard to find! Today many hobbyists are in their thirties, and since there are fewer teenagers alive today than ten years ago, the trend will only continue. Diplomacy isn't just a young person's game---anyone can play, regardless of age, sex, or physical ability. We must expand our horizons! 3. Computers and photocopying. Ten years ago publishers used ditto or, if they were well off, mimeograph. The few who used offset or photocopy were viewed with suspicion, like Rolls Royce drivers! Their folds, predicted in hushed tones, were considered inevitable. During the eighties the real price of photocopies plunged---I get my zine _ark_ copied for three cents a page (in 1989 dollars!) No one starts ditto or mimeo zines today; those still around began that way years ago and have never switched. Not only are most new zines photocopied, more and more are produced by computer. A computer won't necessarily make your zine look better, but it sure makes it easier to produce, especially when a last minute order change comes in. They say the home computer hasn't caught on with the average American family yet, but publishers seem to be the type of people who buy them. If computers keep a few more zines alive by reducing the work of publishing, they'll have done the hobby a service. 4. Other games. Variants have been around since the start of the hobby, but ten years ago most games played were regular Diplomacy games. Some zines ran hex games, but usually as a sidelight. This has all changed; now regular games form less than half of the total. Sports and railroad games are increasing in popularity, but the biggest change is the explosion in Gunboat gamestarts. The most popular way to start a new zine today is to open a Gunboat game. A Gunboat game requires far less committment than a regular game (you don't have to write all those bothersome letters!) and people are more willing to take a chance on a new zine by signing up for one. This development is not all for the bad; people have been playing Gunboat for decades in regular Diplomacy games! Better you should join a Gunboat game if you have no time to write. 5. Electronic mail. Though you may not realize it, ``e-mail'' is being used more and more---and not just in the hobby. I've heard that the Postal Service wants to slow down first-class mail service; it's [*choke*] too fast! By the year 2000 there will be one mail delivery a year, for Christmas cards. Everything else will arrive by e-mail. More seriously, one third of the gamestarts in _Everything..._ 81 were e-mail games, and there's no reason to think this will stop. Ironically, e-mail games run on one or two-week deadlines, just like the postal games of twenty years ago. E-mail has disadvantages as well as advantages. Wouldn't it be great if your mail were delivered within hours---even in the middle of the night? On the other hand, what if a letter needed not only an address, but also a list of all the post offices it was to pass through on the way? What if your mail delivery stopped whenever your letter carrier went on vacation? What if... well, you get the idea! E-mail Diplomacy has challenges all its own, but we'll see more of it as time goes on. 6. The decline of organizations. Ten years ago people thought the solution to the hobby's problems was a better organization. The TDA had been displaced by the IDA, which itself was starting to fall apart. Everyone had an opinion; letter columns swelled. There's nothing like an organization for creating controversy. Today there's nothing remotely resembling a hobby-wide organization, at least not in the United States. Most services are now provided by individual custodians under what Paul Milewski has described as the ``Old Testament prophet'' system---people ``hear the call'', take on jobs, and appoint successors when it's time to step down. Their sole authority comes from the confidence other hobbyists place in them. Amazingly enough, this system works quite well---even in an organization it's usually a few individuals who do most of the work! What will the next ten years bring? How should I know? Just make sure you add to the enjoyment of others. If you publish, publish something people will enjoy reading. If you play, do it in such a way that your GM and fellow players are glad to have you. After all, it's a *game*. Go out and enjoy yourself! The following was submitted by Richard_V._Lamb@ub.cc.umich.edu, let's hope it is a good omen for my Simpson's script! Here's a picture I thought you'd all like of our favorite family, The Simpsons. (####) (#######) (#########) (#########) (#########) Nothin' wrong (#########) with that, uhh, (#########) Eat my shorts! Smack! is there? (#########) | Smack! | Oh, (#########) | Shut up, Brat! | _____ Homer!(#########) | / | / \ \ (#########) |\/\/\/| /\ /\ /\ /\ \/\/ | \ (#########) | | | V \/ \---. .----/ \----. | (o)(o) (o)(o)(##) | | \_ / \ / c .---_) ,_c (##) | (o)(o) (o)(o) <__. .--\ (o)(o) /--. | |.___| /____, (##) c _) _c / \ () / | \__/ \ (#) | ,___| /____, ) \ > (c_) < /_____\ | | | / \ /----' /___\___/___\ /_____/ \ OOOOOO /____\ ooooo /| |\ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ Homer Marge Bart Lisa Maggie The following was scribed by u2228@crayamid.cray.com/Dave Bowen: A GUEST EDITORIAL I have been watching and finally I have come to the conclusion that the Dip people are just that --- a bunch of Dips. They say how the hobby has leveled off and they are wanting to know how to make it better again. Then they hold their own DIPCON one week before the Big One, ORIGINS. That is Stupid. I have for many years said that DIPCON should be a part of some other wargaming convention. I have been voted down. Well, the time has come for me to speak out once again. How best to introduce NEW Blood into Dippy? Let us have our own little convention with no dealers, nothing else going on, and just let people inside the PBM fandom come and enjoy. This will be of great interest to anyone that walks by, right? Come on now, what you will get is between 100-150 gamers at most. What about the NEW Blood? They will spend $200.00 for the weekend just to see if they like it, right? That's assuming they find out about it, of course. Now say we have DIPCON together with ORIGINS. For example this year ORIGINS is in Atlanta and DIPCON is in Chapel Hill, NC; so they are a few hours apart. At DIPCON if they get 200 people to attend they will be lucky. Not only are they competing against ORIGINS the next weekend, but MICHCON that weekend. Thus the draw from the Midwest will be only the diehard Diplomacy fans. I bet they only get 10-20 maximum from Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. Would it not make more sense to have DIPCON in conjunction with ORIGINS, ATLANTICON, MICHCON, or ORCCON where they will draw 1,000, 3,000, or more? Would it not make sense to ask the host Convention to set up a table and hand out literature to the gamers that go by, and to answer questions about the hobby from them? Or take them into a Diplomacy tournament and show them what is happening? Doesn't that make more sense? Spread the word. Let people see what we are doing. The more that see, the more that will join us. I know I would be more inclined to play in a Diplomacy tournament held at a gaming convention. I WILL NEVER ATTEND A DIPCON THAT IS SEPARATE FROM ANOTHER GAMING CON. There is more to games than Diplomacy. I bet that most Diplomacy players feel that way. I think that it is about time that the fathers of Dippy get their heads on right and start thinking about the future of PBM Diplomacy and DIPCON. They will die on the vine unless something is done now. WORLD DIPCON or no WORLD DIPCON, putting it by itself is a good way to say to others, "We are better than wargaming cons and, well, we don't want you." What are we, an elitist group of people that think we are the only people that think we can do something? The time to bring Diplomacy out of the closet is now. When you go to decide where you will hold DIPCON; you better start thinking of a gaming convention. I know that they will not apply to hold DIPCON, and I will tell you why. They do not need you to have a successful 1,000 player convention, but you act like you should be the top dog at these conventions. Well, you are just small potatoes to the rest of the gaming world, and you better start acting like that. But, just because we are small does not mean that we cannot grow into a bigger and bigger part of the gaming community. In order for the Diplomacy hobby to grow, we have to reach out. To reach out we have got to make sure that there are events at all levels of gaming conventions. There are zine editors close to most of the gaming conventions. They could put some things on. The DIPCON, and WORLD DIPCON, will have to join in with some major gaming events; such as ORIGINS, GENCON, etc. This will give you the high profile that is needed to attract new people at a better pace. You also need a booth with people handing out copies of DIPLOMACY WORLD, hobby flyers, answering questions, etc. This will make people aware of the game and hobby. If we don't promote it better; then we will die. I hope that this page will arouse some discussion. I also hope some people will have the guts to reprint this. Herb Barents, BOAST #298 I am enjoying publishing this zine. Keep that mail coming! Eric Klien Up