Diplomacy Zine -- Chapter Four EP #136 From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1990 06:44:20 +0000 Issue #136 of ELECTRONIC PROTOCOL: Chapter One contains: NAVARONE, BLITZKRIEG, OPERATION OVERLORD, GETTYSBURG, and HMS HOOD And is published by daybell@aludra.usc.edu/Donald Daybell Chapter Two contains: DRAGONSLAYER, BISMARK, COLD WAR, JACAL, MANHATTAN, and VERSAILLES And is published by tedward@cs.cornell.edu/Ted Fischer Chapter Three contains: TANNENBURG, ENTENTE, MULHOUSE, and DAWN PATROL And is published by xcbe12a@ucrmath.ucr.edu/Wayne Wallace (I am working on publishing the chapters that dragon@agora.hf.intel.com /Bill Wheeler created. He has them but can't transmit.) ------------- Chapter Four ------------- Spring '05 of the game RATATOSK (BNC number 1989IJ) (GM is jall@diku.dk/Mogens Jallberg) Delayed due to Winter vacations. Spring '05 of the game BUSHIDO (BNC number 1989IN) (GM is ronin@cory.berkeley.edu/Sam Parazette) Due Jan 20 Fall '04 of the game HUGO (BNC number 1989IO) (GM is willis@trwind.ind.trw.com/Willis Marti) Due Jan 28 Fall '03 of the game JUGGERNAUGHT (BNC number 1989IR) (GM is rdesper@eagle.wesleyan.edu/Rick Desper) Due Jan 28 Fall '03 of the game TOKUGAWA (BNC number 1989IS) (GM is joseph_harold_thomas@cup.portal.com/Joseph Thomas) Delayed because a player was on vacation Fall '03 of the game PETAIN (BNC number 1989IT) (GM is ssmith@ms.uky.edu/Scott Smith) Due Jan 27 Summer '03 of the game DUNKIRK (BNC number 1989KN) (GM is sjzwange@phoenix.princeton.edu/Steven Jacob Zwanger) Due Jan 24 Autumn '03 of the gunboat game VERDUN (MNC 1989AZrb32) (GM is eric_s_klien@cup.portal.com/Eric Klien) Austria disbands A VIE Winter '03 of the gunboat game VERDUN (MNC 1989AZrb32) (GM is eric_s_klien@cup.portal.com/Eric Klien) Italy builds A Ven Russia disbands F Ska Turkey builds F Con, F SMY Press: Naples (UPI): Extreme dismay has been expressed by the Italian naval high command as to the movements of the renegade fleet until recently based in Naples. Apparently, the celebration by the commander and the crew that began with the president's decision to float a new fleet at the expense of the army is still continuing on board. The ranking General was heard mumbling something about just desserts, and the obvious value of an army over yet another boat. "They'll be in the South China Sea next," he bellowed. The General was somewhat pacified by the raising of an army in Venice, which he claims is long overdue. The renegade fleet is being recalled, according to sources high in thegovernment. Italy -> Russia: No problem...you've got your work cut out for you. Keep in touch. Italy -> Turkey: Oops!! I have no quarrel with you! Turkey > Now you must admit that I have been VERY non-agressive toward you even when I had several good opportunities. However, I don't know how much I like having you sitting right off my coast. To maintain our peaceful status I would like you to vacate on your own. The Turkish fleet I have just established is to prevent future encroachment upon our home soil. As far as our relationship with Russia, well, I think it has gone down hill and the bottom isn't anywhere in sight. I must admit that his intent behind every move has been questionable. THE SULTAN Turkey > Austria I really didn't intend for you to lose half your country, but at the same time, I have no interest in attacking Italy. The only way I could prevent you from losing Vienna would have been to attack Trieste and since you had supported me there, I would have taken it from Italy. My only expansion interests are into Moscow. I will do what ever I can to keep you in the game. THE SULTAN Turkey > Italy By the way. I would consider it a personal favor if you would leave Austria in the game. That will also leave a nice little buffer between us so we can breath easier (since we don't even know who we are trusting in this game). I think that France would be a very pleasant place to spend the summer of 1905. If I can do anything to help you in that venture, let me know. As I have told Austria, my only expansion interest in in the North. THE SULTAN RUSSIA -> TURKEY OK, FINE. HAVE IT YOUR WAY. I CAN HANDLE YOU, AUSTRIA AND ITALY WITHOUT TOO MUCH DIFFICULTY. RUSSIA -> GERMANY TREATY TIME. YOU CAN HAVE EVERYTHING YOU WANT. I WILL BE BUSY WITH THE BALKANS FOR THE NEXT FEW YEARS. YOU HAVE MY LOYALTY. Russia -> Italy: Sorry we couldn't help you into Vienna. We are glad to see you got in anyway. If you can stir up some excitement in the Balkans, we'd sure appreciate it. We've got our hands full on Turkey's northern front, but fighting a two front war might slow him down a bit. Or is it to be the Italo-Turkish alliance against the Fronco-Prussian confederation in the final battle? Germany -> France: Why the sudden aggression towards me? I have been trying to help you get England as much as I can throughout this game. Now we have England by the throat and you decide to move against me? Why? I have moved all of my forces away from our border, was trying to create havoc in the North, while you were able to go South. Surely you must realize that together we are strong enough to win the game, while separated, neither of us stand much of a chance, especially if we are against England as well. I am still interested in keeping peace between you and me, please remember that I have made concessions to you in the past. Germany -> Italy: Just after I gave you permanent possession of Tyrolia, you move out :-). Thanks for honouring our agreement, it looks like you have Austria wiped out. You gotta watch out for those Turks, they are pretty sly. I know that you and France have an agreement, but it looks like France is out to get me, could you possibly put some pressure on him? I'd appreciate it greatly. Germany -> England: See what your declaration of war against me has done? While you and I are at each other's throats, France has neatly manouevered into a position to get us both. Do you have any propositions to stop this attack? Fall '01 of the game BERLIN (BNC number 1989KQ) (GM is cwekx@htikub5.bitnet/Constantijn Wekx) Due Jan 21 Spring '01 of the game BIG WILLIE (MNC number not known) (Blind game, GM is okamoto@hp-ses.hp.com/Jeff Okamoto) Due Jan 19 Spring '01 of the game FIRE WHEN READY (BNC number 1990B) (GM is rlg@ai.mit.edu/Bob Givan) Not due yet. Fall '01 of the game DREADNOUGHT (BNC number not known) (GM is rbk@aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk/Richard Kirby) Due Jan 28 Publisher comments: Both of the following articles were scribed by Bob Givan/rlg@ai.mit.edu: The Balkans By Duncan K. Smith -- Reprinted from Pouch #53 Ask any Diplomacy player where more armies can be eliminated, where a six center power can have only three units on the board and they'll tell you the Balkans. The reasons for this are simple. There are no other groups of supply centers where four world powers can fight a war so easily. About the only other places on the board that even come close to this are the Netherlands (England, Germany, and France) and Scandinavia (Russia, England, and Russia). It is altogether too easy to eliminate an army in the Balkans because of the lack of provinces; there are only five of them: Rumania, Bulgaria, Albania, Serbia, and Greece. After all the rules do no allow for any "Dunkirk" type evacuation as the British performed at Dunkirk in 1940 and in Greece in 1941. Russia and Italy can both survive without a piece of the Balkans. This doesn't mean that they don't try for a chunk though. Each country must have a different strategy to take the Balkans and I shall now proceed to discuss them in some sort of detail. _Italy_: In Spring 1901, Italy has to decide what its objectives will be for that year. It can just play it cool and take its guaranteed supply center, Tunis, or it can take the big risk and head for Greece. Now I don't deny the fact that it would be nice to take Greece in 1901, but at the same time I am enough of a realist to realize that it can be quite dangerous. When you consider that Italy is not the most favorable country in the game, you can guess how dangerous it is to try to take a supply center where there is every possibility that you'll never get it. I therefore advise all Italian players: Don't, I repeat don't, attempt to take Greece unless you're damn sure that you'll get it. Another good reason for a conservative Italian policy is the ease in which an Italian army in Greece can be eliminated. If you feel nonetheless a wild urge to visit the Acropolis, wait a year till you're in a more favorable position in 1902 or 1903. What you do in the Balkans from there on is your choice. _Russia_: Russia has basically the same problem as Italy, that is getting a foothold in the Balkans. Even taking it for granted that it takes Rumania, it is no small task having three armies available every year to support that claim. It is very hard for Russia not to be at war with either Austria-Hungary or Turkey. If indeed the Russian player can't resist the Balkans, then he had better ally with Turkey. The reasons for this course of action are rather simple: In the long run Russia will have a far easier time against Austria's position than against Turkey's. Also it is far easier to defend Rumania against Turkey than against Austria. If Russia uses this strategy then he might as well bring in italy into the deal, thereby sealing Austria's fate. By the way, the Russian player should realize that usually when the game is won by Russia, he rarely has controlling interest in the Balkans although he tends to own Austria-Hungary. _Austria_: Austria with any luck at all should be able to take half the Balkans and therefore I shall cover the strategy involved in taking all of the Balkans. The first principle is to have a firm alliance with italy, i.e., Italy takes Tunis and allies against Turkey in a War. This will hopefully keep the Turks and Russians from Meddling in the Balkans. Taking Rumania shouldn't be that hard if the above mentioned plan works, but if Italy stands Neutral. Of course the above plan would not have worked if Italy had stayed neutral, but I sincerely doubt that Italy would allow Austria to gain its seventh center while Italy has still only Tunis. At this point in order to avoid being double crossed it is a good idea to give Greece to Italy in return for Bulgaria. Once you have secured Bulgaria, stab Italy and take back Greece??. At this point in the game you'll win or be utterly destroyed by a very angry Russia, Turkey, and Italy for being to greedy. _Turkey_: I have been saving Turkey for last because in my opinion it has the best shot at taking the Balkans. All he has to do is take the Balkans in 1901 and decide by winter 1901 what his course of action will be. He can build a fleet in Smyrna and come out for Greece or build and army in Ankara and go for Sevastopol and Rumania. If he goes toward Greece you should ally with Russia (not with Italy, he's too interested in Greece himself) or Austria if you're going after Rumania. In my opinion the best plan is the one against Austria. Russia can always be taken care of as long as the Black Sea exists, but Italy will not if France is smart. Turkey and Italy should easily be able to share Austria after which Turkey can attack Russia until France attacks Italy. At that point, Turkey should be able to take Italy and the Game. _Conclusion_: In the end it should be obvious that the sharing of the Balkans is all the matter of who has the better alliance and who trusts who. Remember one thing: when you try to take the Balkans the odds are 50/50 you'll be a dying or minor power in the end of the game. Taken from Watergate Vol. 1 Issue 15: The Belgian Sector By Len Lakofka In the play of live or PBM Diplomacy, certain patterns of play repeat themselves over and over. The two most common patterns to be seen involve the initial alliance structure of countries in the Belgian and Balkan 'sectors' of the Diplomacy map. A 'sector' is an are of the map where intense fighting among players usually occurs. I would like to make a detailed analysis of the six sectors and their inter-relations in a series of three articles. The Belgian Sector (all the provinces adjacent to Belgium) is one of the two classic areas where conflict begins early. The reason for this is many-faceted. Briefly, each country possesses a normal sphere of influence. This is an area that he can develop into without running into too much military or diplomatic pressure. This is the area that he expects to gain his first Build(s) from without being contested. In the Belgian Sector, the countries of England, France, and Germany have the following spheres of influence. _England_: Nth Sea, Nwg Sea, NAO, and Nwy where no major contention will occur. The Iri Sea is a Border-line case. The English Channel, Skaggerak, Helgoland, and Barents are all areas where immediate contention will occur. _France_: Iberia and surrounding waters. The Western Mediterranean is a sore bone of contention with Italy and of course the channel with England. Note Belgium is again in line with normal French development. _Germany_: Denmark, Holland, and that's about all she can move to without making someone uneasy. Helgoland looks like a threat on England, Baltic like a potential attack on Sweden or Russia herself, and then there's Belgium...Note that France and Germany have and additional problem in that they cannot move freely in their own countries without causing a little friction. Germany gets upset over pieces in Burgundy, Italy gets distraught over fleets in Marseilles, and Russia has cat fits over pieces in Prussia or Silesia. Thus, the province of Belgium is right in the center of things. England wants it so as to gain two quick builds, hopefully without having to fight for it. France or Germany may be willing to cede it to her for cooperation later. Any other province in the area will very likely mean total war with some other power. Germany wants Belgium so as to secure the lowlands. This makes her less easily attacked by England from the sea and gives her an important wedge to use versus Burgundy in case war with France ever begins. France wants Belgium because it presses directly on Burgundy. She may give it to an ally to take by fleet capture (since a fleet can't move or lend support inland) so as to keep peace, but it is always a reluctant gift. Note Burgundy is the hingepin to land attack of France. It impinges on the two key areas of France and will cause great defensive problems if it falls to a hostile power. Imagine what would happen if an enemy unit does move to Burgundy. The French player must defend Paris, Marseilles and Gascony. Were Gascony to fall his problems are compounded ten-fold--it impinges on Paris, Brest, Spain, And Marseilles! But I digress. Thus, we see that each country desires to own Belgium. not only for the Build it will supply, but also for the tactical-diplomatic position it gives it's possessor. There is, of course, another very important reason why the Belgian sector ignites, other than possession of Belgium itself. To not have a fight here, i.e., a three-player alliance, will produce many problems. France would have to attack italy, Germany would have to take on Russia, or Austria or Italy?--the hard way, and England could only attack Russia in the north. As soon as such attacks would be made, the balance of power would be thrown into Chaos! Cooperation between even two of the powers is greatly impeded by the fact that they soon find themselves tripping all over each other?. Each of the powers must, more or less single handed, attack another of the great powers. Therefore, we find that the most equitable solution is for two of these powers to ally versus the third. This is why I say these countries are involved in two classic patterns in Diplomacy. (The other being the inevitable fight among Russia, Austria, and Turkey in the Balkan Sector.) Now let us analyze the three possible alliances. The best alliance is probably the German-English one. The reasons for this are: independent building capability--England builds almost all fleets while Germany builds almost all armies, (Thus, neither is in a position to 'stab' the other), great mobility--areas of cooperation are present not only against France but also against Russia, greater development possibility--they can cooperate directly by giving supports for each other's attacks, as opposed to having to attack an enemy from two sides, and lastly, each country can ally with another player without interfering with his primary alliance with the other. England and Italy can ally vs France as can England and Turkey vs Russia, while Germany can ally with Austria vs Russia, or with Italy or Turkey vs Austria and neither gets in the other's way. Let me make a note here. The alliance is good in that a stab can not be driven home because Germany can't penetrate the seas easily, but England can't penetrate inland easily. Thus, if they stab, they can only make minor progress. however, the fact that they must telegraph their punch, England building armies, and Germany building fleets, plus the fact that they can't really make deep _independent_ inroads into that enemy makes a stab difficult. For France and Germany to ally, the problem is one of builds. One or the other or both must build more fleets than normal. Thus, if he gets stabbed, his defenses have been greatly compromised. His development, his mobility and his cooperation capability are all as good as the English-German alliance. Now, by assigning values to alliance characteristics we find that the French-German alliance is better, yet this estimate reflects a perfect alliance in which 'stabs' will not occur. England and France to ally would seem to be as viable an alliance as the English-German. However, the situation is different. England and France can cooperate effectively only versus Germany. Other factors are good but builds are slightly inhibited. Now let us add the final facet in this analysis, namely the other powers. If we see that one of these three alliances will form more often than not, what would you do if your were the odd man in the sector? Cry? Well...your best approach is obviously other alliances. To throw up your hands in despair is the mark of a very poor Diplomacy player. As England you can call on either Italy or Russia to form mutual aggression treaties vs France and Germany respectively. As Germany, seek mutual aggression treaties with Italy and Russia. As France, you should consider crying! France will be hard-pressed to call on Russia vs Germany, and Russia does not want to fight both Germany and England in Scandinavia because she will lose. Italy can't really help you because you would have to allow italian fleets into the MAO or somehow Austria has to be persuaded to allow Italian units to move into Tyo. Austria will not be too fond of that possibility. As for Austrian aid, the problem is that Austria would have to turn away from the Balkan sector and she would have to move to Tyo herself. Italy would not be fond of that. Yet France can get help because the other powers would be fools to allow Germany and England to gobble up France and come after them. ************************************************************************ I need more scribes! I need more scribes! I need more scribes! I need ************************************************************************ I am enjoying moderating this zine, keep that mail coming! Eric Klien Up