Diplomacy zine -- Chapter Four From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1989 02:02:11 +0000 Issue #124 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, TRENCHFOOT, and VERSAILLES And is published by tedward@cs.cornell.edu/Ted Fischer Chapter Three contains: TANNENBURG, VERDUN, ENTENTE, MULHOUSE, and DAWN PATROL And is published by dragon@agora.hf.intel.com/Bill Wheeler (He has been compiling the chapters but has so far been unable to get them back to me. We are working on the problem. This problem may not go away until the holidays are over. Unfortunately, all people who have volunteered to replace him can't start helping me until after the holiday are over. To put it mildly, I need more guest publishers!) ------------- Chapter Four ------------- Spring '05 of the game RATATOSK (BNC number 1989IJ) (GM is jall@diku.dk/Mogens Jallberg) Due Thursday December 21 Spring '05 of the game BUSHIDO (BNC number 1989IN) (GM is ronin@cory.berkeley.edu/Sam Parazette) I've tallied peoples opinions about what to do during christmas break (or rather the month break, in which I will be gone) and the consensus is to hold until I get back. So, beginning Dec. 20, BUSHIDO is on hold until Jan. 20. Autumn and Winter '03 of the game HUGO (BNC number 1989IO) (GM is willis@trwind.ind.trw.com/Willis Marti) Still waiting for one player's builds. (Publisher note: GMs should remember that if a player disappears for even a day he should contact the player via phone or me if it is an international player so we can resolve the situation immediately.) Spring '03 of the game JUGGERNAUGHT (BNC number 1989IR) (GM is rdesper@eagle.wesleyan.edu/Rick Desper) Sorry folks, No moves for spring 1903 have been processed yet. Our Italian moves are not in, and he will not have use of his account until mid-January, so I have no means of getting them. Another player will also be gone for a similar length of time, as will I, so I think it would be best if we suspend operations until then. So, deadline for spring 1903 is pushed back until the neighborhood of January 23. That is the date of my return, I believe a Wednesday. To keep the Sunday cycle going, let's say I return results on Monday, Jan. 28. If all the moves are in as soon as I get back, we can accelerate this schedule a little, making Jan 27 the deadline for fall 1903. Apologies to players who want to keep this moving, I do not want to stop it, but I think it would be unfair to assign a standby player without consulting the player in question. Have a happy new year! Rick Spring '02 of the game TOKUGAWA (BNC number 1989IS) (GM is joseph_harold_thomas@cup.portal.com/Joseph Thomas) (Still missing Spring'01 results) Will be published soon, had to replace two players. Spring '03 of the game PETAIN (BNC number 1989IT) (GM is ssmith@ms.uky.edu/Scott Smith) Not Received Summer '02 of the game DUNKIRK (BNC number not known) (GM is sjzwange@phoenix.princeton.edu/Steven Jacob Zwanger) Austria retreats A to Vienna. Fall '02 of the game DUNKIRK (BNC number not known) (GM is sjzwange@phoenix.princeton.edu/Steven Jacob Zwanger) Turkey(Hauser): Italy(Sinha): [A Bul S A Con] no retreat; disband A Tyo-VEN A CON S A Bul F ION C A Tun-Syr F AEG S A Con F EME C A Tun-Syr F BLA S A Con A Tun-SYR note: NMR so I gave him mutual supports, randomly where more than one possibility occured. (Publisher note: The GM has been informed that we don't allow NMRs, this won't happen again.) France(Boyce): Russia(Lucock): [A Bel H] no retreat; disband [A FIN-Stp] A PIC S A Bel H F SWE H A Spa-GAS F Sev-RUM F Lyo-SPA(SC) A UKR S F Sev-Rum A Pie-MAR [A Gal-Bud] retreat England(Starkey): Germany(Brandt): [A STP-Fin] A BUR S A Ruh-Bel F Lon-NTH F DEN S Rus F Swe H F NWY S F Ska-Swe A Ruh-BEL [F SKA-Swe] A HOL S A Ruh-Bel Austria(Soare): A Vie-GAL A Rum-BUL A BUD S A Vie-Gal A SER S A Rum-Bul F GRE S A Rum-Bul Positions: Austria: A Gal, A Bud, A Ser, A Bul, F Gre England: F Ska, A StP, F Nth, F Nwy France: A Pic, A Gas, A Mar, F Spa(SC) Germany: A Bur, A Bel, F Den, A Hol Italy: A Ven, A Syr, F EMe, F Ion Russia: A Fin, F Swe, F Rum, A Ukr, A to retreat Turkey: A Con, F Aeg, F Bla Builds (w/ supply centers, new in caps): Austria -- Vie, Bud, Tri, Ser, Bul, GRE (build 1) England -- Lon, Lvp, Edi, Nwy, STP (build 1) France -- Par, Mar, Bre, Por, Spa (build 1) Germany -- Ber, Kie, Mun, HOL, Den (build 1) Italy -- Ven, Rom, Nap, Tun (no change) Russia -- Mos, War, Sev, SWE, Rum (no change) Turkey -- Con, Ank, Smy (no change) Winter 1902 retreats/disbands/builds (Russia has an army to retreat) are due Dec. 20, 12 NOON (note change of time); note also these are all simultaneous. Spring 1903 is due Jan. 20, 10 PM EST. Notes: Germany also controls Belgium, and thus gets two builds. Publisher comments: Despite having a record 140 active players, I am having problems due to the winter vacations. If you think that you would like to standby, please let me know! I have enough people for another game but I don't want to start games without a sufficient pool of standby players. Also remember that signing up for my variants of gunboat, blind, 1914, and classic Diplomacy would also be helpful. *********************************** Scribed by rlg@ai.mit.edu/Bob Givan *********************************** Taken from Gallimaufry #58 (published in England): The Middle Game in Diplomacy By Steve Doubleday The following article is a summary of _my_ views on the middle game in Diplomacy. I think that, although some of what I have to say is of general relevance, most of it is related to my own style of play (or, more correctly, related to how I think that I should play). Whatever country you are playing there are a few basic guidelines which ought to be followed, unless you can derive a very clear practical benefit from not doing so. Much of what I have to say will strike the better players amongst you as being pretty self evident, but I have seen many glaring examples from games in _Gallimaufry_ and other zines where these underlying tenets have been ignored by the players, to their own eventual discomfort. Opening Salvoes The board and countries in Diplomacy fall naturally into two parts. These bits, for want of more interesting names, are the Western Triangle and the Eastern Square. The opening period of play should see you establish a fairly solid relationship with one of your neighbours and the demise of the other one(s) in your part of the board... You will now have to evaluate your position and determine what course, or courses, of action will lead to your final victory. The problem that you have is that several other players are also scheming towards their equally inevitable final victory! The critical factor during and immediately after the first two to three years is whether you have been able to extinguish all but one (or even all) of your neighbours before the other part of the board has been able to achieve a similar state. This means, for example, that if you are England, you have either reduced or knocked out Germany and/or France. The Politics of Defeat? It is important to bear in mind exactly what you're going to do if you haven't reached the delightful state of affairs described above. If you haven't, then you are going to have to co-operate with your neighbours to stop the other part of the board from overwhelming your side. If you are part of a conflict which has yet to succeed in coming to the limited resolution described above and the other side of the board is already there, then you must seriously consider burying the hatchet with your immediate neighbours and setting about protecting yourselves. This can be regarded as the politics of defeat, but the fact is that you cannot win if someone else does. It is at this point that you need to establish an overt relationship with your neighbours and a covert one with one or more of the survivors from the other side. This latter secret alliance can work well in splitting the major alliance and gaining you ground when the situation stabilizes to the extent that you can start looking forward to your own expansion again. This is true, even when the other 'half' of the board is not immediately adjacent. Let us postulate a situation where Germany has Bel, Hol, Den, Par, Mar, Mun, Ber, Kie, and England has Nwy, Swe, Spa, Por, Bre, Lon, Lpl, Edi. In the Eastern part of the board, you are Turkey and have come under attack from an Austro-Russian alliance while Italy has belatedly come to your assistance. You know that Italy is likely to come under attack by England and that Austro-Russia is likely to come under attack by a combination of England and Germany. This looks reasonably good for survival (which it is) but it is not a good situation. England and Germany will both make headway against the opposition with your four or five center country sniping away and weakening any defence your current enemies can make. If they split their forces and attempt to contain you whilst defending themselves, the result is a slow, but gradual extirpation of your enemies---both England and Germany will gain as many supply centers as you AND they are already ahead of you. Staring Disaster in the Face So, if you're not well ahead or at least as equally ahead as the other side of the board, then it is worth exploring ways in which the remainder of the board can stop the big boys carving the rest of you up...it is important to do this sooner rather than later. The real danger signals are when a unit from a reasonable settled part of the board crosses the major stalemate line (this is StP, Liv, War, Sil, Boh, Tyr, Pie, GoL, WMS, NAf). If this has happened then it's time to shut up shop and stop them getting any further, which ever country you are. The same is true to a limited extent of when Turkey, France, or Austria crosses the minor stalemate line of the Ionian or Germany rounds the Cape of Gibraltar and also of when Russia gets a foothold across the North Sea. This often means that they've achieved a position whereby it is going to require a concerted effort to stop them winning and that they are now in a very good position to stop you achieving a win. Getting What You Want It is worth restating that to win a game, you have to eventually capture 18 supply centers. Many inexperienced players overlook this obvious fact and don't have a 'shopping list' of centers that they will need to win. Let us look at the centers, given a normal sort of game, which are normally on that list (those that are occasionally added to the list to complete the winning pattern are shown after the totals): Western Triangle: England: Lon, Lpl, Edi, Bre, Par, Spa, Por, Hol, Bel, Den, Nwy, Swe, Kie, Mun, StP, Ber, Mar (17) Tun, Ven, Rom, Nap, War, Vie, Tri France: Bre, Par, Mar, Lon, Edi, Lpl, Spa, Por, Hol, Bel, Den, Nwy, Swe, Kie, Mun, Ber (16) Tun, Ven, Rom, Nap, War, Vie, Tri Germany: Kie, Mun, Ber, Bre, Par, Mun, Lon, Lpl, Edi, Spa, Por, Hol, Bel, Den, Nwy, Swe (16) Ven, Rom, War, Vie, Tri, StP, Mos Eastern Square Austria: Vie, Bud, Tri, Ser, Gre, Bul, Rom, Ven, Con, Rum, Ank, Nap, Smy, Mos, Sev, War, Tun (17) Mar, Spa, Por, Mun, StP, Ber Italy: Nap, Rom, Ven, Tun, Tri, Vie, Bud, Gre, Ser, Con, Smy, Ank, Sev, Mos, Rum, War, Bul (17) Mar, Spa, Por, Mun, StP, Ber, Par Turkey: Con, Smy, Ank, Nap, Ven, Rom, Tun, Tri, Vie, Bud, Gre, Ser, Sev, Mos, Rum, War, Bul (17) Mar, Spa, Por, Mun, StP, Ber Russia: Mos, War, StP, Sev, Nwy, Swe, Rum, Bud, Vie, Tri, Ser, Gre, Ank, Smy, Con, Bul, Ven, Rom, Nap (19) Mun, Kie, Ber, Den, Hol, Edi, Lon, Tun, Bel Although the Eastern side of the board has more potential areas for expansion, it also has more competitors for each supply center than the Western side of the board. You can also see that StP only appears in the core list for England and Russia. This is because it is relatively easy to stitch that side up against invaders by supporting the unit already there, which in most cases is either Russian or English. If these two countries have been eliminated (or are in anarchy) there is nearly always someone in a position to support a StP unit to stop someone else's onward progression! It is crucial, therefore, that you try and get across one of the stalemate lines which will enable you to secure those extremely difficult last two or three supply centers. I will never vote for a win concession (unless it's me that is going to win!) if the major country has failed to 'cross the line'. Until that point any player, no matter how good, can be stopped. Of course, there is always the possibility that some idiot is prepared to sacrifice a share in a draw for a petty and self immolating revenge. Psychological Diplomacy -- by Randolph Smyth -- reprinted from the American Novice Packet-- __Supernova__ It's a relatively simple task to convince a fellow player to take a certain action if you can demonstrate that it's in his interest to do so. If you can show that an ally can easily clean up the rest of the board; that he can capture all the centres of your worst enemy; that he can get out of a tight spot--the player is rare indeed who won't follow your advice. In general, because it _is_ so easy and relatively predictable, most of you negotiations should lean heavily on suggesting strategies which benefit the other guy as much as yourself; this is the stuff of which firm alliances are made. One of the greatest challenges and pleasures of the game, however, lies in trying to convince someone to do something which may very well _not_ be in his very best long-term interest. What sort of techniques are useful here? Every player knows about a barefaced lie; most use it themselves at appropriate times. If Austria can convince Russia that Turkey intends to attack him and vice versa, his statements can become self-fulfilling, leaving him with an enviable choice of allies and targets. The range of lies is so broad, though, that it can't be treated here. Suffice it to say that the lie must be made believable-if discovered, the disadvantages usually outweigh the hoped-for profits. Clumsiness is heavily punished here. Misdirection is sometimes a better choice. Suppose Russia has moved A(Mos)-StP in Spring 1901, and has had no unpleasant surprises in the south. He naturally intends to fight for a larger-than-normal chunk of Scandinavia, but doesn't want to antagonize England before the fall moves appear. He may write to the English player, "I've reconsidered my northern strategy and won't attack Nwy this fall." If he orders A(StP)-Nwy anyhow, he's lied; but if he goes A(StP)-Fin and builds in StP, and puts a stranglehold on nwy in 1902, he's only misdirected. You should note that the _English_ reaction will probably be identical in either case: the war is on, independent of quaint legalities. The difference is that England can't pass the letter around as proof of Russian untrustworthiness. A letter full of clever misdirection will make the other players wary, but will also provoke a grudging admiration rather than the outrage caused by a lot of irresponsible outright lies. Another use of the lying/misdirection option is _not_ to use it. Using the above example, suppose England didn't believe the Russian and supported himself into Nwy; meanwhile, the Russian, biding his time, returned A(StP)-Mos? The English player may look overcautious to the other players (if Russia has given his commitment wide publicity), "wasting" a unit in unneeded support that could have been used in Bel/Hol. England may have rejected French _and_ German proposals to meet a Russian threat...which never materialized. Now he looks foolish to other potential allies, while he has a tendency to accept further Russian statements uncritically, since Russia has stuck by an unlikely looking commitment. If you want to provoke this sort of thing as Russia, keep in mind as you write your letter to England, that you _don't_ want him to believe you. Even more interesting ploys show up when all the cards are on the table, and the task is to put a desired interpretation on well-known facts. How should you approach a player you've just stabbed? Out of common courtesy you should send a letter of apology and explanation, but if you want to take it further to extract even _more_ profit, a few choices are available. You can offer the brutal alternative of puppethood or elimination; sometimes the future relationship is best out in the open like this, but the success of a threat depends more on the tactical necessities of the position than on psychology. Often it's better to let the underdog make his own appeals. Don't underestimate the value of a letter which is businesslike, receptive to further communication, but somewhat vague when it comes to details. In touchy situations the prospective puppet will have to make a very personal decision between going for his best remaining deal (as your puppet) and attempting revenge (as your suicidal enemy). It's useless to try and push this; if you restrict yourself to mentioning the possibilities, most players will take the ball from there. If the puppet arrangement is to be long-term, the puppet also feels betters about it if he was the one to bring up the possibility seriously. Sometimes a more aggressive stance is warranted to persuade a wavering neighbour. Variations on the theme of "So and so has approached me to by _his_ ally, if _you're_ not interested.", "Put up , or shut up!", "To keep me happy, you'll have to offer more than _that!", "This will only work if we get busy and do it _now_." (in more diplomatic terms, of course!) can be used to stampede someone into a commitment that will be hard to back out of later. Once you've made your _own_ commitment to an alliance, it's important not to let your work and investment go down the drain---you have to _keep_ the other guy on your side. Even if you have secret plans afoot to stab him later, you must still make him trust you and value your friendship, up to and including the season you hit him. Nothing is more unsatisfactory than an unsuccessful stab, and the most common reason is that the stabee wasn't fully confident that the stabber _wouldn't_. Apart from the logical mutual benefits of an alliance, bonds can be strengthened psychologically. Much has been made of the need to write, and write again, but many players find themselves at a loss for a subject. Extra-diplomacy interests can be compared, and if compatible, can lead to a genuine friendship beyond the scope of the game's alliance. It may be cynical to say that such relationships inhibit stabs; and both players should be mature enough to continue a friendship based on other things, even if a stab _does_ take place; but the fact is that stabs are _less_ likely if the overall atmosphere of communications is warm. _More_ players would not attack an ally who is also a good friend, even if this would guarantee them a victory. You shouldn't discount this, even if there were no ulterior motives _per_se_ behind the development of the friendship. Why _not_ be friendly? The game becomes more enjoyable to play, and if you're less vulnerable to a stab as well, what's the harm in that? A more game-oriented case of "exploitation" lies in the use of reputation. If you have enough experience to have developed one of your own, it's only natural to make use of it. If you've played ten games to completion, never NMR'ed, and never stabbed anyone, this is well worth mentioning if your ally is the nervous type, worried about your reliability. If you've played ten games and won them all, your reputation will be quite different; but again use it whenever skill and success are important to your ally. The nature of the situation will determine how much emphasis you want to put on your reputation: naturally, you wish to appear to be the "right" type of player for whatever is necessary. Most players haven't been around long enough to develop a track record which impresses others, though. These guys can still make use of reputations: _other_ peoples'. If the prospective enemy is a novice or a notoriously poor player, the thrust is "He'll be easy meat for the two of us." If he's exceptionally _good_, it's, "We _gotta_ work together or we'll both get creamed." Or to ally with the best player in the game, a bit of ego-boosting never hurts your chances: "Gee, I'd love the opportunity to learn something in an alliance with you!" A novice can be attracted by an offer to teach him everything you know. This is a good alliance building if you have any experience at all, but few players seem to remember that a newcomer may have a good grasp of the rulebook but is still hungry for other tips which will only come after exposure to the hobby. You can often "own" a novice if you're willing to put in a bit of extra time to help educate him, simply because so few other players will bother. For his part, he's quite right to accept the best "teaching contract" even if you wipe him out later (this, too, may be part of his 'education' if your reasons for the stab are sound)---he'll take a large step forward in his next game. The instruction is not itself psychological, but the initial _offer_ to teach certainly is. If all else fails and you have a permanent enemy to deal with, it's sometimes possible to accelerate his collapse with abuse or taunts, making him so angry that he attacks all-out (and therefore, somewhat predictably). This is particularly useful if you're willing to sit in a defensive corner while your enemy encounters no resistance in moving to another direction. The best place for a goad is probably in the press, for all to see. I think that most players pass up this resource as incompatible with a "friendly" game, but many games will feature it at one time or another, and you should at least be aware of it. This has been a very quick run-through of some of the more common psychological methods of pushing the other players where you want them. In general they should be used as an aid to more "logical" negotiations, not as a substitution for them. These resources are much easier to apply in a face-to-face game; but in the postal hobby where you may never meet your fellow players, it's hard to tell just what is influencing them. Still, the better postal players use psychological methods frequently: a strictly "logical" player will build a solid reputation and turn in respectable games, but only rarely will he be able to make the kind of progress necessary to win. I am enjoying moderating this zine, keep that mail coming! Eric Klien Up