Diplomacy zine -- R/A alliance

From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1989 23:28:30 +0000

Issue #89 of ELECTRONIC PROTOCOL:

Chapter One contains:

D-DAY, NAVARONE, BLITZKRIEG, OPERATION OVERLORD, GETTYSBURG, and HMS HOOD

And is published by Daybell@aludra.usc.edu/Donald Daybell

Chapter Two contains:

DRAGONSPLAYER, DOUGHBOY, BISMARK, COLD WAR and JACAL

And is published by Tedward@cs.cornell.edu/Ted Fischer

(I will print all the chapter twos that have been missed, our first
two chapter one guest publishers had inadequate mailers.  All GMs
please send future turns to Ted, thanks!)

-------------
Chapter Three
-------------

Fall '08 of the game MAELSTROM (BNC number 1989AA)

Still don't have all the orders, I will straighten this out within 24
hours.

Spring '01 of the game TANNENBURG (BNC number not known)
(GM is Ebrosius@lucy.wellesley.edu/Eric Brosius)

And They're Off!

AUSTRIA (Ledoux) A bud-SER, A vie-TRI, F tri-ALB.
ENGLAND (Hosek) F lon-NTH, F edi-NRG, A lpl-EDI.
FRANCE  (Snyder) A par-BUR, A mar-SPA, F bre-MID.
GERMANY (Krywolt) F kie-HOL, A ber-KIE, A MUN H.
ITALY   (Farebrother) A rom-TUS, F nap-TYN, A VEN H.
RUSSIA  (Jordan) A mos-LNA, A war-UKR, ((F SEV-bla)), F stp(sc)-BOT.
TURKEY  (Shook) A con-BUL, A smy-CON, ((F ANK-bla)).

GAME NOTES

The deadline for Fall, 1901 is
***Sunday, August 20 at 10PM EDT***

(No Summer turn is required because there are no retreats.)

I enclose orders which fail in double parentheses.  Each unit has a
separate order written for it, and the capitalized province is the one
in which the unit ends the move.  This should provide a bit of redundancy
in case of error.  If anyone spots an error, please let me know right away.

I should report that Austria actually ordered F Vie-Alb, which is an
illegal move.  It is clear that he really meant to write F Tri-Alb,
and that is the move I used under the "badly written order" provision
of the rules.

PRESS

GM-Board:  Here is where you are allowed to print press releases.  I did
not receive any this turn, and so this is the only press release (it's a
dirty job, but someone must do it!)  Press releases may be written in an
informal style or with all the trappings of official language, as though
written by the head of a real-life country.  They can accuse fellow players
of double-dealing treachery, announce agreements, promise eternal
faithfulness, or provide a light-hearted look at the game.  Of course, in
this game press is anonymous, so you can't really be sure this was written
by the GM.

END OF PRESS

Summer '01 of the game TANNENBURG (BNC number not known)
(GM is Ebrosius@lucy.wellesley.edu/Eric Brosius)

Nothing happened.

Spring '01 of the gunboat game VERDUN (MNC number not known)
(GM is Sccs6069@iruccibm.bitnet/Michael O'Regan)

Due date not set yet.

GM comments:

I am getting a little tired of pounding in articles.  If anyone has
access to a scanner machine, let me know!

The following important message was posted by
blade@ranko.cd.chalmers.se/ Andrease Bladh, I would recommend that
you read his message and then vote YES.  I agree that we don't need
other people cluttering up the rec.games.diplomacy conference, I mean
the rec.games.pbm conference.

Hi everybody!

I have for some time read all the differnt postings about the
eventual creation of rec.games.frp.pbn and would like to share my
views on the subject.  It appears as if there are *a lot* of people
who are uncertain whether this group is a good idea or not.  It is
clear that the current location of the Broad Axe Tavern game is not
suitable or even the right group for such activities.  I do therefore
wonder what will happen if rec.games.frp.pbn doesn't get the +100 yes
votes required (and I'm not so sure it will).

Well, it's all hard to say; but, I don't think that people will stop
playing and discussing the game. It will probably go on just as
before in rec.games.pbm and thus escalate things further.  What
happens when the baloon goes BOOM, I don't know.

If the BAT game is not wanted where it is, people could (as I see it)
just vote it out of there. That would benefit both the BAT people and
others using the group. If so, the game-move postings would not be a
nuisiance to other groups/persons.  After all, one does not have to
subscribe to the new group if one does not want to.  Also, this group
would not be intended for the BAT game only, but, for any pbn game in
any genre that people care to play.

As someone once said: You can't stop a discussion, because of the
freedom of the net, all you can do is move it to another newsgroup.

So if are unsure whether to vote or not, I would ask you to do so.
If you do, then I would also ask you to vote yes for the creation of
rec.games.frp.pbn.  As I see it this is the easist way to solve the
problem.

Please do so by sending an email to (fabbott@athena.mit.edu) with the
subject: VOTE YES.  If you want to keep things the way they are, then
you do the same thing, but substitute the subject line with VOTE NO.

In case you are wondering: yes, I am playing in the game, but, I have
tried to follow this discussion with an open mind. However, I am in
favour for this new group and would like to see it created.  Again,
this is besides the point. Think this over and vote by your own
convictions.

Take care and enjoy the summer. (Or what's left of it :-)

Taken form Passchendaele #29:

THE UNORTHODOX GAME-LONG EASTERN ALLIANCE
                    By Francois Cuerrier

People can really be unimaginative at times.  Players generally enter
a game with a set of preconceived notions, are unwilling to give
unused options a try, and tend to throw their lot with the common
alliances.  To be sure, Franco-German, Italo-German, Austro-Turkish
and even Italo-Turkish alliances are occasionally seen; but
(unfortunately?) most don't appear to enjoy the popularity they
should.  Such seems to be the fate of a seldom-mentioned-and-used
eastern alliance, the Austro-Russian pact.

Such an attitude isn't entirely unreasonable:  players tend to reason
that unbroken paths are more risky than beaten trails, and that they
might as well employ the "proven" strategies.  The result is a
relatively predictable game, with - as an example - Austria at the
top of Russia's list of targets in the opening and mid game.  This
article will attempt to rationalize the Austro-Russian game-long
alliance, and explain the optimial circumstances it generally works
best in.

Now, I'm not saying that this alliance is the best, ideal, or
superior.  It has a myriad of inherent disadvantages and weaknesses.
Still, it should be given a try by the more imaginative players...

Suppose that, as a member of the AR alliance, you could create the
following diplomatic conditions:

(1) Turkey has been sucked into moving her F Ank west (F Ank-Con-Aeg)
in 1901 thus leaving the Black Sea open.  Suppose further that Turkey
has been convinced to demilitarize Arm.  Russia and Turkey may then
kick Turkey out of Bul (remember - T has agreed to move F Con-Aeg in
F01, which makes Bul very vulnerable) in Fall 1901, and occupy Bla in
Spring 1902 (Turkey being in no position to contest this, as her
fleet is in Aeg and she gets no build, unless that is, she ret A Bul-
OTB and builds a fleet; but then this could be countered by Russia
building a second fleet in Sev..).  Following these crippling blows,
RA should be able to move onwards and conquer Turkey by 1904
(assuming no or little Italian interference).  Curtains.

(2) France and Germany have been persuaded to attack England.  This
will generally keep effective German intervention in eastern affairs
to a minimum, and virtually eliminate the sheer thought of England
invading Scandinavia in strength.  Further, Russia will be in
position to grab Norway (and possibly even Edinburgh) and build lots
of northern fleets relatively unchallenged.  Free of northern
distractions, RA may concentrate on their other campaigns.

(3) Italy has been persuaded to attack France.  The Italian move west
will not only help keep the West in turmoil and weaken France (thus
isolating Germany somewhat), but it will also remove the one RA worry
in the East.  Free of Italian intervention, Austria will remain a
healthy ally and the campagin against Turkey will be that much
easier.  Further, the Italian move west will prepare the ground for a
propicious Austrian stab of Italy.

So much for the diplomacy.  If your opponents play into your hands
this way, the tactics and the timetable become a piece of cake.
Turkey should be destroyed by 1904.  You can invade Italy in 1903 and
destroy it by 1906, while at the same time Russia annexes Norway and
possibly Edinburgh.  Soon thereafter, Germany could well be crushed
by the converging AR assaults, while France is too weak (partly due
to the early Italian stab, partly due to the AR Mediterranean forces
now at her doorstep) to lend a helping hand.  On the other hand,
expect a bit of heavy fighting if your plans don't turn out as hoped
for.  For a quick campaign, you really need to achieve all of (1),
(2), and (3)...

So much for the positive side of the coin:  the alliance does have
liabilities (which presumably is the reason for its unpopularity).
Leaving aside the myraid of stab fears (real and imaginary) which may
disrupt the alliance at any time during the game (...even in 1901...)
the main ones are:

(1)  The share of the spoils and the rate of growth:  this shouldn't
be much of a problem if both partners are reasonable and sincere (an
impossiblity?), but generally one ally will grow fasster depending on
how well "things" went on his front as compared to his partner's
lesser fortunes.  Austria will do poorly if Italy gets strong; Russia
will do poorly if England fares well.  And dismiss the entire idea if
Turkey is not sucked in initially and a 1901 GE alliance forms (not
uncommon)...!  The FINAL division of spoils will also present a
problem, as one member of the alliance will probably have to "reach
farther" than his partner for the 17th center (e.g. Austria may have
to get Bel for her 17th center...).

The rate of growth is a very delicate problem, as Russia will
probably grow much faster - especially towards the end - as the
Austrian fleets are slowed down before the Mid bottleneck.  This may
not be too much of a problem if France is kept weak throughout the
game; nevertheless, compensation to Austria for quicker Russian
expansion will likely be imperative somewhere down the line.

(2)  The "encirclement" of Austria by Russia:  often the result of
(1) above.  This may be a huge problem (but no worse than, say,
Turkey encircling Austria in an AT alliance...), as in the end Russia
will have possession in the Balkans (Rum, and perhaps Bul), Turkey,
and Germany (and perhaps even the Mediterranean, if her fleets were
allowed through Con...!).  The problem can be avoided by "exchanging"
centers (i.e. Austria takes the Russian centers outh, Russia takes
the Austrian centers north...), but it will nevertheless likely
remain until game-end.

(3) Game-end.  One side could easily decide to double-cross his
partner by going for his 18th center ( a problem common to all game-
long 17-17 alliances).  The problem can be avoided by only going for
a simply 2-way draw, before the alliance controls all 34 centers.
Nevertheless, a great deal of mutual trust and sincerity will be
required here again.

This covers the interrelation problems.  However, there are other
problems RA must keep their eyes on to prevent their opponents from
denying the two-way draw:

(1) Stalemate lines:  usually an acute problem for powers such as
Austria, Turkey, and Italy (and even Russia).  Most partial stalemate
lines RA must keep an eye on are centered on Mid/Spa/Mar and
Mun/Ger/Bal/Bot/Stp or thereabouts.  The later is no problem if
Russia has expanded north (beyond the stalemate positions) and is
quite strong in the area (through division among the Western powers,
or sheer number of units); yet, it may be a good idea for RA to move
quickly on Germany, so that few strong defensive lines may be set by
their adversaries.  Stalemate (or partial stalemate) lines to watch
for run along Ber/Mun - and even Kie/Ruh/Bur.

The Mid bottleneck is extremely difficult to get through, and is
extremely consequential to the future of the alliance.  Austria just
can't afford to wait while Russia picks up most of the pieces in the
North.  So, the main problem with this stronghold is the possiblity
for major inequities to develop within the alliance.  If France has
been kept quite weak, then this may not be a problem (most unlikely
as the stronghold can be held with A Gas S A Mar, F Mid & F Por S F
Spa).

(2) "Getting into one another's way" (as far as it can be kept
seperate from the "encirclement" business) should not be too much of
a problem, as Russia and Austria both have their "natural" routes of
expansion:  Russia can move northwest while Austria moves southwest.

So this covers the alliance, all right.  This alliance is actaully
quite difficult to keep afloat efficiently, as the diplomatic
conditions listed at the beginning are rarely assembled in one game;
nevertheless, I'm sure there are variations to the alliance which
eliminate the need for ALL diplomatic conditions to be present
simultaneously as the prerequisite for success.  I hope that I have
been successful in presenting an alternative form of alliance to the
novices in the crowed while at the same time pointing out the main
difficulties.  Try it out, for creativity's sake if nothing else...

I am enjoying moderating this zine, keep that mail coming!

Eric Klien