For those that actually found my analysis of the first couple turns of a Diplomacy game interesting, you must be wondering what happened to the rest. Well, there were a couple factors which disrupted my analysis of the remainder of the game:
1.) The game moved very quickly. With each phase on a 12 hour cycle, I quickly ended up behind on my analysis. Since I had therefore seen ahead several turns ahead from when I was analyzing, I felt my predictions were no longer particularly fair.
2.) A number of players ended up dropping out of the game, massively skewing its outcome. The first player to drop was Turkey in Fall 1903, but another player took over in Spring 1904 and gallantly played out an admittedly weak position. More unfortunately, in Fall 1905 Germany made a couple very clever retreats behind Russian lines, and the Russian player (despite his commanding lead and still quite viable position) simply stopped submitting orders in Spring 1906, ultimately auto-surrendering in Spring 1907. This completely upset the balance of the game, since it left a massive power vacuum in the east.
Despite this, the winner (Italy) played a very good game (and Germany, the second Turkey, and Austria-Hungary all lost with good grace), and the public press is fairly amusing as well. Therefore, if you are curious to see how the game progressed, I believe it is publicly viewable. One can click on the order history button in the top right and scroll through the turns to see how the game progressed.
Subscribe to Computing Intelligence
Showing posts with label Games. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Games. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Thursday, June 16, 2011
An Exercise in Diplomacy: Spring 1902
The first two turns left Russia with a lot of forward momentum into the Balkans and Austria-Hungary, but with Turkey aimed at her underbelly. Despite Turkey’s strategic position, he did not utilize his secured build from the conquest of Bulgaria, making me think that Turkey’s player has possibly even dropped the game. Austria-Hungary and Italy were both held at three builds, although Austria-Hungary was in a distinctly worse position with his capital of Vienna under control by a Russian army. Germany, France, and England all managed to secure two builds, and what remains to be seen is who in the west will be the odd man out.
Spring 1902
Britain
Norway MOVE Skagerrack -> resolved
Edinburgh MOVE North Sea -> Bounced
London HOLD -> resolved
Belgium SUPPORT Burgundy to Ruhr -> Dislodged by A Ruh - Bel
North Sea MOVE North Sea -> Illegal order replaced with Hold order
Dislodged Army in Belgium destroyed.
Britain faces a French back-stab, which she probably should have seen coming given the French fleet built in Brest. France clearly convinced Britain he would be making an attack on Ruhr, leaving Britain supporting a non-existent attack. In addition to the French stab, Britain somehow managed to foul up two of her own orders, disrupting her fleet movements. Despite her almost overwhelming force of fleets, leaving three of them just sitting in place puts Britain in a bad place. Now that France has thrown his lot in with Germany, Britain will most likely swing her fleet from Edinburgh around to Clyde to either cover Liverpool if France sends a fleet into the Irish Sea or North Atlantic, or to help mount a future attack on France.
France
Brest MOVE English Channel -> resolved
Paris MOVE Picardy -> resolved
Portugal MOVE Mid-Atlantic Ocean -> resolved
Spain MOVE Gascony -> resolved
Burgundy SUPPORT Ruhr to Belgium -> resolved
France was left in an excellent position at the end of the last year, with an Italy clearly occupied in the east and a war brewing between Germany and Britain, he virtually had the pick of his allies. Now that he is in possession of the English Channel, France faces a conundrum. Unless Germany can quickly take control of the North Sea (which is unlikely given that their hand has been tipped and Russia has two fleets bearing down on the Baltic Sea), France cannot hold the Channel without tying up both his fleets. However, any delay just gives Britain more time to get into defensive position and possibly even rally support in the south. I would recommend France either makes sure his fleets stay in position by supporting from the Mid Atlantic this turn and convoys an army into Wales (or London, if he thinks Britain will gamble and try to stop a move to Wales with her fleet), or France should gamble that Britain won’t force his fleet out of the Channel and send his fleet from the Mid Atlantic to the North Atlantic. Once in the Mid Atlantic, France can threaten Liverpool or move to the Norwegian Sea, where he can threaten both Edinburgh and Norway, forcing Britain’s fleets into a chasing game. Either outcome (a French army on British soil or a French fleet in the northern waters) will work wonders in disrupting Britain’s defense and counterattack. Without accomplishing either, however, Britain’s superior naval power (with Russian help) will be able to push France and Germany back and punish them. Even without Russian help, Britain can force France and Germany into a long and slow grind.
Germany
Munich MOVE Silesia -> resolved
Kiel SUPPORT Holland to hold -> resolved
Holland SUPPORT Ruhr to Belgium -> resolved
Ruhr MOVE Belgium -> resolved
Denmark HOLD -> resolved
Germany has managed to drive Britain into the sea and seize Belgium for the Kaiser, but his prospects remain far from certain. Britain’s bungled moves have saved Germany the fearful prospect of a British fleet in the Heligoland Bight, North Sea, and Skaagerak, but he still lacks possession of the North Sea. I find his lack of fleet use surprising, although his support of Holland from Kiel suggests that he did not yet fully trust his French ally. Even so, the order of Denmark to the North Sea would, more than likely, have served him well. If Britain had successfully exited the North Sea, such a move would prevent Edinburgh from moving in to take its place and leave Denmark still safely in place.
More confusing is Germany’s developing relationship with Russia, but that will be discussed in more detail when Russia’s moves are dealt with. Munich remains dangerously exposed, with a Russian, Italian, and French army all sitting around its perimeter.
Italy
Ionian Sea MOVE Greece -> resolved
Venice MOVE Trieste -> resolved
Tyrolia SUPPORT Trieste to Vienna -> resolved
Italy finally moved into his first neutral supply centre, but was forced to do it with his fleet. That means his fleet will have to stay in place next turn to gain control, and it will be at least another year before Italy takes possession of Tunisia. If he is not careful, France may manage to sneak a fleet around the Iberian horn (or build one in Marseilles) and steal Tunisia out from under him. Even more in Italy’s favour, however, is that he now has an army in Trieste. Combined with his an army in Tyrolia, Italy has the potential to break out of the peninsular shell that show many Italians find themselves stuck in. However, by working with the Austro-Hungarians, Italy has likely alienated his erstwhile Russian ally, and must continue to build his forces. Altogether, however, I think Italy had a good year.
Austria-Hungary
Serbia MOVE Budapest -> Bounced
Albania SUPPORT Ionian Sea to Greece -> resolved
Trieste MOVE Vienna -> resolved
Austria-Hungary had an interesting turn. In many ways, he appeared to pick Italy as the lesser evil, sacrificing Trieste to the Italians in order to get Vienna back. If Greece and Trieste are truly enough to satisfy Italy, then Austria-Hungary may have actually bought himself some time, and even the prospect of a resurgence. As long as Trieste remains in the hands of the Italians, however, Austria-Hungary’s fleet will remain lonely and cut off from the prospect of naval support. With a possible alliance with Italy, however, the fleet becomes almost a hindrance, and Austria-Hungary may even try to coordinate its demise with Italy’s help. If not, Austria-Hungary may actually try a stab of his own, and oust Italy from Greece next turn given Turkey’s distraction with Russia. Regardless, Austria-Hungary remains in a troubled position, and the actions of a desperate player are hard to telegraph. I think the player deserves some credit for continuing to play the game. Too many players simply drop a game in the face of initial setbacks.
Turkey
Black Sea SUPPORT Armenia to Sevastopol -> Supported unit has failed
Armenia MOVE Sevastopol -> Bounced
Bulgaria MOVE Rumania -> Bounced
Turkey had two attack patterns to choose from: although Bulgaria and Armenia are directed to attack Rumania and Sevastopol, respectively, Turkey must choose whether his fleet supports the attack on Rumania or Sevastopol. Russia has a counter to each move (if Turkey focuses on Rumania, Russia can cut support from the Black Sea with her fleet. If Turkey focuses on Sevastopol, Russia can do what she did: sit in Sevastopol and support from Moscow), but if she guesses incorrectly Turkey will take his target. It should be noted that Turkey did have one option that would have guaranteed him Rumania (at least without Austro-Hungarian intervention): attack Rumania with his fleet and support from Bulgaria. The main reason not to do this, however, would be that if Russia did attack the Black Sea from Sevastopol in the same turn, she would gain control of the Black Sea while Turkey would have a largely useless fleet sitting in Rumania. Turkey’s lack of a build last turn now becomes incredibly important; Russia was much more likely to be able to guess which of the two attacks Turkey would make because, without an army having been built in Constantinople, advancing out of Bulgaria leaves him incredibly exposed. Russia thus made the correct guess, and now Turkey has wasted his momentum. Without Austro-Hungarian help, Turkey cannot break Russia’s current position. Even more worrisome, an Austro-Hungarian and Italian alliance could potentially walk into Bulgaria (and could even do so unstoppably if Russia happens to cut Turkish support in the Black Sea or provides support from Rumania). Despite the presence of a Russian army in Galicia now (which could allow Russia to completely shut down Turkey’s attack without having to guess), the Galician army is likely to be busy dealing with Austria-Hungary and Turkey probably still has a shot next turn. His best tactic, I believe, would be to attack Rumania from the Black Sea and support from Bulgaria (while attacking Sevastopol from Armenia). Even if Russia takes the Black Sea, Turkey will now have two builds and will be able to completely encircle the Russian southern fleet, destroying it in the Spring. Russia will be unlikely to get the necessary builds to put a second fleet in Sevastopol (even though it will likely be vacant from a bounce between Armenia and Moscow) because she will have lost Rumania (and possibly Vienna).
Russia
Moscow SUPPORT Rumania to Sevastopol -> Supported unit has failed
Warsaw MOVE Galicia -> resolved
Sevastopol MOVE Black Sea -> Bounced
Rumania MOVE Sevastopol -> Bounced
Sweden HOLD -> resolved
Vienna MOVE Budapest -> Dislodged by A Tri - Vie
St. Petersburg (South Coast) MOVE Gulf of Bothnia -> resolved
Dislodged Army in Vienna retreats to Bohemia
The Great Russian Bear appears to have run into some slight trouble (most likely owing to the entirely reasonable fear of her swift growth in the first turn) but she still remains in a strong position. Although her army was forced out of Vienna, it was able to retreat to Bohemia. Since Budapest remains vacant, unless Italy and Austria-Hungary are fully allied now such that Italy supports Austria-Hungary in Vienna, she can force her way back in next turn. She successfully guessed the correct defense against Turkey, so she has managed to maintain her position in Rumania and Sevastopol.
Russia’s relationship with Germany has gotten quite complicated. The German army in Silesia threatens Warsaw, while the Russian army in Bohemia potentially threatens Munich. Likewise, Russia has the potential to force herself into the Baltic Sea, particularly since Germany’s fleets are sure to be tied up defending a British onslaught. Despite all of this, however, Russia’s fleet in Sweden held last turn (as did Germany’s fleet in Denmark) rather than try any sort of hostile movement against each other, which at least suggests the possibility of an understanding. Russia may be playing Britain and Germany against each other, promising aid (or at least mutual non-aggression in the case of Germany) to both of them. Given Britain’s poor bargaining position, I would not be surprised if Russia left Germany alone and waltzed into Norway. It is a gutsy move diplomatically to build a fleet on the anti-German coast of St. Petersburg to actually go after the British, but sometimes those are the most effective forms of subterfuge (as long as they don’t incite your pretend enemy to launch a preemptive attack). It is a tough call to make in the long run; the elimination of Britain greatly strengthens France and Germany, but of the three western powers Britain generally causes Russia the most headaches (at least in the early game), and Russia can always try appealing to French greed to carve Germany up once Britain is gone (depending on how enticing a target Italy appears to be). Unless the ground-work of a Franco-Russian alliance has already been started, though, Russia should not rely too heavily on the prospect of French help in the future. A Franco-German alliance without a British enemy beind them can remain incredibly strong, and Russia is already a powerful enough single entity that any other power should think twice before aiding her.
Spring 1902 Orders
Spring 1902
Britain
Norway MOVE Skagerrack -> resolved
Edinburgh MOVE North Sea -> Bounced
London HOLD -> resolved
Belgium SUPPORT Burgundy to Ruhr -> Dislodged by A Ruh - Bel
North Sea MOVE North Sea -> Illegal order replaced with Hold order
Dislodged Army in Belgium destroyed.
Britain faces a French back-stab, which she probably should have seen coming given the French fleet built in Brest. France clearly convinced Britain he would be making an attack on Ruhr, leaving Britain supporting a non-existent attack. In addition to the French stab, Britain somehow managed to foul up two of her own orders, disrupting her fleet movements. Despite her almost overwhelming force of fleets, leaving three of them just sitting in place puts Britain in a bad place. Now that France has thrown his lot in with Germany, Britain will most likely swing her fleet from Edinburgh around to Clyde to either cover Liverpool if France sends a fleet into the Irish Sea or North Atlantic, or to help mount a future attack on France.
France
Brest MOVE English Channel -> resolved
Paris MOVE Picardy -> resolved
Portugal MOVE Mid-Atlantic Ocean -> resolved
Spain MOVE Gascony -> resolved
Burgundy SUPPORT Ruhr to Belgium -> resolved
France was left in an excellent position at the end of the last year, with an Italy clearly occupied in the east and a war brewing between Germany and Britain, he virtually had the pick of his allies. Now that he is in possession of the English Channel, France faces a conundrum. Unless Germany can quickly take control of the North Sea (which is unlikely given that their hand has been tipped and Russia has two fleets bearing down on the Baltic Sea), France cannot hold the Channel without tying up both his fleets. However, any delay just gives Britain more time to get into defensive position and possibly even rally support in the south. I would recommend France either makes sure his fleets stay in position by supporting from the Mid Atlantic this turn and convoys an army into Wales (or London, if he thinks Britain will gamble and try to stop a move to Wales with her fleet), or France should gamble that Britain won’t force his fleet out of the Channel and send his fleet from the Mid Atlantic to the North Atlantic. Once in the Mid Atlantic, France can threaten Liverpool or move to the Norwegian Sea, where he can threaten both Edinburgh and Norway, forcing Britain’s fleets into a chasing game. Either outcome (a French army on British soil or a French fleet in the northern waters) will work wonders in disrupting Britain’s defense and counterattack. Without accomplishing either, however, Britain’s superior naval power (with Russian help) will be able to push France and Germany back and punish them. Even without Russian help, Britain can force France and Germany into a long and slow grind.
Germany
Munich MOVE Silesia -> resolved
Kiel SUPPORT Holland to hold -> resolved
Holland SUPPORT Ruhr to Belgium -> resolved
Ruhr MOVE Belgium -> resolved
Denmark HOLD -> resolved
Germany has managed to drive Britain into the sea and seize Belgium for the Kaiser, but his prospects remain far from certain. Britain’s bungled moves have saved Germany the fearful prospect of a British fleet in the Heligoland Bight, North Sea, and Skaagerak, but he still lacks possession of the North Sea. I find his lack of fleet use surprising, although his support of Holland from Kiel suggests that he did not yet fully trust his French ally. Even so, the order of Denmark to the North Sea would, more than likely, have served him well. If Britain had successfully exited the North Sea, such a move would prevent Edinburgh from moving in to take its place and leave Denmark still safely in place.
More confusing is Germany’s developing relationship with Russia, but that will be discussed in more detail when Russia’s moves are dealt with. Munich remains dangerously exposed, with a Russian, Italian, and French army all sitting around its perimeter.
Italy
Ionian Sea MOVE Greece -> resolved
Venice MOVE Trieste -> resolved
Tyrolia SUPPORT Trieste to Vienna -> resolved
Italy finally moved into his first neutral supply centre, but was forced to do it with his fleet. That means his fleet will have to stay in place next turn to gain control, and it will be at least another year before Italy takes possession of Tunisia. If he is not careful, France may manage to sneak a fleet around the Iberian horn (or build one in Marseilles) and steal Tunisia out from under him. Even more in Italy’s favour, however, is that he now has an army in Trieste. Combined with his an army in Tyrolia, Italy has the potential to break out of the peninsular shell that show many Italians find themselves stuck in. However, by working with the Austro-Hungarians, Italy has likely alienated his erstwhile Russian ally, and must continue to build his forces. Altogether, however, I think Italy had a good year.
Austria-Hungary
Serbia MOVE Budapest -> Bounced
Albania SUPPORT Ionian Sea to Greece -> resolved
Trieste MOVE Vienna -> resolved
Austria-Hungary had an interesting turn. In many ways, he appeared to pick Italy as the lesser evil, sacrificing Trieste to the Italians in order to get Vienna back. If Greece and Trieste are truly enough to satisfy Italy, then Austria-Hungary may have actually bought himself some time, and even the prospect of a resurgence. As long as Trieste remains in the hands of the Italians, however, Austria-Hungary’s fleet will remain lonely and cut off from the prospect of naval support. With a possible alliance with Italy, however, the fleet becomes almost a hindrance, and Austria-Hungary may even try to coordinate its demise with Italy’s help. If not, Austria-Hungary may actually try a stab of his own, and oust Italy from Greece next turn given Turkey’s distraction with Russia. Regardless, Austria-Hungary remains in a troubled position, and the actions of a desperate player are hard to telegraph. I think the player deserves some credit for continuing to play the game. Too many players simply drop a game in the face of initial setbacks.
Turkey
Black Sea SUPPORT Armenia to Sevastopol -> Supported unit has failed
Armenia MOVE Sevastopol -> Bounced
Bulgaria MOVE Rumania -> Bounced
Turkey had two attack patterns to choose from: although Bulgaria and Armenia are directed to attack Rumania and Sevastopol, respectively, Turkey must choose whether his fleet supports the attack on Rumania or Sevastopol. Russia has a counter to each move (if Turkey focuses on Rumania, Russia can cut support from the Black Sea with her fleet. If Turkey focuses on Sevastopol, Russia can do what she did: sit in Sevastopol and support from Moscow), but if she guesses incorrectly Turkey will take his target. It should be noted that Turkey did have one option that would have guaranteed him Rumania (at least without Austro-Hungarian intervention): attack Rumania with his fleet and support from Bulgaria. The main reason not to do this, however, would be that if Russia did attack the Black Sea from Sevastopol in the same turn, she would gain control of the Black Sea while Turkey would have a largely useless fleet sitting in Rumania. Turkey’s lack of a build last turn now becomes incredibly important; Russia was much more likely to be able to guess which of the two attacks Turkey would make because, without an army having been built in Constantinople, advancing out of Bulgaria leaves him incredibly exposed. Russia thus made the correct guess, and now Turkey has wasted his momentum. Without Austro-Hungarian help, Turkey cannot break Russia’s current position. Even more worrisome, an Austro-Hungarian and Italian alliance could potentially walk into Bulgaria (and could even do so unstoppably if Russia happens to cut Turkish support in the Black Sea or provides support from Rumania). Despite the presence of a Russian army in Galicia now (which could allow Russia to completely shut down Turkey’s attack without having to guess), the Galician army is likely to be busy dealing with Austria-Hungary and Turkey probably still has a shot next turn. His best tactic, I believe, would be to attack Rumania from the Black Sea and support from Bulgaria (while attacking Sevastopol from Armenia). Even if Russia takes the Black Sea, Turkey will now have two builds and will be able to completely encircle the Russian southern fleet, destroying it in the Spring. Russia will be unlikely to get the necessary builds to put a second fleet in Sevastopol (even though it will likely be vacant from a bounce between Armenia and Moscow) because she will have lost Rumania (and possibly Vienna).
Russia
Moscow SUPPORT Rumania to Sevastopol -> Supported unit has failed
Warsaw MOVE Galicia -> resolved
Sevastopol MOVE Black Sea -> Bounced
Rumania MOVE Sevastopol -> Bounced
Sweden HOLD -> resolved
Vienna MOVE Budapest -> Dislodged by A Tri - Vie
St. Petersburg (South Coast) MOVE Gulf of Bothnia -> resolved
Dislodged Army in Vienna retreats to Bohemia
The Great Russian Bear appears to have run into some slight trouble (most likely owing to the entirely reasonable fear of her swift growth in the first turn) but she still remains in a strong position. Although her army was forced out of Vienna, it was able to retreat to Bohemia. Since Budapest remains vacant, unless Italy and Austria-Hungary are fully allied now such that Italy supports Austria-Hungary in Vienna, she can force her way back in next turn. She successfully guessed the correct defense against Turkey, so she has managed to maintain her position in Rumania and Sevastopol.
Russia’s relationship with Germany has gotten quite complicated. The German army in Silesia threatens Warsaw, while the Russian army in Bohemia potentially threatens Munich. Likewise, Russia has the potential to force herself into the Baltic Sea, particularly since Germany’s fleets are sure to be tied up defending a British onslaught. Despite all of this, however, Russia’s fleet in Sweden held last turn (as did Germany’s fleet in Denmark) rather than try any sort of hostile movement against each other, which at least suggests the possibility of an understanding. Russia may be playing Britain and Germany against each other, promising aid (or at least mutual non-aggression in the case of Germany) to both of them. Given Britain’s poor bargaining position, I would not be surprised if Russia left Germany alone and waltzed into Norway. It is a gutsy move diplomatically to build a fleet on the anti-German coast of St. Petersburg to actually go after the British, but sometimes those are the most effective forms of subterfuge (as long as they don’t incite your pretend enemy to launch a preemptive attack). It is a tough call to make in the long run; the elimination of Britain greatly strengthens France and Germany, but of the three western powers Britain generally causes Russia the most headaches (at least in the early game), and Russia can always try appealing to French greed to carve Germany up once Britain is gone (depending on how enticing a target Italy appears to be). Unless the ground-work of a Franco-Russian alliance has already been started, though, Russia should not rely too heavily on the prospect of French help in the future. A Franco-German alliance without a British enemy beind them can remain incredibly strong, and Russia is already a powerful enough single entity that any other power should think twice before aiding her.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
An Exercise in Diplomacy: 1901
In the vein of my recent return to Diplomacy, I decided to use the playdiplomacy.com option to follow a game of Diplomacy. I found a game which appears to have all players active (one of the unfortunate aspects of the public games appears to be a tendency for some players to join up but then forget about the game, leaving their units sitting without orders. This dramatically changes the dynamics of the game), and I have decided to try following the game. Each turn I will give commentary on the positions, and try to predict what will happen in the future. It is important to note that, while I can view the order history and state of the game, I cannot view the actual messages being transmitted by the players. I additionally do not know any of the players, which means that my predictions will be based solely on board position. Thus, I expect I will be wrong much of the time, but I find it an interesting exercise nonetheless. Hopefully you will, too, and even decide to debate my tactical analysis.
Although I will generally give commentary on only one turn at a time, I’ve decided to wait and combine the first year into a single post.
Spring 1901 Orders (click to enlarge)
Spring 1901
Britain
Edinburgh MOVE Norwegian Sea -> resolved
Liverpool MOVE Yorkshire -> resolved
London MOVE North Sea -> resolved
This is a fairly standard British opening. It is a good compromise between being nervous about the Russians (both fleets are available to ensure Norway is an British conquest in the first year) and the French (the army in Yorkshire is available to guard London if France betrays Britain and takes the Channel). The only major drawback is that the army in Yorkshire can only be convoyed by the North Sea, and thus if Britain decides to take a Scandinavian route of advancement she must abdicate any claim on Belgium. Given Russia’s focus on the south, however, I predict that Britain will take Norway with his Norwegian Sea fleet, leaving the North Sea fleet and Yorkshire army available to possibly take Belgium (depending on what France and Germany have to say about that).
France
Marseilles MOVE Spain -> resolved
Paris MOVE Burgundy -> resolved
Brest MOVE Mid-Atlantic Ocean -> resolved
This is also a fairly common French opening, as it is an excellent compromise between defense (capturing Burgundy or at least preventing a German army from holding it early), and the conquest of Iberia. A French army in Burgundy has the potential to upset Germany, but it can also be used to keep France in the decision for Belgium. Given that every player has a unit facing Belgium, it is very hard to guess what will happen there.
Germany
Munich MOVE Ruhr -> resolved
Berlin MOVE Kiel -> resolved
Kiel MOVE Denmark -> resolved
Germany also opened with what is probably the most popular German opening. His fleet in Denmark gives him leverage with Russia over the fate of Sweden, while he can either support himself into Holland to guarantee its acquisition (if he thinks Britain might risk standing him out of it), make a go for both Holland and Belgium, or turn one army around to protect Munich if he thinks France might make a stab for it.
Italy
Venice MOVE Tyrolia -> Bounced
Rome MOVE Venice -> Bounced
Naples MOVE Ionian Sea -> resolved
Italy opened aggressively against Austria-Hungary, but was preempted in his attack by an Austro-Hungarian attack on Tyrolia launched from Vienna. Thus, the entire Italian army train has been halted in its tracks. Italy’s fleet is still poised to either argue over Greece or, more likely, snag Tunisia.
Austria-Hungary
Vienna MOVE Tyrolia -> Bounced
Trieste MOVE Albania -> resolved
Budapest MOVE Serbia -> resolved
Austria-Hungary successfully guessed and prevented Italy’s opening attack, but at the cost of preventing a Russian move to Galicia. While Austria-Hungary’s fleet is now in position to be supported into Greece by his army in Serbia, such a move would leave the Viennese army trying to simultaneously defend all three Austro-Hungarian home supply centres (assuming an actual attack by both Russia and Italy). It is very difficult to predict Austria-Hungary’s fate without some knowledge of the messages being passed around, but at this point it looks like he might be facing a dreaded Italo-Russian alliance seeking to carve up his country. He must entreat Turkey and possibly Germany for aid or risk facing an early exit. It might even be worthwhile to risk moving Serbia back to Budapest while covering Trieste from Vienna and make an unsupported attack on Greece with his fleet. Turkey is unlikely to go for Greece given his move to Armenia leaves no other units to cover Bulgaria, and Italy is more likely to go for the sure build of Tunisia rather than risk not getting a supply centre. The main risk with such an approach is missing out on Serbia if Russia doesn’t attack Budapest, but that may be preferable to the early loss of a home centre.
Turkey
Constantinople MOVE Bulgaria -> resolved
Ankara MOVE Black Sea -> Bounced
Smyrna MOVE Armenia -> resolved
Turkey has opened up with the ‘Russian Attack’ by moving an army to Armenia, an opening which is about as unsubtle as they come. It is unsurprising that Russia has bounced his attack on the Black Sea, but that does limit his ability to do much from Armenia. Turkey should be breathing a sigh of relief, however, since Italy’s spoiled move train this turn prevents an early Lepanto opening, while Austria-Hungary looks to be heavily beleaguered. Turkey will most likely be able to dictate alliance terms to Austria-Hungary, gaining a desperate and grateful ally, or take advantage of the chaos caused by Italy and Russia to gobble up as much of the Balkans as possible, providing much faster Turkish gains than are usually possible.
Russia
Moscow MOVE Ukraine -> resolved
St. Petersburg (South Coast) MOVE Gulf of Bothnia -> resolved
Warsaw MOVE Galicia -> resolved
Sevastopol MOVE Black Sea -> Bounced
Russia is off to a fairly aggressive start in the south, though her aggression appears to have paid off with the occupation of Galicia. Russia will be hoping that the diplomatic pull of Austria-Hungary is not enough to convince Germany to stand her out of Sweden, and that her single unit northern opening is not enough to convince Britain to pursue gains in an Anglo-Russian war. In the south, it appears that Russia has an early enemy in Turkey, and her acquisition of Galicia is unlikely to make her any Austro-Hungarian friends. Still, with Italy looking to attack Austria-Hungary from the west, Russia’s best bet is likely to make as many acquisitions as quickly as she can and move to crush Austria-Hungary before he can rally a defense, and batter down Turkey before he can get too strong. The secret to cracking Turkey, though, will likely to come down to the Italian navy.
Fall 1901 Orders (Click to Enlarge)
Fall 1901
Britain
Norwegian Sea MOVE Norway -> resolved
Yorkshire MOVE Belgium -> resolved
North Sea CONVOY Yorkshire to Belgium -> resolved
Britain is sitting in a fairly comfortable position, with an expeditionary force supported onto the continent by French forces and Norway safely under British control. Whether this is developing into a full Anglo-French alliance remains to be seen, but Germany is likely to be at least a little nervous.
France
Spain HOLD -> resolved
Burgundy SUPPORT Yorkshire to Belgium -> resolved
Mid-Atlantic Ocean MOVE Portugal -> resolved
Whether to take Portugal with the fleet or the army is always a dilemma for France. I usually prefer to put the fleet on the south coast of Spain, as that gives the maximum number of future options for the fleet, but it does tend to make Italy nervous and put the army in Portugal well away from the action. Given the hintings of an Anglo-French alliance (particularly since France helped an English army into Belgium rather than just the fleet) but the lack of a French fleet pointed toward the Mediterranean, Germany should be nervous of his French neighbour. Still, if the plan was a quick exit for the Germans, France could easily have made a stab at the empty Munich.
Germany
Ruhr SUPPORT Kiel to Holland -> resolved
Kiel MOVE Holland -> resolved
Denmark HOLD -> resolved
Germany chose not to bounce the Russian fleet from Sweden, which suggests at least a decently amicable relationship between the German Empire and the Bear. At the same time, his choice to force Holland rather than try for both Holland and Belgium suggests a poor relationship with Britain. What is interesting, though, is that Germany’s moves suggest a wariness of Britain far beyond that which he feels for France, as he neither protected Munich from a possible French stab nor worried about the fate of Belgium (had the British gone after Holland, Belgium would have gone entirely uncontested to the French). Although France appears to be supporting Britain, Germany’s apparent trust could suggest that France is maintaining amicable relations with both, and could even be arranging a Franco-German alliance to attack a Britain over-extended in a war on Germany. Even though Britain’s army in Belgium gives Britain a toehold on the continent, without French support that army could fairly easily be destroyed.
Italy
Venice MOVE Tyrolia -> resolved
Rome MOVE Venice -> resolved
Ionian Sea MOVE Greece -> Bounced
Italy’s actions were interesting. The lack of attack on Trieste was a good guess, and not only provides Russia with Vienna but also puts Italy in a good position to control Trieste by the end of this coming year. However, the attack on Greece was surprising. This was bad for both Italy and Austria-Hungary; both countries are now stuck with only their starting units. Italy will have to work very hard to make sure he does not get left behind by his Russian and Turkish allies when it comes to the spoils of the ailing Dual Monarchy.
Austria-Hungary
Vienna MOVE Trieste -> resolved
Albania MOVE Greece -> Bounced
Serbia SUPPORT Albania to Greece -> Supported unit has failed
Things are not looking good for the Dual Monarchy, with a Russian army controlling his capital and the Turks conspiring with the Italians to keep him out of Greece. Unless the war between Turkey and Russia quickly escalates, Austria-Hungary is looking at an early exit. He had a bad opening (through little fault of his own), and his defensive gambit was unfortunately the wrong choice of moves. Of course, my proposed moves also would have been disastrous, and even the ‘correct’ defense of leaving the Viennese army in place would not have changed the inevitable too greatly; Austria-Hungary is sitting in the worst possible position with an enemy on every side (the only thing that would be worse would be Germany piling on too).
Turkey
Bulgaria SUPPORT Ionian Sea to Greece -> Supported unit has failed
Ankara MOVE Black Sea -> resolved
Armenia MOVE Sevastopol -> Bounced
Turkey’s moves are inscrutable to me. With his armies heading east around the Black Sea as well as into the Balkans, he is not poised to make gains in the Balkans nearly as quickly as the Russian forces. Therefore, his decision to support Italy into Greece is very surprising to me. The only reason I could think of for such a choice would be to try and curry Italian favour against Russia once Austria-Hungary falls, though I will be surprised if this pays off. Turkey is a much more natural target than Russia for a naval power like Italy, particularly if the Italian player is in control of Greece as well as the Ionian Sea. With the opportunity to either support Austria-Hungary (and thereby delay his demise) or move to prevent Russia’s conquest of Rumania, it seems like there were much better options for Turkey’s Bulgarian army. Still, we will see how things go in the future. Turkey now controls the Black Sea and Russia lacks the capacity to build another southern fleet, so he at least has secured a vital tactical position against Russia.
Russia
Ukraine MOVE Rumania -> resolved
Gulf of Bothnia MOVE Sweden -> resolved
Galicia MOVE Vienna -> resolved
Sevastopol SUPPORT Ukraine to Rumania -> Support cut by a arm - sev
Things went pretty well for Russia in the opening year. Poised to get three builds, Russia is emerging as a powerful eastern force. Probably the only unfortunate turn of events is Turkey’s occupancy of the Black Sea. I am fairly surprised that Russia did not use her fleet to block the Black Sea again. Even though that would risk Turkey not making a move for the Black Sea and then walking into Sevastopol, the army in Sevastopol would be entirely cut off and could be forced out with the subsequent Russian builds. Of course, such a tactic would be a gamble, since none of Russia’s secured builds were guaranteed, so Russia’s choice was perhaps safer even if it gives Turkey a decent position despite his smaller force.
Position in Spring 1902, following 1901 Builds
Builds 1901
Britain
BUILD fleet London -> resolved
BUILD fleet Edinburgh -> resolved
Britain has managed to leverage his builds into a truly impressive navy. Any future builds should most likely be armies, but a four fleet force puts Britain in a decently secure position. The lack of a fleet in Liverpool is at least a nod in the direction of Anglo-French relations, though Britain could still make a go at the English Channel.
France
BUILD army Paris -> resolved
BUILD fleet Brest -> resolved
Despite his overwhelming naval superiority, Britain should be at least a little wary of France’s builds. The fleet in Brest has few targets other than the English Channel that could not been more effectively targeted by armies, particularly since the Portuguese fleet has few other movement options other than back into the Mid-Atlantic Ocean (he could move his fleet to one of Spain’s coasts, but then it would have made more sense to simply put his fleet there in the first place).
Germany
BUILD army Munich -> resolved
BUILD fleet Kiel -> resolved
Germany’s build choices are probably the least surprising; he has tensions with the British which makes a fleet in Kiel a natural choice, and an army in Munich puts to rest the worry of a French stab from Burgundy.
Russia
BUILD army Warsaw -> resolved
BUILD army Moscow -> resolved
BUILD fleet St. Petersburg (South Coast) -> resolved
The only choice Russia had with his builds was what to put in St. Petersburg. The choice of a fleet in the south coast is quite surprising, and should be making Germany very nervous. With Austria-Hungary facing an early elimination and Russia in possession of a powerful army that needs to go somewhere, the potential of a pair of Russian fleets operating around the Baltic Sea can only be bad news for the German Empire.
Turkey
No builds?
This was perhaps the most surprising development, with Turkey forgetting to build a new unit. If this means that the Turkish player has dropped out of the game, this is bad news for everyone except Russia. Italy and Austria-Hungary may both feel some relief, but the benefit to Russia stands to quickly outweigh their short-term benefits of a Turkish drop-out.
Although I will generally give commentary on only one turn at a time, I’ve decided to wait and combine the first year into a single post.
Spring 1901 Orders (click to enlarge)Spring 1901
Britain
Edinburgh MOVE Norwegian Sea -> resolved
Liverpool MOVE Yorkshire -> resolved
London MOVE North Sea -> resolved
This is a fairly standard British opening. It is a good compromise between being nervous about the Russians (both fleets are available to ensure Norway is an British conquest in the first year) and the French (the army in Yorkshire is available to guard London if France betrays Britain and takes the Channel). The only major drawback is that the army in Yorkshire can only be convoyed by the North Sea, and thus if Britain decides to take a Scandinavian route of advancement she must abdicate any claim on Belgium. Given Russia’s focus on the south, however, I predict that Britain will take Norway with his Norwegian Sea fleet, leaving the North Sea fleet and Yorkshire army available to possibly take Belgium (depending on what France and Germany have to say about that).
France
Marseilles MOVE Spain -> resolved
Paris MOVE Burgundy -> resolved
Brest MOVE Mid-Atlantic Ocean -> resolved
This is also a fairly common French opening, as it is an excellent compromise between defense (capturing Burgundy or at least preventing a German army from holding it early), and the conquest of Iberia. A French army in Burgundy has the potential to upset Germany, but it can also be used to keep France in the decision for Belgium. Given that every player has a unit facing Belgium, it is very hard to guess what will happen there.
Germany
Munich MOVE Ruhr -> resolved
Berlin MOVE Kiel -> resolved
Kiel MOVE Denmark -> resolved
Germany also opened with what is probably the most popular German opening. His fleet in Denmark gives him leverage with Russia over the fate of Sweden, while he can either support himself into Holland to guarantee its acquisition (if he thinks Britain might risk standing him out of it), make a go for both Holland and Belgium, or turn one army around to protect Munich if he thinks France might make a stab for it.
Italy
Venice MOVE Tyrolia -> Bounced
Rome MOVE Venice -> Bounced
Naples MOVE Ionian Sea -> resolved
Italy opened aggressively against Austria-Hungary, but was preempted in his attack by an Austro-Hungarian attack on Tyrolia launched from Vienna. Thus, the entire Italian army train has been halted in its tracks. Italy’s fleet is still poised to either argue over Greece or, more likely, snag Tunisia.
Austria-Hungary
Vienna MOVE Tyrolia -> Bounced
Trieste MOVE Albania -> resolved
Budapest MOVE Serbia -> resolved
Austria-Hungary successfully guessed and prevented Italy’s opening attack, but at the cost of preventing a Russian move to Galicia. While Austria-Hungary’s fleet is now in position to be supported into Greece by his army in Serbia, such a move would leave the Viennese army trying to simultaneously defend all three Austro-Hungarian home supply centres (assuming an actual attack by both Russia and Italy). It is very difficult to predict Austria-Hungary’s fate without some knowledge of the messages being passed around, but at this point it looks like he might be facing a dreaded Italo-Russian alliance seeking to carve up his country. He must entreat Turkey and possibly Germany for aid or risk facing an early exit. It might even be worthwhile to risk moving Serbia back to Budapest while covering Trieste from Vienna and make an unsupported attack on Greece with his fleet. Turkey is unlikely to go for Greece given his move to Armenia leaves no other units to cover Bulgaria, and Italy is more likely to go for the sure build of Tunisia rather than risk not getting a supply centre. The main risk with such an approach is missing out on Serbia if Russia doesn’t attack Budapest, but that may be preferable to the early loss of a home centre.
Turkey
Constantinople MOVE Bulgaria -> resolved
Ankara MOVE Black Sea -> Bounced
Smyrna MOVE Armenia -> resolved
Turkey has opened up with the ‘Russian Attack’ by moving an army to Armenia, an opening which is about as unsubtle as they come. It is unsurprising that Russia has bounced his attack on the Black Sea, but that does limit his ability to do much from Armenia. Turkey should be breathing a sigh of relief, however, since Italy’s spoiled move train this turn prevents an early Lepanto opening, while Austria-Hungary looks to be heavily beleaguered. Turkey will most likely be able to dictate alliance terms to Austria-Hungary, gaining a desperate and grateful ally, or take advantage of the chaos caused by Italy and Russia to gobble up as much of the Balkans as possible, providing much faster Turkish gains than are usually possible.
Russia
Moscow MOVE Ukraine -> resolved
St. Petersburg (South Coast) MOVE Gulf of Bothnia -> resolved
Warsaw MOVE Galicia -> resolved
Sevastopol MOVE Black Sea -> Bounced
Russia is off to a fairly aggressive start in the south, though her aggression appears to have paid off with the occupation of Galicia. Russia will be hoping that the diplomatic pull of Austria-Hungary is not enough to convince Germany to stand her out of Sweden, and that her single unit northern opening is not enough to convince Britain to pursue gains in an Anglo-Russian war. In the south, it appears that Russia has an early enemy in Turkey, and her acquisition of Galicia is unlikely to make her any Austro-Hungarian friends. Still, with Italy looking to attack Austria-Hungary from the west, Russia’s best bet is likely to make as many acquisitions as quickly as she can and move to crush Austria-Hungary before he can rally a defense, and batter down Turkey before he can get too strong. The secret to cracking Turkey, though, will likely to come down to the Italian navy.
Fall 1901 Orders (Click to Enlarge)Fall 1901
Britain
Norwegian Sea MOVE Norway -> resolved
Yorkshire MOVE Belgium -> resolved
North Sea CONVOY Yorkshire to Belgium -> resolved
Britain is sitting in a fairly comfortable position, with an expeditionary force supported onto the continent by French forces and Norway safely under British control. Whether this is developing into a full Anglo-French alliance remains to be seen, but Germany is likely to be at least a little nervous.
France
Spain HOLD -> resolved
Burgundy SUPPORT Yorkshire to Belgium -> resolved
Mid-Atlantic Ocean MOVE Portugal -> resolved
Whether to take Portugal with the fleet or the army is always a dilemma for France. I usually prefer to put the fleet on the south coast of Spain, as that gives the maximum number of future options for the fleet, but it does tend to make Italy nervous and put the army in Portugal well away from the action. Given the hintings of an Anglo-French alliance (particularly since France helped an English army into Belgium rather than just the fleet) but the lack of a French fleet pointed toward the Mediterranean, Germany should be nervous of his French neighbour. Still, if the plan was a quick exit for the Germans, France could easily have made a stab at the empty Munich.
Germany
Ruhr SUPPORT Kiel to Holland -> resolved
Kiel MOVE Holland -> resolved
Denmark HOLD -> resolved
Germany chose not to bounce the Russian fleet from Sweden, which suggests at least a decently amicable relationship between the German Empire and the Bear. At the same time, his choice to force Holland rather than try for both Holland and Belgium suggests a poor relationship with Britain. What is interesting, though, is that Germany’s moves suggest a wariness of Britain far beyond that which he feels for France, as he neither protected Munich from a possible French stab nor worried about the fate of Belgium (had the British gone after Holland, Belgium would have gone entirely uncontested to the French). Although France appears to be supporting Britain, Germany’s apparent trust could suggest that France is maintaining amicable relations with both, and could even be arranging a Franco-German alliance to attack a Britain over-extended in a war on Germany. Even though Britain’s army in Belgium gives Britain a toehold on the continent, without French support that army could fairly easily be destroyed.
Italy
Venice MOVE Tyrolia -> resolved
Rome MOVE Venice -> resolved
Ionian Sea MOVE Greece -> Bounced
Italy’s actions were interesting. The lack of attack on Trieste was a good guess, and not only provides Russia with Vienna but also puts Italy in a good position to control Trieste by the end of this coming year. However, the attack on Greece was surprising. This was bad for both Italy and Austria-Hungary; both countries are now stuck with only their starting units. Italy will have to work very hard to make sure he does not get left behind by his Russian and Turkish allies when it comes to the spoils of the ailing Dual Monarchy.
Austria-Hungary
Vienna MOVE Trieste -> resolved
Albania MOVE Greece -> Bounced
Serbia SUPPORT Albania to Greece -> Supported unit has failed
Things are not looking good for the Dual Monarchy, with a Russian army controlling his capital and the Turks conspiring with the Italians to keep him out of Greece. Unless the war between Turkey and Russia quickly escalates, Austria-Hungary is looking at an early exit. He had a bad opening (through little fault of his own), and his defensive gambit was unfortunately the wrong choice of moves. Of course, my proposed moves also would have been disastrous, and even the ‘correct’ defense of leaving the Viennese army in place would not have changed the inevitable too greatly; Austria-Hungary is sitting in the worst possible position with an enemy on every side (the only thing that would be worse would be Germany piling on too).
Turkey
Bulgaria SUPPORT Ionian Sea to Greece -> Supported unit has failed
Ankara MOVE Black Sea -> resolved
Armenia MOVE Sevastopol -> Bounced
Turkey’s moves are inscrutable to me. With his armies heading east around the Black Sea as well as into the Balkans, he is not poised to make gains in the Balkans nearly as quickly as the Russian forces. Therefore, his decision to support Italy into Greece is very surprising to me. The only reason I could think of for such a choice would be to try and curry Italian favour against Russia once Austria-Hungary falls, though I will be surprised if this pays off. Turkey is a much more natural target than Russia for a naval power like Italy, particularly if the Italian player is in control of Greece as well as the Ionian Sea. With the opportunity to either support Austria-Hungary (and thereby delay his demise) or move to prevent Russia’s conquest of Rumania, it seems like there were much better options for Turkey’s Bulgarian army. Still, we will see how things go in the future. Turkey now controls the Black Sea and Russia lacks the capacity to build another southern fleet, so he at least has secured a vital tactical position against Russia.
Russia
Ukraine MOVE Rumania -> resolved
Gulf of Bothnia MOVE Sweden -> resolved
Galicia MOVE Vienna -> resolved
Sevastopol SUPPORT Ukraine to Rumania -> Support cut by a arm - sev
Things went pretty well for Russia in the opening year. Poised to get three builds, Russia is emerging as a powerful eastern force. Probably the only unfortunate turn of events is Turkey’s occupancy of the Black Sea. I am fairly surprised that Russia did not use her fleet to block the Black Sea again. Even though that would risk Turkey not making a move for the Black Sea and then walking into Sevastopol, the army in Sevastopol would be entirely cut off and could be forced out with the subsequent Russian builds. Of course, such a tactic would be a gamble, since none of Russia’s secured builds were guaranteed, so Russia’s choice was perhaps safer even if it gives Turkey a decent position despite his smaller force.
Position in Spring 1902, following 1901 BuildsBuilds 1901
Britain
BUILD fleet London -> resolved
BUILD fleet Edinburgh -> resolved
Britain has managed to leverage his builds into a truly impressive navy. Any future builds should most likely be armies, but a four fleet force puts Britain in a decently secure position. The lack of a fleet in Liverpool is at least a nod in the direction of Anglo-French relations, though Britain could still make a go at the English Channel.
France
BUILD army Paris -> resolved
BUILD fleet Brest -> resolved
Despite his overwhelming naval superiority, Britain should be at least a little wary of France’s builds. The fleet in Brest has few targets other than the English Channel that could not been more effectively targeted by armies, particularly since the Portuguese fleet has few other movement options other than back into the Mid-Atlantic Ocean (he could move his fleet to one of Spain’s coasts, but then it would have made more sense to simply put his fleet there in the first place).
Germany
BUILD army Munich -> resolved
BUILD fleet Kiel -> resolved
Germany’s build choices are probably the least surprising; he has tensions with the British which makes a fleet in Kiel a natural choice, and an army in Munich puts to rest the worry of a French stab from Burgundy.
Russia
BUILD army Warsaw -> resolved
BUILD army Moscow -> resolved
BUILD fleet St. Petersburg (South Coast) -> resolved
The only choice Russia had with his builds was what to put in St. Petersburg. The choice of a fleet in the south coast is quite surprising, and should be making Germany very nervous. With Austria-Hungary facing an early elimination and Russia in possession of a powerful army that needs to go somewhere, the potential of a pair of Russian fleets operating around the Baltic Sea can only be bad news for the German Empire.
Turkey
No builds?
This was perhaps the most surprising development, with Turkey forgetting to build a new unit. If this means that the Turkish player has dropped out of the game, this is bad news for everyone except Russia. Italy and Austria-Hungary may both feel some relief, but the benefit to Russia stands to quickly outweigh their short-term benefits of a Turkish drop-out.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Anatomy of a Diplomacy Player
I wrote a while ago about the game of Diplomacy (part I, part II, and part III). I have recently been thinking more about the game since I was invited to play my first game ‘by post’ (in the modern sense by playing online). Much has been written about various strategies for the game, so I thought it would be well worth instead concentrating on the characteristics of the players themselves. An important thing to realize about Diplomacy is that not everyone will enjoy it, but for those that do, there isn’t really another game like it. Thus, what follows is an attempt to compile a list of aspects of Diplomacy which should be considered if one is thinking about trying the game.
Play is Methodical
A game of Diplomacy develops slowly; every turn takes about twenty to thirty minutes (when playing face-to-face) or several days to weeks (when playing by post). Most of the pleasure of the game results from methodical contemplation and careful planning. Likewise, there is no chance in Diplomacy aside from the choices of the other players, which makes tactical planning a fascinating mental exercise of projecting moves and counter-moves. If a player enjoys games like chess, then Diplomacy could be worth trying.
There is another aspect to the methodical nature of Diplomacy that is not reflected in Chess: the amount of writing involved. When playing face-to-face or in some methods of post play, all orders must be written (in a particular format, no less), and when playing by post most correspondence will be mostly written (I have heard of some players coordination moves by phone or by meeting up, but that is less common than electronic or, for old-school players, paper messages). I have tried to introduce the game to some friends who have flat-out balked at the amount of writing involved. In this sense roleplaying games like Dungeons and Dragons which require careful maintenance of a character sheet (or entire worlds if one is the DM) are a better example of the type of necessary disposition.
If you find this difficult
Although there really isn’t a way to make Diplomacy a faster paced game, there are options and variants which can reduce the burden of these aspects. If you find writing out orders according to a stringently enforced syntax to be frustrating, one can try playing with electronic engines (through the web such as with playdiplomacy.com or on one’s computer using an engine like jDip) which allow more intuitive point-and-click interfaces for orders.
Additionally, a variant which might be of interest is one which is usually called ‘Gunboat Diplomacy’ or ‘No-press Diplomacy’ and disallows direct communication between players (although much can be communicated through orders, much like bidding in Bridge). The pace of a gunboat game tends to be faster than standard games due to the lack of a distinct Diplomacy phase, and therefore might be of more interest to those who finding composing messages and maintaining relationships burdensome.
Players Must Handle Losing
This is a difficult characteristic to find, particularly among methodical game players (who tend to like games, and therefore play a lot of games and get rather good at them). However, there is no getting around the fact that Diplomacy is difficult. There are seven people playing who generally would all like to win, and thus the game becomes a volatile mixture of competing interests. Even the best players will face stagnation or outright elimination in a large number of games they play.
Although there are other games that support a large number of players (for example, Settlers of Catan with its expansion can have six players), those games are able to mitigate the fact that only one of those players can win by having every player simultaneously advancing and accomplishing small goals in a steady progression toward victory. In Diplomacy, however, it is a very real possibility that one’s forces will be whittled down before one is eliminated from the game entirely.
If you find this difficult
I am going to combine this section with the response to the next section, as they are closely related.
Players Must Handle Being Stabbed
Closely related to being able to lose without getting too upset is the capacity to be stabbed in the back (obviously metaphorically). Everyone who plays games knows that losing happens, but what makes Diplomacy different is that almost all losses come at the hands of a coalition of other players, with one or more of those players professing friendship (or, at the very least, ambivalence) right up until the devastating moment of the strike. In a game like Settlers of Catan a trade boycott might be enacted against the strongest player, or a player might spitefully refuse to trade with a particular opponent, but players cannot connive to directly destroy one another.
Of course, I’m not saying that one must like getting stabbed, but it is important to recognize that it is not (or, at least, should not be) a personal vendetta that has led to one player promising one set of moves and instead making another. There are all sorts of moral codes and guidelines that various enthusiasts have developed over the years outlining when one should and should not go about putting the metaphorical knife in another player’s back, but I feel such an exercise is largely useless. The only point I think that everyone needs to be aware of at the outset of the game is that it is a game. When France promises to support England's convoy into Belgium with the French fleet sitting in the English Channel, but then instead sails into a now vacant London, England will obviously be miffed. The important thing is to make sure that any hurt or anger experienced is transient; if one finds oneself holding grudges well past the end of the game or against the other player as a person rather than as a Diplomacy player, then perhaps Diplomacy is not a game one should be playing. Not only will it be hard to have fun if you are always finding yourself nurturing ill-will toward other players, but spoiling friendships over a board game would be a terrible waste.
If you find this difficult
Richard Sharp makes the claim in his book The Game of Diplomacy that ‘good ally’ players (those who make alliances and doggedly stick with them through the entire game, come what may) are beginners much more often than experienced players (the other extreme is that new players try to be too diplomatically slippery and make a lot of very poor stabs). While I think he is unfairly hostile to the ‘good ally’ style of play (there is nothing inherently wrong with it, so long as the alliance itself is a spontaneous entity contained to the single game and not simply two players deciding to ally in every game regardless of what happens), I do not think he is wrong about the demographics of ‘good ally’ players. Richard Sharp does not make any attempt to address the reason for such a tendency, though, and I think that is something which is important to bring up. Handling being stabbed is a psychological skill, and it takes practice. Beginners are less likely to recognize the stab as a pragmatic maneuver on the part of their erstwhile allies, and are instead more likely to interpret it as a personal betrayal. This, in turn, also makes beginners less likely to execute stabs themselves, since they see it as a personal affront to another player whom they hold no actual ill will against.
Therefore, I think one manner of getting over a difficulty with the harsher diplomatic aspects of the game is to play a few more games, but treat the games as practice and consciously start the game with low expectations. A good way to do this is to play online with players you have never met. Take some risks and see what happens. See if you can predict when your allies will backstab you, as predicting a stab is the first step in preventing it. Keep in mind that these games are practice, and in that way keep yourself emotionally distant. Once this has been accomplished in a few practice games, you will realize that there is no great shame in losing or being stabbed in the back, and it should be easier to maintain that resilience in other games of Diplomacy.
Play is Methodical
A game of Diplomacy develops slowly; every turn takes about twenty to thirty minutes (when playing face-to-face) or several days to weeks (when playing by post). Most of the pleasure of the game results from methodical contemplation and careful planning. Likewise, there is no chance in Diplomacy aside from the choices of the other players, which makes tactical planning a fascinating mental exercise of projecting moves and counter-moves. If a player enjoys games like chess, then Diplomacy could be worth trying.
There is another aspect to the methodical nature of Diplomacy that is not reflected in Chess: the amount of writing involved. When playing face-to-face or in some methods of post play, all orders must be written (in a particular format, no less), and when playing by post most correspondence will be mostly written (I have heard of some players coordination moves by phone or by meeting up, but that is less common than electronic or, for old-school players, paper messages). I have tried to introduce the game to some friends who have flat-out balked at the amount of writing involved. In this sense roleplaying games like Dungeons and Dragons which require careful maintenance of a character sheet (or entire worlds if one is the DM) are a better example of the type of necessary disposition.
If you find this difficult
Although there really isn’t a way to make Diplomacy a faster paced game, there are options and variants which can reduce the burden of these aspects. If you find writing out orders according to a stringently enforced syntax to be frustrating, one can try playing with electronic engines (through the web such as with playdiplomacy.com or on one’s computer using an engine like jDip) which allow more intuitive point-and-click interfaces for orders.
Additionally, a variant which might be of interest is one which is usually called ‘Gunboat Diplomacy’ or ‘No-press Diplomacy’ and disallows direct communication between players (although much can be communicated through orders, much like bidding in Bridge). The pace of a gunboat game tends to be faster than standard games due to the lack of a distinct Diplomacy phase, and therefore might be of more interest to those who finding composing messages and maintaining relationships burdensome.
Players Must Handle Losing
This is a difficult characteristic to find, particularly among methodical game players (who tend to like games, and therefore play a lot of games and get rather good at them). However, there is no getting around the fact that Diplomacy is difficult. There are seven people playing who generally would all like to win, and thus the game becomes a volatile mixture of competing interests. Even the best players will face stagnation or outright elimination in a large number of games they play.
Although there are other games that support a large number of players (for example, Settlers of Catan with its expansion can have six players), those games are able to mitigate the fact that only one of those players can win by having every player simultaneously advancing and accomplishing small goals in a steady progression toward victory. In Diplomacy, however, it is a very real possibility that one’s forces will be whittled down before one is eliminated from the game entirely.
If you find this difficult
I am going to combine this section with the response to the next section, as they are closely related.
Players Must Handle Being Stabbed
Closely related to being able to lose without getting too upset is the capacity to be stabbed in the back (obviously metaphorically). Everyone who plays games knows that losing happens, but what makes Diplomacy different is that almost all losses come at the hands of a coalition of other players, with one or more of those players professing friendship (or, at the very least, ambivalence) right up until the devastating moment of the strike. In a game like Settlers of Catan a trade boycott might be enacted against the strongest player, or a player might spitefully refuse to trade with a particular opponent, but players cannot connive to directly destroy one another.
Of course, I’m not saying that one must like getting stabbed, but it is important to recognize that it is not (or, at least, should not be) a personal vendetta that has led to one player promising one set of moves and instead making another. There are all sorts of moral codes and guidelines that various enthusiasts have developed over the years outlining when one should and should not go about putting the metaphorical knife in another player’s back, but I feel such an exercise is largely useless. The only point I think that everyone needs to be aware of at the outset of the game is that it is a game. When France promises to support England's convoy into Belgium with the French fleet sitting in the English Channel, but then instead sails into a now vacant London, England will obviously be miffed. The important thing is to make sure that any hurt or anger experienced is transient; if one finds oneself holding grudges well past the end of the game or against the other player as a person rather than as a Diplomacy player, then perhaps Diplomacy is not a game one should be playing. Not only will it be hard to have fun if you are always finding yourself nurturing ill-will toward other players, but spoiling friendships over a board game would be a terrible waste.
If you find this difficult
Richard Sharp makes the claim in his book The Game of Diplomacy that ‘good ally’ players (those who make alliances and doggedly stick with them through the entire game, come what may) are beginners much more often than experienced players (the other extreme is that new players try to be too diplomatically slippery and make a lot of very poor stabs). While I think he is unfairly hostile to the ‘good ally’ style of play (there is nothing inherently wrong with it, so long as the alliance itself is a spontaneous entity contained to the single game and not simply two players deciding to ally in every game regardless of what happens), I do not think he is wrong about the demographics of ‘good ally’ players. Richard Sharp does not make any attempt to address the reason for such a tendency, though, and I think that is something which is important to bring up. Handling being stabbed is a psychological skill, and it takes practice. Beginners are less likely to recognize the stab as a pragmatic maneuver on the part of their erstwhile allies, and are instead more likely to interpret it as a personal betrayal. This, in turn, also makes beginners less likely to execute stabs themselves, since they see it as a personal affront to another player whom they hold no actual ill will against.
Therefore, I think one manner of getting over a difficulty with the harsher diplomatic aspects of the game is to play a few more games, but treat the games as practice and consciously start the game with low expectations. A good way to do this is to play online with players you have never met. Take some risks and see what happens. See if you can predict when your allies will backstab you, as predicting a stab is the first step in preventing it. Keep in mind that these games are practice, and in that way keep yourself emotionally distant. Once this has been accomplished in a few practice games, you will realize that there is no great shame in losing or being stabbed in the back, and it should be easier to maintain that resilience in other games of Diplomacy.
Note: If you are going to read Richard Sharp's book that I have linked to, it is also a good idea to read this review. As the reviewer points out, Sharp writes well, but is exceedingly biased toward the central powers of Germany and Austria-Hungary, to the point of advocating play styles that are not necessarily in the best interests of the players involved. It can easily come about that France and England (or France and Russia, England and Russia, or even France, England, and Russia if Germany is particularly unlucky) might find it in their best interest to attack Germany early and hard, despite Sharp's view that France and England must immediately be at each other's throats and it is foolhardy for Russia to do anything but yield gracefully to the German Empire.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
"In a garb of black, we must pay respect to the colour we're born to mourn"
It came to my attention a couple days ago that there has been a sad loss this past week. Dave Arneson, one of the creators of Dungeons and Dragons, passed away. With Gary Gygax's death having happened only last year, it would seem an era of geek gaming has come to an end.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
A Boggle Board I Liked
While I have had nominations before for nerdiest post I've ever written, this one might be a tough contender for dorkiest, saddest, and most trivial. You see, I was trying to relax my brain without getting sucked into anything too time consuming, so I decided to play a couple rounds of Boggle (if you've never played the game before, it's a great game and a description can be found here) with myself (so I wasn't actually playing, but was more just seeing what interesting words I could find until it seemed like I had exhausted everything). Judge me all you want, but while doing so I came up with the following arrangement of letters:
W H O C
N U E R
E T E O
R I T T
While the board arrangement was amusing enough thanks to the fact that the first word that jumped out at me was 'whore', even more exciting than that was that this board contained not only the word 'teeter' but also 'totter'. It's kind of fun when things turn out nicely like that.
W H O C
N U E R
E T E O
R I T T
While the board arrangement was amusing enough thanks to the fact that the first word that jumped out at me was 'whore', even more exciting than that was that this board contained not only the word 'teeter' but also 'totter'. It's kind of fun when things turn out nicely like that.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Speed Scrabble
The other day I was hanging around the computer science student union while waiting for class when people started playing a game I had never heard of before called Speed Scrabble. While there is an entry on Wikipedia about a game called Speed Scrabble that bears a great deal of resemblance to the game played yesterday, there is enough of a difference that I will describe how we played in detail.
The game involves no board and, as far as I could tell, two full sets of letter tiles from the Scrabble game. These were placed face-down on the table, and each player selected fifteen tiles and placed them (still face-down) in front of them. Of those fifteen, eight tiles were placed to one side. On the declaration of "Go!", the seven remaining tiles were flipped and one proceeded to try and arrange their individual seven letters into words. As soon as one person used all seven letters, they would exclaim, "Go!" again and everyone would draw another one of their tiles. Once all fifteen tiles were flipped, whoever successfully used all tiles first would win. Because words that have already been formed can be broken up and their letters rearranged at any time, and because there is no score (other than perhaps counting the number of times you win), the beginning rounds may seem rather arbitrary and pointless (after all, it is really only the final round that matters for victory). It was interesting, however, to note that this was not actually the case. A good construction allowed one to have most letters already engaged, and thus with only a slight amount of finagling new letters could be added to the set. Of course, there was still a strong element of luck, as flipping an 'X' or 'Q' on the last turn could spell doom for even the most elegant and robust of setups.
Before I continue, there are a few additional rules to note. We used, for the most part, standard Scrabble rules about word construction. However, we played with the 'sissy rule' that if one drew a Q and had no U, he is allowed to push the Q to one side and draw a new letter from the central collection. However, if one does have a U (even if it is buried deep within an excellent word that one would really rather not break apart), the Q must be retained and played. The other major rule change was that one could have multiples of a word. For example, one could do this:
H I T
I
T
If I am not mistaken, that is not allowed in normal Scrabble play. One of the contentious areas of the rules, as always, is what words are allowed. While it is easy to rule out proper nouns and blatantly foreign words, archaic words or words adapted from other languages (such as quo from "Quid pro quo") were a matter of debate. This arose at one point in which I had spelt the word "DOGE" (the head of the Venetian city state in the middle ages), and it was ruled by the other players as not allowed. After the game, however, one of the other players agreed that it was a grey area when I asked him if "TSAR" would have been allowed (or, if you need to use up a 'Z', "CZAR" or "TZAR").
Anyway, back to the actual playing of the game. During the first few rounds I was enamoured with the idea of making one long main word with only a few tiny branches off. While such a strategy has some merits, what I found later to be much more effective was utilizing as much as possible nested structures of shorter words, like the construction shown below (please ignore the underscores, it is to avoid my white space from disappearing):
P A N
_ C
_ H I T
_ E _ I
_ D E N
This allows one to raid one or two letters easily without destroying the rest of one's words, for example if, in the above construction, one draws a 'D' tile. You can then remove an 'I' easily from either 'HIT' or 'TIN' and use that with the 'N' at the end of 'PAN' to make 'DIN' coming off the top.
Anyway, rather than blathering on about a silly word game I should be doing some work. I quite liked this game, though, because of its portability (all one needs is a container for the tiles) and relative simplicity. I'm also quite a fan of word games like this and Boggle because they tend to help build vocabulary (even though they are fairly restricted to short words, it is amazing how many words one can still learn through playing them (like 'doge')).
The game involves no board and, as far as I could tell, two full sets of letter tiles from the Scrabble game. These were placed face-down on the table, and each player selected fifteen tiles and placed them (still face-down) in front of them. Of those fifteen, eight tiles were placed to one side. On the declaration of "Go!", the seven remaining tiles were flipped and one proceeded to try and arrange their individual seven letters into words. As soon as one person used all seven letters, they would exclaim, "Go!" again and everyone would draw another one of their tiles. Once all fifteen tiles were flipped, whoever successfully used all tiles first would win. Because words that have already been formed can be broken up and their letters rearranged at any time, and because there is no score (other than perhaps counting the number of times you win), the beginning rounds may seem rather arbitrary and pointless (after all, it is really only the final round that matters for victory). It was interesting, however, to note that this was not actually the case. A good construction allowed one to have most letters already engaged, and thus with only a slight amount of finagling new letters could be added to the set. Of course, there was still a strong element of luck, as flipping an 'X' or 'Q' on the last turn could spell doom for even the most elegant and robust of setups.
Before I continue, there are a few additional rules to note. We used, for the most part, standard Scrabble rules about word construction. However, we played with the 'sissy rule' that if one drew a Q and had no U, he is allowed to push the Q to one side and draw a new letter from the central collection. However, if one does have a U (even if it is buried deep within an excellent word that one would really rather not break apart), the Q must be retained and played. The other major rule change was that one could have multiples of a word. For example, one could do this:
H I T
I
T
If I am not mistaken, that is not allowed in normal Scrabble play. One of the contentious areas of the rules, as always, is what words are allowed. While it is easy to rule out proper nouns and blatantly foreign words, archaic words or words adapted from other languages (such as quo from "Quid pro quo") were a matter of debate. This arose at one point in which I had spelt the word "DOGE" (the head of the Venetian city state in the middle ages), and it was ruled by the other players as not allowed. After the game, however, one of the other players agreed that it was a grey area when I asked him if "TSAR" would have been allowed (or, if you need to use up a 'Z', "CZAR" or "TZAR").
Anyway, back to the actual playing of the game. During the first few rounds I was enamoured with the idea of making one long main word with only a few tiny branches off. While such a strategy has some merits, what I found later to be much more effective was utilizing as much as possible nested structures of shorter words, like the construction shown below (please ignore the underscores, it is to avoid my white space from disappearing):
P A N
_ C
_ H I T
_ E _ I
_ D E N
This allows one to raid one or two letters easily without destroying the rest of one's words, for example if, in the above construction, one draws a 'D' tile. You can then remove an 'I' easily from either 'HIT' or 'TIN' and use that with the 'N' at the end of 'PAN' to make 'DIN' coming off the top.
Anyway, rather than blathering on about a silly word game I should be doing some work. I quite liked this game, though, because of its portability (all one needs is a container for the tiles) and relative simplicity. I'm also quite a fan of word games like this and Boggle because they tend to help build vocabulary (even though they are fairly restricted to short words, it is amazing how many words one can still learn through playing them (like 'doge')).
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Some Horrified Bafflement
Those that read the blog Pharyngula will already have been made aware of this, but I thought it was worth discussing here too. Apparently, the Christian Children's Fund turned down $17,000 in donations raised at GenCon this year because part of that money was raised by selling Dungeons and Dragons products. I find that such a confusing slap in the face. For a charity to say, "We don't want your money", they are basically labelling you as a vile, amoral, and corrupt element of society that has so tainted the money you are offering that it isn't worth accepting, despite the number of children that $17,000 could actually feed and clothe. The fact that somehow playing an imaginative game can make a person so morally reprehensible that their money is no longer acceptable by a charity I find just utterly baffling.
I suppose I should say one last thing before I end this. I don't understand what fuels the stigma against Dungeons and Dragons. It is a game (a rather fun one, in my opinion). Sure, it takes up a lot of time (which is why I haven't played in years), but that is partly what makes it so attractive for kids in junior high and high school who happen to not want to spend hours drinking, driving dangerously, and pursuing otherwise "high risk" behaviour that is so common in teenagers. It is a social activity for the socially awkward (and the not so socially awkward, as I have known some cool people who play D&D too). The fact that there are angels and demons and a pantheon of gods might be construed as corrupting, but one of the amazing things about D&D is, if you are a monotheistic nut who cannot handle a polytheistic religion even in a wholly and entirely ficitious universe, you can easily change those aspects. Replace the D&D pantheon with a single god (and perhaps his enemy, so for Christians Satan could be included as a force of evil). Then all clerics serve that god, and you can have them fight the forces of the devil for hours on end, making you feel spiritually superior as well as giving you something to pass the hours with.
Anyway, other than professing bafflement and I think some justified indignation, I'm not sure what else to say. There are plenty of other charities out there who do very similar things (like Plan USA), so I would suggest giving donations to them if you are looking for a charity to donate to.
I suppose I should say one last thing before I end this. I don't understand what fuels the stigma against Dungeons and Dragons. It is a game (a rather fun one, in my opinion). Sure, it takes up a lot of time (which is why I haven't played in years), but that is partly what makes it so attractive for kids in junior high and high school who happen to not want to spend hours drinking, driving dangerously, and pursuing otherwise "high risk" behaviour that is so common in teenagers. It is a social activity for the socially awkward (and the not so socially awkward, as I have known some cool people who play D&D too). The fact that there are angels and demons and a pantheon of gods might be construed as corrupting, but one of the amazing things about D&D is, if you are a monotheistic nut who cannot handle a polytheistic religion even in a wholly and entirely ficitious universe, you can easily change those aspects. Replace the D&D pantheon with a single god (and perhaps his enemy, so for Christians Satan could be included as a force of evil). Then all clerics serve that god, and you can have them fight the forces of the devil for hours on end, making you feel spiritually superior as well as giving you something to pass the hours with.
Anyway, other than professing bafflement and I think some justified indignation, I'm not sure what else to say. There are plenty of other charities out there who do very similar things (like Plan USA), so I would suggest giving donations to them if you are looking for a charity to donate to.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Game Review: Diplomacy, Part III: End Game Analysis
After many months, I figure it is time I finished my rudimentary analysis of the game Diplomacy. For reference, here are links to Part I (game description) and Part II (opening and mid-game analysis).
To briefly recap, the second stage of the game occurs when all (or at least most) of the neutral supply centres have been occupied by one of the seven major powers. Most players are on nearly equal footing in terms of military size, and the number of players means cooperation with at least one or two others is necessary to overcome an opponent (even though the game is zero-sum in terms of any progress made by one player is at the expense of another). The third and final stage of the game is difficult to concretely separate from the second, but it basically happens when some players begin to lose badly and others expand their military to impressive sizes of ten or more units. At this point one or two players may even be eliminated from the game. While in my experience this seems to happen most often to either Germany or Austria-Hungary (being in the centre is an unfortunate place to be), it doesn't always. Russia makes a large and tempting target, and a Russian leader lacking vigilance might find himself victim of a disastrous invasion from the north through Scandinavia, Finland, and the Barents Sea, or from the south (especially if the Turks manage to get a fleet in the Black Sea). Even Great Britain, which is notoriously difficult to invade (but, at the same time, notoriously difficult to expand from) can be defeated, especially if France and Germany team up and devote some resources to developing their fleets. If enemy ships manage to enter the English Channel and the North Sea, the British are in a lot of trouble.
Regardless of who has found their fortunes dwindling and their dreams of European dominance shattered, as the dust settles the remaining juggernauts begin to face the same predicament that spurred the first round of wars: to expand their empires, they need a target to conquer. The difference at this point, however, is that interactions between players are now often more complicated. Many turns have gone by in an alliance against a foe, but with that foe gone, players begin to wonder how long the alliance will continue. Additionally, those doing exceptionally well at this point begin to grow cocky; victory is looking more assured, as their militaries are now three to four times as powerful as they originally began. It is hard to give much analysis for this part of the game, since the situation is virtually impossible to predict. This is also the part of the game that I have the hardest time with, simply because I don't like the concept of backstabbing an ally. While it very often is advantageous to strike without warning (especially if you and your ally are doing equivalently well or he is even doing better), I have a hard time emotionally with that. It might sound like I am making myself out to be a nice guy here, but I'm not entirely sure that is the case, either. It could be a remnant of chivalry that makes me feel this way, but it could also be a testosterone driven alpha-male style arrogance in which I want my foe to know that I'm coming for him and still have no way of stopping me. I like to think it's the chivalry side of things, but who knows.
Anyway, I am wandering away from the topic at hand. Often people actually don't make it this far in Diplomacy (it is an awfully long game for a single sitting), and simply stop after a player or two is eliminated (or even before if time players need to leave) and simply count up the number of supply centres under each person's control, determining rank in that manner. I hope in my ruminations on the subject I have done Diplomacy justice, and perhaps I may also manage to convince some of my readers who actually know me and have always begged off playing to give it a shot.
To briefly recap, the second stage of the game occurs when all (or at least most) of the neutral supply centres have been occupied by one of the seven major powers. Most players are on nearly equal footing in terms of military size, and the number of players means cooperation with at least one or two others is necessary to overcome an opponent (even though the game is zero-sum in terms of any progress made by one player is at the expense of another). The third and final stage of the game is difficult to concretely separate from the second, but it basically happens when some players begin to lose badly and others expand their military to impressive sizes of ten or more units. At this point one or two players may even be eliminated from the game. While in my experience this seems to happen most often to either Germany or Austria-Hungary (being in the centre is an unfortunate place to be), it doesn't always. Russia makes a large and tempting target, and a Russian leader lacking vigilance might find himself victim of a disastrous invasion from the north through Scandinavia, Finland, and the Barents Sea, or from the south (especially if the Turks manage to get a fleet in the Black Sea). Even Great Britain, which is notoriously difficult to invade (but, at the same time, notoriously difficult to expand from) can be defeated, especially if France and Germany team up and devote some resources to developing their fleets. If enemy ships manage to enter the English Channel and the North Sea, the British are in a lot of trouble.
Regardless of who has found their fortunes dwindling and their dreams of European dominance shattered, as the dust settles the remaining juggernauts begin to face the same predicament that spurred the first round of wars: to expand their empires, they need a target to conquer. The difference at this point, however, is that interactions between players are now often more complicated. Many turns have gone by in an alliance against a foe, but with that foe gone, players begin to wonder how long the alliance will continue. Additionally, those doing exceptionally well at this point begin to grow cocky; victory is looking more assured, as their militaries are now three to four times as powerful as they originally began. It is hard to give much analysis for this part of the game, since the situation is virtually impossible to predict. This is also the part of the game that I have the hardest time with, simply because I don't like the concept of backstabbing an ally. While it very often is advantageous to strike without warning (especially if you and your ally are doing equivalently well or he is even doing better), I have a hard time emotionally with that. It might sound like I am making myself out to be a nice guy here, but I'm not entirely sure that is the case, either. It could be a remnant of chivalry that makes me feel this way, but it could also be a testosterone driven alpha-male style arrogance in which I want my foe to know that I'm coming for him and still have no way of stopping me. I like to think it's the chivalry side of things, but who knows.
Anyway, I am wandering away from the topic at hand. Often people actually don't make it this far in Diplomacy (it is an awfully long game for a single sitting), and simply stop after a player or two is eliminated (or even before if time players need to leave) and simply count up the number of supply centres under each person's control, determining rank in that manner. I hope in my ruminations on the subject I have done Diplomacy justice, and perhaps I may also manage to convince some of my readers who actually know me and have always begged off playing to give it a shot.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Game Review: Diplomacy, Part II: Opening and Mid-Game Analysis
A little while ago I devoted some time to describing the game Diplomacy. Here is the first continuation of that post, devoted to analysing what I find interesting about the game.
Note: A map of the board can be found here. When I mention specific territories, most of them have obvious three letter abbreviations (usually the first three letters of the territory's name), but if there is any confusion, the list of standard abbreviations can be found here.
The game has roughly three stages. The beginning of the game is characterized by many neutral supply centres available around the map for enterprising European powers to take over. For example, France pretty much immediately annexes the Iberian peninsula, netting the valuable pair of supply centres in Spain and Portugal. Italy picks up Tunis, Austria-Hungary envelopes Serbia, Turkey buffers their border with Bulgaria, Britain moves onto the continent by occupying Norway, and Germany grabs Denmark. Of course, this might not happen, but all of those captures are possible to perform without any interference from another player (as long as it is accomplished within the first year (two turns)). The only country that is not guaranteed to take control of a supply centre in their first year is Russia, and that is only if Germany decides to be a jerk and, in the first turn, moves the fleet in Kiel to Denmark then follows up the next turn by attempting to move that fleet to Sweden, likely blocking the fleet sailing out of St. Petersburg either through the Gulf of Bothnia or along the coast of Finland.
Similar to Sweden, there are a large number of more contentious supply centres scattered about the map. Romania is easily contested the first turn between the Austrian-Hungarians and the Russians (as long as the Russians are willing to not attempt moving their fleet into the Black Sea and risk the Turks occupying that vitally strategic body of water). Similarly, Greece is not immediately available to any power, but within two turns could be occupied by either the Italians, Austrian-Hungarians, or Turks. The Austrian-Hungarians and Italians are likely to already be wary of each other due to the border between Trieste and Venice, the only pair of starting supply centres that border each other. Like the triple entente created over the question of occupying Greece, the British, French, and Germans face a similar conundrum over the occupation of Belgium.
Anyway, so the first few turns consist mostly of people being self-absorbed with their own easy expansion. Initial rounds of diplomacy tend to be fairly sparse and open (at least with beginners to the game. Some veterans or avid fans of Machiavelli might leap headfirst into shadow and intrigue). At this point the game is not excessively interesting, as it is essentially a non-zero sum game where everyone wins. However, the degree to which one 'wins' (i.e. expands the size of one's military) can have massive ramifications on the following stages of the game.
The second stage of the game occurs within a few turns, and it happens when virtually all supply centres are occupied by one of the major powers. Here is where tensions begin to build. Essentially, all players are likely to be fairly evenly pitted with between four and six units under their control (seven or eight if they have done well, an opponent made some early blunders and failed to grab open supply centres, or they have already declared open war and are making remarkable progress). At this point the only way to increase one's position is at the expense of someone else. However, while in that sense it is a zero-sum game, the number of players makes cooperation (at least to a certain degree and with certain favoured allies) still the most effective strategy. This is when the game becomes psychologically interesting, as groups and pacts begin to form. Some alliances are forged out of fear (either of each other or a third party), and it is fear that makes doing excessively well in the opening rounds sometimes less desirable. For example, if France grabs the Iberian Peninsula (gaining two supply centres) as well as Belgium and Holland (giving a grand total of seven supply centres counting their starting territories of Paris, Brest, and Marseilles), the intimidating sea of light blue units might be enough to galvanize a disastrous alliance of Britain, Germany, and Italy. This is especially true since having a large number of units not only makes one powerful, and therefore fear inspiring, but it also makes one an attractive conquest since it leaves many supply centres to be neatly divided amongst the conquering parties. That said, in the situation just outlined an enterprising leader of France might manage to convince the Russians or Austrians to come to his aid with a promise of mutually beneficial spheres of influence divided between the two of them, thus forcing his German or Italian opponents to fight on two fronts. Other than fear as a motivating factor, one also needs to contend with greed and an odd sense of temporary goodwill (of course, an exhaustive list is unlikely to be generated, since one can always come up with a fairly unique motivational mindset, but I think the biggest two are fear and greed. Perhaps I only think that, though, because I've been reading Machiavelli lately).
Of course, I am once again getting caught up in details when I intended to give an overview. Beyond the psychological interest of the second stage of the game there is also an interesting mechanical aspect to it as the players learn how best to maneuver their troops and vie for strategic territories. While the Black Sea is of immediate strategic importance for the Turks and Russians from the very beginning and the border between Trieste and Venice sparks immediate tensions for the Austrian-Hugarians and Italians, several other territories that are not supply centres take on an increasingly important role in any but the most trusting of relationships (or relationships characterized by completely ignoring each other due to focusing on another front): the English Channel between England and France, Burgundy between France and Germany, Piedmont between France and Italy, Bohemia between Germany and Austria-Hungary, Galacia between Russia and Austria-Hungary, and the whole mess that is the Balkans between, mainly, Austria-Hungary and Turkey but also of significant importance to Italy and Russia. Of course, there are other territories that can also become quite significant. The North Sea is vital for anyone trying to attack Britain from the east, Scandinavia can become quite hotly contested between Britain, Germany, and Russia, and sometimes something completely unpredictable happens (such as one game I played in which Russia sailed a lone fleet all the way around the edge of the map and happened to snag Portugal from the French).
For the final stage of the game and some more fancifully meandering analysis, stay tuned for part III.
Note: A map of the board can be found here. When I mention specific territories, most of them have obvious three letter abbreviations (usually the first three letters of the territory's name), but if there is any confusion, the list of standard abbreviations can be found here.
The game has roughly three stages. The beginning of the game is characterized by many neutral supply centres available around the map for enterprising European powers to take over. For example, France pretty much immediately annexes the Iberian peninsula, netting the valuable pair of supply centres in Spain and Portugal. Italy picks up Tunis, Austria-Hungary envelopes Serbia, Turkey buffers their border with Bulgaria, Britain moves onto the continent by occupying Norway, and Germany grabs Denmark. Of course, this might not happen, but all of those captures are possible to perform without any interference from another player (as long as it is accomplished within the first year (two turns)). The only country that is not guaranteed to take control of a supply centre in their first year is Russia, and that is only if Germany decides to be a jerk and, in the first turn, moves the fleet in Kiel to Denmark then follows up the next turn by attempting to move that fleet to Sweden, likely blocking the fleet sailing out of St. Petersburg either through the Gulf of Bothnia or along the coast of Finland.
Similar to Sweden, there are a large number of more contentious supply centres scattered about the map. Romania is easily contested the first turn between the Austrian-Hungarians and the Russians (as long as the Russians are willing to not attempt moving their fleet into the Black Sea and risk the Turks occupying that vitally strategic body of water). Similarly, Greece is not immediately available to any power, but within two turns could be occupied by either the Italians, Austrian-Hungarians, or Turks. The Austrian-Hungarians and Italians are likely to already be wary of each other due to the border between Trieste and Venice, the only pair of starting supply centres that border each other. Like the triple entente created over the question of occupying Greece, the British, French, and Germans face a similar conundrum over the occupation of Belgium.
Anyway, so the first few turns consist mostly of people being self-absorbed with their own easy expansion. Initial rounds of diplomacy tend to be fairly sparse and open (at least with beginners to the game. Some veterans or avid fans of Machiavelli might leap headfirst into shadow and intrigue). At this point the game is not excessively interesting, as it is essentially a non-zero sum game where everyone wins. However, the degree to which one 'wins' (i.e. expands the size of one's military) can have massive ramifications on the following stages of the game.
The second stage of the game occurs within a few turns, and it happens when virtually all supply centres are occupied by one of the major powers. Here is where tensions begin to build. Essentially, all players are likely to be fairly evenly pitted with between four and six units under their control (seven or eight if they have done well, an opponent made some early blunders and failed to grab open supply centres, or they have already declared open war and are making remarkable progress). At this point the only way to increase one's position is at the expense of someone else. However, while in that sense it is a zero-sum game, the number of players makes cooperation (at least to a certain degree and with certain favoured allies) still the most effective strategy. This is when the game becomes psychologically interesting, as groups and pacts begin to form. Some alliances are forged out of fear (either of each other or a third party), and it is fear that makes doing excessively well in the opening rounds sometimes less desirable. For example, if France grabs the Iberian Peninsula (gaining two supply centres) as well as Belgium and Holland (giving a grand total of seven supply centres counting their starting territories of Paris, Brest, and Marseilles), the intimidating sea of light blue units might be enough to galvanize a disastrous alliance of Britain, Germany, and Italy. This is especially true since having a large number of units not only makes one powerful, and therefore fear inspiring, but it also makes one an attractive conquest since it leaves many supply centres to be neatly divided amongst the conquering parties. That said, in the situation just outlined an enterprising leader of France might manage to convince the Russians or Austrians to come to his aid with a promise of mutually beneficial spheres of influence divided between the two of them, thus forcing his German or Italian opponents to fight on two fronts. Other than fear as a motivating factor, one also needs to contend with greed and an odd sense of temporary goodwill (of course, an exhaustive list is unlikely to be generated, since one can always come up with a fairly unique motivational mindset, but I think the biggest two are fear and greed. Perhaps I only think that, though, because I've been reading Machiavelli lately).
Of course, I am once again getting caught up in details when I intended to give an overview. Beyond the psychological interest of the second stage of the game there is also an interesting mechanical aspect to it as the players learn how best to maneuver their troops and vie for strategic territories. While the Black Sea is of immediate strategic importance for the Turks and Russians from the very beginning and the border between Trieste and Venice sparks immediate tensions for the Austrian-Hugarians and Italians, several other territories that are not supply centres take on an increasingly important role in any but the most trusting of relationships (or relationships characterized by completely ignoring each other due to focusing on another front): the English Channel between England and France, Burgundy between France and Germany, Piedmont between France and Italy, Bohemia between Germany and Austria-Hungary, Galacia between Russia and Austria-Hungary, and the whole mess that is the Balkans between, mainly, Austria-Hungary and Turkey but also of significant importance to Italy and Russia. Of course, there are other territories that can also become quite significant. The North Sea is vital for anyone trying to attack Britain from the east, Scandinavia can become quite hotly contested between Britain, Germany, and Russia, and sometimes something completely unpredictable happens (such as one game I played in which Russia sailed a lone fleet all the way around the edge of the map and happened to snag Portugal from the French).
For the final stage of the game and some more fancifully meandering analysis, stay tuned for part III.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Game Review: Diplomacy, Part I: The Description
A few days ago I briefly explained the concept of a game called Diplomacy to some people in my lab, and afterwards I thought it might make an interesting post to explain why I find it such a fascinating game. I will start with a brief overview of the game before moving into my analysis of it, so if you are familiar with the game you might want to skip this post and simply wait for Part II.
Diplomacy is set just before the outbreak of World War I. There are ideally seven players (although there are alternative rules for playing with fewer people) with each player controlling one of the great European powers of the time: Britain, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Turkey, or Russia. The game is played on a map of Europe (with a little bit of Africa's northern bits showing up). The map is split into many smaller territories (some represent specific regions within a country, such as Burgundy and the Rhine, while others represent entire countries such as Belgium or Spain). A selection of the territories are labeled as "supply centres". Control of these important territories allows a player to construct and maintain a fleet or army. Losing control of supply centres, such that a player is left without enough to support their units on the board, forces that player to remove enough units to balance the difference. The object of the game is to gain control of the majority of the supply centres (18 of 32), at which point the player's country is deemed to be the dominating force in Europe and he wins.
The game-play is interesting in that all units are of identical strength (the difference between an army and a fleet is solely in the territories over which it can operate) and all turns happen simultaneously. Without any dice rolling or other randomness, the only way to win a battle is to overwhelm your foe with greater numbers. This is achieved by supporting troops in either attack or defense. The catch is the support does not need to come from your own troops, but could be delivered by rival nations (for example, a British fleet could support a French army attacking a German army in Belgium, allowing the French to capture Belgium as long as the German army had no defensive support). This is where diplomacy becomes necessary and the simultaneous resolution of turns makes things interesting. Each turn has a period of diplomacy lasting fifteen minutes in which all players are free to discuss their strategies with each other (usually in small, carefully monitored groups of two or three individuals). The players then write their orders on pieces of paper and deliver them to a pile, at which point all the orders are read aloud and resolved. Thus, the British player might tell the French player that he is supporting his attack on Belgium, but in actuality he has agreed to aid the Germans by instead moving his fleet into the French port of Brest and cut off that supply centre, likely causing the failure of the French assault on Belgium and forcing the French player to disband one of his armies or fleets before the next turn.
Hopefully that gives a clear overview of the game. Next post addressing this topic will delve into the aspects of the game that I find make it exceedingly interesting.
Diplomacy is set just before the outbreak of World War I. There are ideally seven players (although there are alternative rules for playing with fewer people) with each player controlling one of the great European powers of the time: Britain, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Turkey, or Russia. The game is played on a map of Europe (with a little bit of Africa's northern bits showing up). The map is split into many smaller territories (some represent specific regions within a country, such as Burgundy and the Rhine, while others represent entire countries such as Belgium or Spain). A selection of the territories are labeled as "supply centres". Control of these important territories allows a player to construct and maintain a fleet or army. Losing control of supply centres, such that a player is left without enough to support their units on the board, forces that player to remove enough units to balance the difference. The object of the game is to gain control of the majority of the supply centres (18 of 32), at which point the player's country is deemed to be the dominating force in Europe and he wins.
The game-play is interesting in that all units are of identical strength (the difference between an army and a fleet is solely in the territories over which it can operate) and all turns happen simultaneously. Without any dice rolling or other randomness, the only way to win a battle is to overwhelm your foe with greater numbers. This is achieved by supporting troops in either attack or defense. The catch is the support does not need to come from your own troops, but could be delivered by rival nations (for example, a British fleet could support a French army attacking a German army in Belgium, allowing the French to capture Belgium as long as the German army had no defensive support). This is where diplomacy becomes necessary and the simultaneous resolution of turns makes things interesting. Each turn has a period of diplomacy lasting fifteen minutes in which all players are free to discuss their strategies with each other (usually in small, carefully monitored groups of two or three individuals). The players then write their orders on pieces of paper and deliver them to a pile, at which point all the orders are read aloud and resolved. Thus, the British player might tell the French player that he is supporting his attack on Belgium, but in actuality he has agreed to aid the Germans by instead moving his fleet into the French port of Brest and cut off that supply centre, likely causing the failure of the French assault on Belgium and forcing the French player to disband one of his armies or fleets before the next turn.
Hopefully that gives a clear overview of the game. Next post addressing this topic will delve into the aspects of the game that I find make it exceedingly interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
