cad@cbosgd.UUCP (Chuck A DeGaul) (05/30/84)
(The author has no connection with the game what-so-ever. His comments are merely intended for the edification and amusement of the readers.) It looks like we will be treated to two Diplomacy games on the net at the same time. While game #1 may have some problems due to the gamemaster's peculiar interpretation of the "bounce" or failed move rules, this one may be more worth our time. I will undertake to make comments about both (calling them the Reynolds game and the Peak game) but if Brian continues to insist on warping the rules, or if any more show up, I will not discuss them. If someone else wants to, be my guest. Peak Game - Spring 1901 - Comments by country: Austria: The Austrians have made a somewhat dull, but sound move. It would appear that relations with Turkey and Russia are cordial, although an Austro-Turkey alliance seems likely. Relations with Italy are unsettled -- the move to Trieste should worry the Italians -- and A-Tri is far less useful than A-Bud or even A-Vie. I prefer A-Vie Holds in Spring 1901. The Italians may prove meddlesome, but their opening move should worry France more than Austria. Britain: A completely standard move. The French move to Picardy may indicate an attempt to coordinate against Belgium. As in the Reynolds game, the fleet North Sea has a number of intriguing possibilities, due to the less-than-aggressive German move. The British can deny Holland to the Germans, Belgium to the French, or support either. A-Lvp to York indicates a slight mistrust of French, since A-Lvp to Edn is usually preferred, giving as it does, more Fall choices. France: I am frequently asked why the move to Picardy by Army-Paris is usually not France's best opening move. This game provides a partial answer. The Picardy Army is completely helpless to aid the defense of Marseilles now, and France's success in the Fall is completely dependent on the whims of her opponents. France is fortunate that Italy and Germany weren't more decisive and had arranged Army Venice -> Piedmont plus A Munich -> Burgundy. France faces a very tricky Fall move and will have to trust Italy, Germany and England more than should be necessary at this stage. Germany: A puzzling first move. A Berlin -> Munich is only reasonable if a move to Tyrolia by either Italy or Austria is anticipated. This may be exactly what happened, but since no such move occurred, the Army in Munich is now badly out of place. It will require cooperation from England to nail down 2 builds in the Fall, something the Germans can usually guarantee themselves. Still, seems better than leaving A Berlin idle. Italy: Italy's move may look aggressive, and the French have every reason to be concerned, but actually, from Italy's point of view, this move is a defensive one. The Italian armies now "threaten" both Marseilles and Trieste, rather than only Trieste. Italy appears more neutral (in an aggressive sort of way) than when only Trieste was "threatened". If a Turko-Austria deal is in the works, Italy must be very careful. If Turkey and Austria are carving up the Balkans and southern Russia, Italy may be next on the menu. The Italian player is showing some early signs of confusion though. Apparently not on glowing terms with the Austrians, and trying to play a land-muscle game, the Italians could be missing the boat. Italy is really an island nation, somewhat like England, and should plan accordingly. Russia: It appears that the Tsar's negotiations with Turkey and Austria over the Balkan hotbed have not quite come out as planned. Certainly the Turkish move to Armenia was unexpected, or the Sevastopol fleet would have gone to sea. Now Russia must figure out how to prevent the loss of Sevastopol. Holding both Sevastopol and Rumania will be very difficult without help from the, possibly, disinterested Austrians. At least, Cousin Wilhelm in Germany poses no immediate threat. Turkey: Banzai! The Turks, helped a bit by the lack of foresight by the Russians are in excellent shape to cause trouble for Russia. If the Austrians have agreed to help, Russia will need some friends quickly. The Rumania-Sevastopol-Bulgaria triangle holds so many intriguing move possibilities that one can go over and over them forever. The Turks have good possibilities for two builds -- rare in 1901. General Comments: Generally, a conservative opening move. Tactical errors by France and Russia have resulted in the Italian and Turkish moves looking better than they perhaps should. Nonetheless, the Fall will be enlightening. Will France botch its 3 build opportunity and end up with only 1? Can Russia stave of an early disaster in the South? Is Austria simply Turkey's dupe, or has a Balkan carve-up been nailed down? Just what IS Germany up to? And how mean are the Italians going to be? Answers to these questions and more in the Fall. Your Foreign Correspondent, ---> Chuck A DeGaul <--- P.S. More on the Reynolds interpretation of a failed move: looking back in the archives, I notice that Mr. Reynolds did publish a clarifying remark about handling retreats. I certainly read that as a legitimate interpretation of the "dislodgment" rules. In fact, it is a rather correct one. But a unit whose move has failed because of inadequate support is not entitled to a RETREAT. Its move simply fails. I suppose if Brian believes that all his players understood his thinking on this, and they all agreed to play the game in that manner, then his game is "legitimate" -- it just isn't Diplomacy. I'm not interested in rethinking evaluation parameters built up over many years of playing the correct rules. My apologies to Mr. Reynolds if my earlier article offended. My position is clear, however, "bounces" and not "retreats" and his interpretation is totally contrary to the game.