andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) (10/29/85)
[is this where the dippy people hang out?]
We've been playing real-time Diplomacy here lately, but we have not
yet gotten the 7 people necessary for the full game. Thus we have been
encountering the joys of playing the variants recommended in the rules for
4, 5, and 6 players. I would appreciate someone correcting or expanding the
following comments on these variants.
6 players: The Italian units hold in position. This seems to be mainly
to the great benefit of France, who is free to take over the Mediterranean
as far as Tunis without much competition. If Austria races to compete with
France, it will lose out in the Balkans and leave itself vulnerable to attack.
Alternatively, France can concentrate on the Low Countries and not worry about
Italian attack; the Austrian and Turkish navies won't be threatening Iberia for
years to come.
5 players: Ditto for France, but the German units holding means that
England must also reap a big windfall. It has two builds assured, and can
safely go for Holland in '01, picking up Denmark in '02. In this variant,
therefore, the big question seems to be: how can Russia and Austria prevent
England and France from totally taking over, while protecting their rears
against possible Turkish treachery? It's certainly not easy, given that
the Balkan conflict often takes up much of Russia's and Austria's time in
the normal 7-player game!
Possibly the best strategy would be for R and A to simply throw
everything west except one unit each, and try to negotiate some settlement
with the Ottomans (which will probably include the forfeit of Greece, ugh).
4 players: The alliances, you may recall, are France/Austria,
Germany/Turkey, and Russia/Italy (the 4th player plays England alone). Of
these, the most dangerous seems to be the Russian/Italian one, insofar as this
player can invade A-H territory immediately and quickly join forces. If A-H
doesn't take this threat seriously (as I didn't when I played it) he can
quickly get wiped off the board.
The best A-H opening in this case seems to be A Bud-Ser, A Vie-Gal,
F Tri-Ven and forget about Greece (correct me if I'm wrong). Otherwise the
threat of Russ. A War-Gal and Ital. A Ven-Trl or -Tri is too great. Although
the prospect of going for Munich with the help of the allied French unit is
enticing, I don't think it can be recommended.
Question: is a "kamikaze" strategy a good idea in this variant?
I can imagine the Russia/Italy player deciding, for instance, that Italy is
just going to be a nuisance to France and Austria by attacking their home
supply centres and competing for their "free" ones; in this case Italy wouldn't
get very far, but neither would France or Austria, and Russia and possibly
Germany or England would pick up the slack. The France/Austria player might
follow a similar policy for Austria.
In summary, I guess we should remember that, in any case, diplomacy is
the great equalizer in Diplomacy. If you're not a good diplomat, then
you have (e.g.) more of a chance with France and less with Austria-Hungary;
but even if that's the case, it still is of value to know the relative
strengths of the various powers. Maybe you can convince the other players
that even if you're the only immediate loser, everyone should maximize their
attacks on the powers that have the greatest natural advantage.
--Jamie.
...!ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews ,
"Viens, voir les musiciens, voir les magiciens, voir les comediens"jrrt@mtuxo.UUCP (r.mitchell) (10/29/85)
Jamie Andrews (andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP) has some interesting observations
about DIPLOMACY games with fewer than 7 players. I've rarely played
such games, but I thought I'd respond to Jamie's comments with some
commentary from THE GAMER'S GUIDE TO DIPLOMACY (Avalon Hill's large
booklet of strategy tips and ideas).
6 players:...This seems to be mainly to the great benefit of
France, who is free to take over the Mediterranean as far as Tunis
without much competition.
According to TGGTD, the original 1958 rules for this variant said
one should play without Venice and Naples as Supply Centers. A
player then wins with 17 SCs. True, the board looked a bit
different back then, so you may not like this idea.
In 5- or 6-person DIPLOMACY, a recommended variant is "Bid"
DIPLOMACY. Each player submits moves for his/her Power, as well as
each "eliminated" country. These latter orders are "bids" to
control the units of that "eliminated" country. These bids are
placed in a box, and when orders are read, one bid is withdrawn at
random. This bid determines how the "eliminated" country's Units
move. The unread bids are destroyed, unread. In this variant, part
of one's strategy will be to have other players write the same bid
one is writing.
5 players: Ditto for France, but the German units holding means that
England must also reap a big windfall. It has two builds assured,
and can safely go for Holland in '01, picking up Denmark in '02.
TGGTD doesn't like this variant at all. Quoting briefly,
"DIPLOMACY's great strength as a game depends in part on its
excellent balance. Each player is presented with a number of
potentially successful alternative strategies. He has neighbors who
could be either enemies or friends. This is not true of the
5-player game." TGGTD goes on to point out how the elimination of
Germany and Italy creates a big buffer zone between the East and West.
This buffer zone creates imbalances in the respective regions. For
example, in the West, a French/English alliance grabs lots of SCs
quickly and generally trounces the East. A French/English war almost
always goes to the French, especially if Russia helps in
Scandinavia. Meanwhile, in the East, the 3-power muddle takes a few
years to sort out -- enough time for France and Engalnd to have
gotten their act together...
The Guide suggests the following (mutually exclusive) patches:
1) Eliminate the unordered German and Italian units, thus promoting
early contact between the two spheres.
2) Add a few unordered units to Bel-Den-Hol-Tun.
3) Don't eliminate Germany and Italy; eliminate Turkey and England
instead, either with or without unordered units in the home SCs.
4) Consider eliminating France/Russia or Austria/Germany.
5) Try "Bid" DIPLOMACY, as above.
Possibly the best strategy would be for R and A to simply throw
everything west except one unit each, and try to negotiate some
settlement with the Ottomans...
The one time I played this, the Russians and Turks ganged up on
Austria rather quickly. In the 7-player game, the Russian-Turkish
allaince is justifiably feared; the 5-player game seems to encourage
the alliance even more.
4 players: The alliances, you may recall, are France/Austria,
Germany/Turkey, and Russia/Italy (the 4th player plays England
alone).
The Guide doesn't really address this variant, so the following are
just my personal thoughts. Each game is different, of course, but
for us, England seems to do well. The traditional role of Italy in
the 7-player game, that of Balancer of Power, seems to be England's
role in the 4-player game. As such, everyone wants to be England's
friend, hoping to get intelligence on other player's plans, while
not taking England as a serious threat.
Of these, the most dangerous seems to be the Russian/Italian one,
insofar as this player can invade A-H territory immediately and
quickly join forces.
In the games I've seen, FA generally teams with GT. F&G work on Italy,
A&T work on Russia, and England works on Scandinavia and decides who
to stab in 1903 or so.
The best A-H opening in this case seems to be A Bud-Ser, A Vie-Gal,
F Tri-Ven and forget about Greece (correct me if I'm wrong).
Otherwise the threat of Russ. A War-Gal and Ital. A Ven-Trl
or -Tri is too great.
Your moves seem sound, especially if an alliance with GT is probable.
Rob Mitchell
{ihnp4,allegra}!mtuxo!jrrt
I never refuse. I never contradict. I sometimes forget. -- Disraeli