DipWiki - User contributions [en]

German Openings

2008-08-04T04:41:24Z

Dizzley: /* Richard Sharp's Categorization of the German Openings */ typo ther-the

==Richard Sharp's Categorization of the German Openings==

The German openings are categorized first by the order of the Berlin army.

Then if the Berlin army opens to Kiel and the Munich army goes to Ruhr, (most common) it is a [[Blitzkrieg Openings|Blitzkrieg Opening]], or if the Munich army does not go to Ruhr then the openings are categorized by the order of the Kiel fleet.

*[[Blitzkrieg Openings]] (A Ber-Kie, A Mun-Ruh)

German Openings with A Ber-Kie (but not A Mun-Ruh):

*[[Anschluss Openings]] (A Ber-Kie, F Kie-Den)
*[[Dutch Openings]] (A Ber-Kie, F Kie-Hol)
*[[Dutch Boy Openings]] (A Ber-Kie, F Kie-HEL)
*[[Western Barbarossa]] (A Ber-Kie, F Kie-BAL)

German Openings without A Ber-Kie:

*[[Gambit Openings]] (A Ber-Mun, F Kie-Hol)
*[[Rhineland Openings]] (A Ber-Mun, F Kie-Den)
*[[Prussian Openings]] (A Ber-Pru)
*[[Silesian Openings]] (A Ber-Sil)
*[[Berlin Defense]] (A Ber H)

==Other German Openings==

*[[The Jutland Gambit]]
*[[The Koniggratz Freakout]]
*[[The Panther]]
*[[The Sealion]]

[[Category:Opening]]
[[Category:German Opening]]

Art Of Negotiation Part 2

2008-07-31T17:15:28Z

Dizzley: Add link to next page

===The Art Of Negotiation In Diplomacy===
by Lewis Pulshiper

''Reprinted from The General, vol. 18 #2''

====Part 2====

In Part 1, we examined the art of negotiation. Where negotiation is a means of convincing other players to act as you desire, the art of strategy is choosing the combinations of countries and overall direction of movements (thrust east instead of west, by land instead of by sea) which, if executed as planned, will result in a win. It is the most neglected of the three aspects of Diplomacy play, the one in which the average player is most likely deficient, and the one which separates most experts from merely good players. The average player is content to let his negotiations determine his strategy rather than vice versa. Consequently he seldom looks beyond the next game year or the immediate identification of enemy and ally to decide what he ought to do later in the game.

I assume in the following that the player’s objective is to win, or failing that, to draw. Those who eschew draws in favor of survival as someone else wins will approach some points of strategy differently, but until late in the game there is virtually no difference between the two approaches.

'''Fundamentals of Strategy'''

Strategy in Diplomacy is strongly influenced by the shape of the board. Spaces near the edge are larger than central spaces, so that movement around the perimeter is as fast as movement through the middle. More important, the board is divided into two strategic areas or spheres. The eastern sphere includes Austria, Russia, and Turkey, while the western is England, France, and Germany. Italy sits astride one of three avenues between the two spheres. The northern route through Scandinavia and the Barents Sea enables Russia to have some influence in the western sphere. The central route, between Germany on one side and Austria and Russia on the other, looks short but is rarely used early in the game.

Normally the game revolves around efforts to dominate the two spheres. Early in the game a country rarely moves out of its own sphere -- it can’t afford the diversion of effort until the conflict in its own sphere is resolved. The country or alliance that gains control of its own sphere first, however, becomes the first power that can invade the other sphere and usually gains the upper hand in the game as a whole. A continuous tension exists between the need to completely control one’s own sphere and the need to beat the other sphere to the punch. Commonly, two countries in a sphere will attack the third, attempting at the same time to arrange a long, indecisive war in the other sphere so that it will be easy to invade later. Sometimes the two countries will fight for supremacy before the winner goes on to the other sphere; more often, the players of the other sphere, becoming aware of the threat from the other side of the board, will intervene and perhaps patch up their own differences.

Poor Italy is trapped in the middle. Naturally an alliance that endeavors to dominate a sphere wants Italy to move toward the other sphere, probably to establish a two vs. two stalemate. The odd man out in a sphere turns first to Italy to redress the balance of power. In either case Italy is stuck in a long war. An Italian win is usually a long game.

This discussion shows us the most important principle of strategy: everything that happens anywhere on the board affects every country. If you concern yourself only with two or three neighboring powers, you’ll never become an expert player (though glib negotiation skill can go far to compensate for strategic deficiency). If you as Turkey can influence the move of one French or English unit, it could mean the difference between a win and a draw game years hence. If you can strongly affect the entire country’s movements, even at that distance, you should go far along the road to victory. The expert strategic player knows where many foreign units will be ordered each season, and he tries to gain that information subtly by using misdirection and intermediaries; it doesn’t do to attract too much attention.

One of the most important considerations of strategy is the attainment of a “stalemate line” by your country or alliance. Your long-range goal is to win, but unless you are a romantic player who prefers instability, your immediate objective is to be sure you can’t lose. Once that's assured you can worry about going on to win. A stalemate line is a position that cannot possibly be breached or pushed back by the enemy. The area within or protected by the line includes supply centers sufficient to support all the units needed to form the line. There are many stalemate lines, and they have been discussed at length in books and fanzines about Diplomacy. I will describe the two major lines, which roughly coincide with the two spheres (and not by accident!). You can find variations and other lines by studying the board. (U = unit, that is, either army or fleet.)

Eastern Line: A Vienna, A Budapest S Vienna, A Trieste S Vienna, U Venice, U Rome, U Naples S Rome, F Adriatic S Venice, U Apulia S Venice, F Ionian, F Eastern Med. S Ionian, U Sevastopol, U Rumania. U Bulgaria S Rumania, U Armenia S Sevastopol.

Western Line: U St. Petersburg, U Norway S St. Petersburg, U Kiel, A Ruhr S U Kiel, A Burgundy, U Marseilles, A Gascony S Marseilles, U Spain, U Portugal S Spain, F Mid-Atlantic, F English S Mid-Atlantic. (Note that this line is solid only if the enemy has no fleets in the Baltic Sea or Gulf of Bothnia and none are built in Berlin. This line can be expanded to hold Berlin and Munich. An alternative is to place nothing in Spain and Marseilles, F Portugal S Mid-Atlantic, A Brest S Gascony, A Paris S Burgundy.)

[[Image:Pulshiper2.gif|center]]

With 13 to 15 centers, or as many as 17, within a line, a player is almost certain of a draw. If he reaches the line soon enough and alone, he can move on to prevent any other player from conquering the rest of the board so that a draw or win is assured.

A drawback of reaching a stalemate line is that it can put other players on their guard against you. If they know they can’t knock you down to size, they’ll be reluctant to fight one another. This is a danger any strong country faces, however, and it must be noted that a perfectly played Diplomacy game should end in a draw, not a win. (This depends partly on the players’ styles, of course -- a game among seven extreme “placers" as discussed in part 1 will never be a draw.)

You can win, then, only in an imperfect game, which means other players make mistakes. The better the players, the more likely a draw will be.

So much for the fundamental, strategic structure of the game.

'''Devising Strategy'''

When you devise a strategy, you plan the general direction of your movement, expected allies, expected enemies, and what you want countries not adjacent to yours to do. At each step you should have alternatives -- barring great good luck, things will go wrong. The styles and personalities of the players can strongly affect the strategy you choose, but for this example, let’s assume that one player is as suitable (or unsuitable) to your purposes as another.

First, consider the nature of your country. Is it a natural land power, a sea power, or both? Is it on an outer edge of a sphere, an inner edge (Germany or Austria), or in between (Italy)? Think about this, look at the board, and decide where you’re going to get 18 supply centers to win the game. You must take several centers in one sphere, or in Italy, even if you control the other sphere entirely. Your plan must include 1) a means of gaining control of your sphere without hostile incursion from outside it, 2) attainment of a stalemate line in at least one part of the board, and 3) penetration into the other sphere (or Italy) to reach 18 centers. Note that Italy is within the eastern stalemate line, and that the western line is anchored in the eastern sphere at St. Petersburg. These seemingly minor points may have a strong effect on your plans.

You can plan to jointly control your sphere with an ally, but then the penetration must amount to eventual control of the other sphere as well. You must include a means of reacting to any attempt to disrupt your plan from outside your sphere. You must provide for other contingencies; for example, if someone dominates the other sphere before you dominate yours, you must be prepared to stop him. You must be flexible while trying to implement your original plan.

Under this approach, Italy is out in the cold. Italy must either be sure that neither sphere is dominated by any country or alliance early in the game, allowing Italy time to grow, or it must quickly dominate one sphere. From the strategic point of view, Italy is definitely the hardest country to play.

Here is a brief example of a strategic plan for England. Assume you don’t like the Anglo-German alliance or the German player is notoriously unreliable, so you plan to offer a limited duration alliance to France for a joint attack on Germany. You’ll offer Belgium, Munich, and Holland to France while you take Denmark, Kiel, and Berlin. You don’t mind if Russia and Germany get into a fight over Sweden, but you want Russia to concentrate, with Austria, on attacking Turkey. This will leave Italy free to peck away, initially at Germany, later at France. When your alliance with France expires you will attack France with Italian help, and at the same time pick off Russia’s northern centers (Germany should fall sooner than Turkey -- if necessary you’ll give Turkey tactical advice). You want Austria to attack Russia after Turkey falls. This is important, because Austria-Russia would be a formidable alliance against you. It is possible but not likely that you could reach a stalemate line as Italy collapsed under an attack from Austria, but it is much better to have most of the eastern units fighting one another. In the end you should be grinding down an outnumbered Italy (England will gain more from attacks on Germany and France than Italy will, by nature of the positions) while Austria keeps Russia busy. For supply centers you want England, France, Germany, the Low Countries, Scandinavia, Iberia -- a total of 16 -- plus any two from St. Petersburg, Warsaw, Moscow, Tunis, and Italy.

To go into all the alternatives where this plan might lead would require pages. As one example, the alliance with France could be extended if France appears about to be drawn into a protracted war with Italy. That time could instead be used to march into Russia and the Balkans.

'''Differences Between Countries'''

Now we come to individual countries. Reams of statistics are available about the success of each country in postal play, but the percentages have varied over the years, and statistics of American and British postal games show some differences.

Generally, each country has a good chance of success except for Italy, which is handicapped by its between-the-spheres position. (Pirated South American versions of Diplomacy give Italy a fleet instead of an army in Rome and add a supply center in North Africa. These changes strengthen Italy and probably make Diplomacy a better-balanced game.)

Russia tends to be an all-or-nothing country because of its extra unit, its long borders, and its connection with the western sphere and stalemate line. Russia wins outright more than any other country. The inner countries, Germany, Austria, and Italy, are harder to play well.

The next seven sections briefly state what to look for when you play each country. "Natural neutrals" are neutral supply centers which are usually captured by the same Great Power during 1901. The most common opening move is also mentioned, but remember that tactics are subordinate to strategy. Even the most common openings are used less than half the time.

One other point remains to be made. Western countries can wait longer than eastern countries before committing themselves to agreements. The easterners are too close, with too many centers at stake, to wait.

'''Austria'''

Land power, natural neutrals Serbia and Greece.

Turkey and Austria are almost always enemies because Austria is at a great disadvantage when the two ally. Turkey usually owns territories on three sides (Mediterranean, Balkans, Russia) if the alliance is successful, and Austria is just too easy to stab. Russia and Italy are the best alliance prospects, especially the former. If Russia and Turkey ally, Italy can often be persuaded to aid Austria in order to avoid becoming the next victim of the eastern juggernaut. Germany virtually always agrees to a non-aggression pact, nor should Austria waste units in the western sphere. The early game is often a desperate struggle for survival, but a good player can hang on until events elsewhere and his own diplomacy improve his position. Unfortunately, normally Austria must eliminate Italy to win because the seas and crowded German plains halt expansion northward; this land power must become a sea power in order to grab the last few centers needed.

Commonly Austria opens with F Trieste-Albania and A Budapest-Serbia, followed in Fall by Serbia S Albania-Greece. A Vienna is used to block whichever neighbor, Russia or Italy, seems hostile, by Vienna-Galicia or Vienna-Trieste or Tyrolia.

'''England'''

Sea power, natural neutral Norway.

England has an excellent defensive position but poor expansion prospects. An Anglo-German alliance is not as hard to maintain as the AustroTurkish, but neither is it easy. England must go south when allied with Germany, but it can hardly avoid a presence in the north, facing Russia, which puts it all around the German rear. England-France is a fine alliance but it may favor France in the long run. Whichever is the ally, England may be able to acquire Belgium by working at it. Patience is a necessity, however, unless Italy or Russia comes into the western sphere. If either does, to attack France or Germany, England must gain centers rapidly or be squeezed to death between its former ally and the interloper.

England can win by sweeping through Germany and Russia, but all too often the eastern stalemate line stops this advance short of victory. Similarly, a southern Mediterranean drive can founder in Italy, but this part of the defenders’ stalemate line is harder to establish. If England can get up to six or seven centers, it has many alternatives to consider.

Usually England opens with F London-North, F Edinburgh-Norwegian, A Liverpool-Edinburgh. The army can be convoyed by either fleet while the other can intervene on the continent.

'''France'''

Balanced land and sea power, natural neutrals Spain and Portugal.

France may be the least restricted of all the countries, vying with Russia for that distinction. There are many options for good defensive and offensive play. Alliance with Germany or England is equally possible, but it is easier to cooperate with England. An astute French player can usually obtain Belgium regardless of which country he allies with. Italy’s movements are important to France because penetration into the Mediterranean is usually necessary late in the game, if not sooner. Russia can be helpful against England or Germany. Even a French-Russian-Italian alliance is possible against the Anglo-Germans. At any rate, if France is attacked, there are several players to ask for help.

A common French opening is F Brest-Mid Atlantic (heading for Iberia), A Paris-Burgundy, A Marseilles-Spain.

'''Germany'''

Land power, natural neutrals Holland, Denmark

Like Austria, Germany must scramble early in the game, but its defensive position is better, alliance options are broader, and Italy isn’t quite clawing at the back door.

Alliance with England is difficult because England usually commands the German rear as the game goes on. (As England I have been stabbed -- ineffectively -- several times by Germans who couldn’t stand the strain, though I had no plans to attack them.) Germany-France is a better alliance, though France may gain more from it, and Germany can be left dangerously extended between France and Russia. Either romantic methods or great patience is required. Fortunately, Austria rarely interferes early in the game (nor should Germany waste effort in the eastern sphere) and conflicts with Russia are rare if Germany concedes Sweden.

A common opening is F Kiel-Denmark, A Munich-Ruhr, A Berlin-Kiel. Kiel-Holland or Munich-Burgundy is also common.

'''Italy'''

Balanced land and sea power, natural neutral Tunis.

Italy needs more patience and luck to win than anyone else. Italy's defensive position is actually good, but immediate expansion possibilities are very poor. Don’t be hypnotized by all those Austrian centers so near. If Russia and Turkey ally, Italy’s lifespan isn’t much longer than Austria’s and full support of Austria is required. Italy tends to become involved in the eastern sphere more than the western. Unless England and Germany are attacking France, Italy stands to gain little in that direction. Although Turkey seems far away, Italy can attack her using the “Lepanto Opening” in Spring 1901 -- A Venice H, A Rome-Apulia, F Naples-Ionian (this is the most common Italian opening), followed in Fall by A Apulia-Tunis, F Ionian C Apulia-Tunis, build F Naples. In Spring 1902, F Ionian-Eastern Med. (or Aegean), F Naples-Ionian, followed in Fall by convoying the army in Tunis to Syria. This attack requires Austrian cooperation, of course.

'''Russia'''

Balanced land and sea power, natural neutrals Sweden, Rumania.

With a foot in the western sphere owing to its long border, Russia has an advantage in expansion. Its defensive position, however, is weak, despite the extra unit. Russia often feels like two separate countries, north and south, and it may prosper in one area while failing in the other. The eastern sphere is more important and usually gets three of Russia’s starting four units.

Russia has no obvious enemy. Because the Austro-Turkish alliance is so rare, Russia can often choose its ally -- but mustn't become complacent! In the north, Germany can usually be persuaded not to interfere with Sweden. An Anglo-German attack will certainly take Sweden and threaten St. Petersburg, but Russia can lose its northern center and still remain a major power. A Franco-Russian alliance can be very successful provided Germany and England start the game fighting one another.

A common Russian opening is F St. Petersburg (sc)-Bothnia, F Sevastopol-Black, A Warsaw-Ukraine, A Moscow-Sevastopol. The move Moscow-St. Petersburg is rarely seen (and very anti-English). Warsaw-Galicia is anti-Austrian (with Moscow-Ukraine). Sevastopol-Rumania is very trusting of Turkey.

'''Turkey'''

Balanced land and sea power, natural neutral Bulgaria.

Turkey has the best defensive position on the board. Its immediate expansion prospects are not bad, and at one time it was notorious in postal circles for spreading like wildfire once it reached six or seven units. Now players realize that an Austro-Russian alliance, or the Italian Lepanto opening, can keep Turkey under control.

Austria is an unlikely ally -- see Austrian notes for why. Russia-Turkey can be an excellent alliance, but if Russia does well in the north Turkey will find itself slipping behind. Nonetheless, beggars can’t be choosers. The Italo-Turkish alliance is seldom seen, perhaps because Italy too often becomes the next victim for Russia and Turkey. A fight between Italy and Turkey on one side and Russia and Austria on the other is rare, because Italy prefers to go west and hope Austria will attack Russia after finishing with Turkey. Turkey has plenty of time to look for help from the other side of the board while fighting a dour defensive, but help usually comes too late.

A common Turkish opening is A Constantinople-Bulgaria, A Smyrna-Constantinople (or Armenia, to attack Russia), F Ankara-Black. The favored alternative if Russia is definitely friendly is Ankara-Constantinople, Smyrna H.

In Part 3, we’ll turn to an examination of tactics in Diplomacy.

[[Art Of Negotiation Part 3]]

Art Of Negotiation Part 1

2008-07-31T17:04:20Z

Dizzley:

===The Art Of Negotiation In Diplomacy===
by Lewis Pulshiper

''Reprinted from The General, vol. 18 #1''

====Part 1====

There are those who don‘t consider Diplomacy a wargame. Indeed, there are Diplomacy players who share that opinion. Diplomacy enthusiasts have always been a breed apart from the mainstream of the hobby. Long before Diplomacy became an Avalon Hill product the wargame hobby was generally seen to consist of three branches: board games, miniatures, and Diplomacy. The game thrives on the fact that it requires seven players and is better suited to postal than live play, factors which would certainly have condemned a lesser game long ago. Despite its age, every major game convention has a Diplomacy tournament. To that end, we offer a three-part series on the game with no dice by one of the giants of the Diplomacy community in the 1970s and 80s. You decide whether it is or isn't a wargame.

The heart of Diplomacy is negotiation between seven players who represent the Great Powers of World War I: Austria, England, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, and Turkey. Facilitating the negotiations are the simple mechanics of simultaneous movement of a total of 34 armies and fleets, with no luck involved. Deals and alliances are made and broken during the game, and no one can be certain whether other players will react as expected; in other words, the players themselves provide the chance element.

It is a mark of a great game, such as chess, that experts cannot agree on a best way to play. Diplomacy is no exception. Consequently, the advice below is my view of how to play successfully. Others would disagree, as I sometimes indicate. Some points will be expanded and clarified in the articles on the other two major elements of Diplomacy play, strategy and tactics.

Telling someone how to negotiate well is a difficult task. A person’s attitude toward life and toward the game have a strong, immeasurable, and probably unalterable effect on how, and how well, he or she negotiates in any wargame. Hundreds of essays have been written about this subject. Certain principles and common failings can be described, however, which no player should ignore.

The advice below applies to any well-played Diplomacy game, but it is necessary to recognize the differences between face-to-face (FTF) and postal or electronic play. When you play FTF with people you don’t know, you will often encounter attitudes and conventions very different from your own. In the extreme, what you think is perfectly commonplace might be, to them, cheating. In postal play with experienced opponents you’ll encounter fewer “strange” notions. Incompetent players can be found in any game, of course. Postal games suffer from failure of players to submit orders before the adjudication deadline -- ”missed moves” -- far more than FTF games. A failure to move at a crucial time usually causes significant changes in the flow of play. Both FTF and postal games suffer from dropouts -- people who quit playing before their countries are eliminated. Part of a good player’s range of skills is the ability to keep his allies (and his enemy’s enemies) from dropping out. In a top-class game none of these difficulties occur.

In FTF play it is easier to coordinate routine attacks and to form coalitions to stop the largest country from winning. Communication is more rapid and more frequent than by mail. More elaborate and brilliant tactical play is found in postal games because each player has hours, if he desires, to look for the very best moves. Time-pressure often causes tactical mistakes in FTF games. Finally, dogged persistence of argument is valuable in FTF, where a weak player might do whatever he was most recently told to do. In postal play, persistence (via numerous letters and long distance phone calls) is valuable, but written negotiation requires a more careful, logical approach than oral negotiation. Every player has time to think things through, to notice holes in arguments, to hear from every player. No one can monopolize one person's time.

When you begin a game, you must first learn something about each of your opponents. Sometimes you will know quite a bit to begin with, but you can also ask people who know the opponent better than you do. You want to know if your opponent is generally reliable or not, what his objective is, whether he is a classical or romantic player, and whether or not he is good at negotiation, strategy, and tactics. (This is a controversial point, insofar as some players -- usually the notoriously erratic and unreliable -- say that a player’s previous record should have no effect on the game. The more you know about another player, however, the better you’ll be able to predict his actions. It would require a peculiar view of life for a player to knowingly ally with someone who has never abided by an agreement in 20 games! Similarly, you have little to gain by offering a draw to a player who would “rather die than draw." However much some players like to pretend that they really are government leaders and that World War I is happening just this once, most Diplomacy players recognize that it is an abstract game of skill and act accordingly.)

Let’s consider each point you’re trying to learn about, beginning with reliability. Novice players, urged on by the rulebook introduction, usually believe that the winner will be the player who lies, cheats, and backstabs most effectively. Perhaps if you never play more than once with the same people and never acquire a reputation, this would be true. In the long run, players learn to treat liars and backstabbers as enemies. Why invite disaster in an already difficult game?

For one person to do well in a game with six competitors, some cooperation is necessary. Cooperation is easier and more effective between those who can rely upon one another. An expert player rarely lies, and then only because the lie is likely to radically improve his position. He prefers to say nothing, to change the subject, to speak of inconsequential things, rather than lie. When he agrees to an alliance of some kind he usually abides by the agreement. By specifying a limited duration -- until 190x, or until a particular country is eliminated or reduced to one supply center -- he won’t back himself into a corner that would require him to break an agreement. When he backstabs (attacks) an ally, he plans it so as to virtually destroy the country, not merely to gain a few centers. The stab is a means to accomplishing his goal, not merely to increasing his supply center count. He wants to be known as a reliable player because this will make other players more willing to cooperate with him.

Some players say that only mutual self-interest should determine whether an agreement is kept or a lie told. When the agreement is no longer in one player’s interest he should break it. In the short term this might also be true (though a lie or backstab early in a game will certainly be remembered to the end of that game, often to the detriment of the perpetrator). The expert player looks at the long term, because few people play just one game of Diplomacy. It is in his interest to maintain agreements and avoid lying in order to establish a reputation for reliability. No altruism is involved. (Incidentally, a reliable player is less often on the receiving end of an emotional barrage from an angry player -- no small gain.)

It is often surprising to new players to learn that not every player wants to accomplish the same thing. Some play for excitement, not caring if they win or lose as long as the game is full of wild incidents. Most play to win the game, but there the ways part. Many players (the “drawers”) believe that, failing to win, a draw is the next best result, while anything else is a loss. At the extreme, even a 7-way draw is better than second place. Others (the “placers”) believe that to survive in second place while someone else wins is better than a draw. At the extreme are those who would “rather die than draw.” Such fundamental differences in world view can have a decisive effect on a game. If you propose a plan to establish a 3-way draw, a placer won’t be interested. If you offer to help a weak country to attain second place if he helps you win, you’ll get nowhere if he’s a drawer but a placer would be favorably impressed. Placers make better “puppets,” but drawers can also be good allies. In some situations they are better, because they won’t abandon you (when they feel they can’t win) in order to try for second place instead of a draw. When you’re winning you’re better off with a placer ally, who is a little less likely to attack you than a drawer would be.

Whether a player’s style is “classical” or “romantic” is tricky to define. Briefly, the classical player carefully maximizes his minimum gain. He pays attention to detail and prefers to patiently let the other players lose by making mistakes, rather than trying to force them to make mistakes. He tends to like stable alliances and steady conflict in the game. He tends to be reliable and good at tactics. The romantic is more flamboyant, taking calculated risks to force his enemies into mistakes, trying to defeat them psychologically before they are defeated physically on the board. (Many players give up playable positions because they’re convinced that they’ve lost.) He tries to maximize his maximum gain, at the cost of increasing potential loss. He can be unpredictable, relying on surprise and the Great Stab for victory. Tending to be an unreliable ally and a sometimes sloppy tactician, he likes fluid, rapidly changing alliances and conflicts.

Finally, it’s useful to know whether your opponent is a poor, average, or good player, and what facets of the game he is better at. You can risk a one-on-one war with a poor tactician but not with a good one. An alliance of limited duration with a player who is deficient in strategy can leave you in a much better position as you outmaneuver him in dealing with the players on the other side of the board. Some players like to eliminate inferior players early in the game, while others try to use the weaker players as buffers or to eliminate strong opponents.

To reemphasize the point of this “sizing up,” the more you know about your opponent’s tendencies, the better you can predict his reaction to a given situation. As you negotiate, try to learn more about his preferences. In the extreme case, you can try to make yourself appear to be a certain kind of player in order to gain the respect, trust, or sympathy of your opponent. Even if you begin a game with six unknown quantities, you should be able to learn something about their styles before writing your Spring 1901 orders. Surprisingly, simply being friendly is sometimes the best approach; talk about yourself and your own views in order to draw out the other players.

There are five other principles of negotiation beyond “know your opponents:”

talk with everybody
be flexible
never give up
explain plans thoroughly, and
be positive.
1) At the beginning of the game, and periodically throughout, talk with all the other players, even your enemies. Someone on the other side of the board may know something of interest to you. Trade information, when possible, with those who have no immediate stake in what you do next. Don’t be too free with the information you obtain or it may get back to your source, who will decide he can’t trust you with more. An expert player takes account of and tries to control the actions of every player in the game. You he can’t do that if you don't communicate with them.

2) If you expect everyone to play the way you do, you’ll surely lose. Don’t get emotional, though it isn’t necessarily bad to simulate some emotion in order to change an opponent’s behavior. It is only a game, and betrayal is a part of it. If you are stabbed or someone lies to you, anger will do you no good. What you can do is make sure your antagonist regrets his action, with the idea that next time, he’ll remember and won’t do it again. (Advocates of short-term Diplomacy go even further. They say forget about the stab and think only about what is in your interest this moment. Your best ally might be the player who just betrayed you.) When you are at war, always think about possible deals with your enemy, especially if he has the upper hand! No rule says you must fight to the bitter end. You might both better off doing something besides fighting each other, such as jointly attacking a third country or separately attacking two other countries. Always have an alternative plan in case things go wrong. Humans, especially Diplomacy players, can be erratic.

3) Keep negotiating with your enemy even as he wipes you out. You may be more useful to him as a minor ally than as an enemy. As long as you have a unit, you can affect the course of the game. There have been postal games in which a player reduced to two supply centers later won, and in FTF games even one-center countries have come back to win. In the fluid conditions of many games, dramatic reversals of fortune are common.

4) When you’ve sized up your opponents and selected your strategy, make your approach. Explain in detail and at length what you expect both you and your potential ally to accomplish. If he can’t see any advantage in what you propose, he won’t accept -- or more likely, he’ll pretend to agree and then use the information against you. Some players prefer to be noncommittal, to get the feel of things during the first season or first game year. Others like to form solid alliances as soon as possible. Whichever you prefer, be sure you put effort into your attempts to come to agreements with others. Even if you intend to break the agreement, back it with plausible reasons. If things go wrong, you may find yourself relying on an agreement you intended to break. If you don’t seem interested in the agreement when you propose it, the other player won’t bite. For example, when you propose an offensive alliance, don’t merely say “Let’s you and me get him." That isn’t negotiation, it is an invitation to be treated as an inferior. Instead, talk about why it is in the interest of both countries to eliminate a common enemy, how it can be accomplished (tactics), what other countries will probably do (strategy), how the spoils will be divided, and what each of you can do afterward to avoid fighting each other. If the attack doesn’t give both of you prospects for gain, your potential ally will be suspicious, especially if the alliance appears to favor him over you.

5) Convince the other player, don’t passively hope that his ideas coincide with yours. Negotiation is a strange mixture of aggressive persuasion and play-acting to seem innocuous, to avoid drawing too much attention to yourself.

However you go about it, don’t be discouraged by initial failures, and always analyze why you succeed or fail. There’s no substitute for experience.

In the next installment we’ll examine strategy in Diplomacy.

[[Art Of Negotiation Part 2]]

Art Of Negotiation Part 1

2008-07-31T16:59:33Z

Dizzley: /* Part 1 */ add link to next page