DipWiki - User contributions [en]

World Diplomacy

2009-05-14T01:01:14Z

Former.trout:

by [[Tony Tella]] and [[David Norman]]

''Based on World2 Diplomacy by David Norman, Map by John Frederick''

The rules to Diplomacy are copyright 1999, Hasbro, Inc. See the board game
for more information on how to play Diplomacy.

==World 3C==

World 3C was played in [http://www.diplomaticcorp.com/game_page.php?game_id=dc092 dc92]

It ended in in a [[Solo]] for Ghana

[[Image:World3c.gif]]

==World 3B==

World 3B was played in [http://www.diplomaticcorp.com/game_page.php?game_id=dc065 dc92]

It ended in in a [[Solo]] for the Mideast

[[Image:World3b.gif]]

==World 3A==

[[Image:World3a.gif]]

==World 2==

World 2 was played in [http://www.diplomaticcorp.com/game_page.php?game_id=dc024 dc24] and [http://www.diplomaticcorp.com/game_page.php?game_id=dc040 dc40].

[http://www.diplomaticcorp.com/game_page.php?game_id=dc024 dc24] ended in a 4-way draw.

[http://www.diplomaticcorp.com/game_page.php?game_id=dc040 dc40] ended in a [[Solo]] for Kenya.

[[Image:World2.gif]]

'''STARTING POSITIONS:'''

Argentina: F BAI, F CHI, A SCR.
Brazil: A BRA, A RDJ, F REC.
China: A BEI, F GUA, A SHA.
Europe: A FRA, A GER, F SPA.
Frozen: F CAS, F LEN, F MAW.
Ghana: A GHA, F GUI, A MAL.
India: F BOM, A CLC, A DEL.
Kenya: A KEN, F TAN, A UGA.
Libya: A CHA, F LIB, A NSU.
Mideast: A IRN, A IRQ, A SYR.
Oz: F NSW, F VIC, F WAU.
Pac.Rus: A ESI, A VLA, F YAK(sc).
Quebec: F NEW, F ONT, A QBC.
Russia: A BEL, A MOS, A STP.
S.Africa: A BOT, A NAM, F SAF.
Usa: F CAL, F FLA, A TEX.
W.Canada: A BCO, F NWT, A YTE.

'''MAP NOTES:'''

1. Left side of Map is for reference only. Plotting for Realpolitik you
must use the right side of the map to plot the movements for that province

2. Bitmap file size: Realpolitik saves this bmp file as 24 bit. To decrease
the size, open paintbrush->save as 256 color. After converting it to
256 colors, save it again as a .gif

'''SPECIAL RULES:'''

1. Fleet Ontario can not move to Union (no passage)

2. The following contain canals:
*Turkey (Access to Bla and Med)
*Egypt (Access to Red and Med)
*Central America (access to Nep and Cse)

3. Armenia does not have a canal, all fleets moving into Armenia are always
assumed to be on the coast facing Black Sea.

4. There are 86 supply centres, you need 44 to win

'''ABBREVIATIONS:'''

Afghanistan Afg
Austria Hungary Ahu
Alaska Ala
Alberta Alb
Algeria Alg
Amazon Ama
Angola Ang
Arctic Ocean Aoc
Ape Ape
Armenia Arm
Arabian Sea Ase
Buenos Aires Bai
Balkins Bal
Bangkok Ban
Barents Sea Bar
Baltic Sea Bas
Bat Bat
British Columbia Bco
Beijing Bei
Belorussia Bel
Beaufort Sea Bfs
Bho Bho
Bis Bis
Black Sea Bla
Bay of Bengal Bob
Bolivia Bol
Bombay Bom
Botswana Bot
Brasilia Bra
Bering Sea Brs
Bst Bst
Burma Bur
Cam Cam
Car Car
Casey Cas
Central America Cen
Chad Cha
Chile Chi
Carribean Islands Cis
Calcutta Clc
California Cal
Columbia Col
Congo Con
Central Pacific Ocean Cpo
Caribbean Sea Cse
Delhi Del
Dmv Dmv
Deep South Dso
East Atlantic Ocean Eao
Egypt Egy
East Pacific Ocean Epo
East Siberia Esi
East Siberian Sea Ess
Ethiopia Eth
Florida Fla
France Fra
Great Britan Gbr
Germany Ger
Ghana Gha
Godthab God
Gulf of Mexico Gom
Gua Gua
Gui Gui
Guatamala Guy
Hudson Bay Hba
Hei Hei
Inner Mongolia Imo
Indonesia Ind
Iran Ira
Irkutsk Irk
Iraq Irq
Italy Ita
Indian Territory Ite
Japan Jap
Java Sea Jse
Kamchatka Kam
Kazakhstan Kaz
Kenya Ken
Korea Kor
Kyr Kyr
Lanzhou Lan
Leningradskaya Len
Libya Lib
Labrador Sea Lse
Madagascar Mad
Mali Mal
Manitoba Man
Mau Mau
Mawson Maw
Marie Byrd Land Mbl
Madagascar Channel Mch
Mediterranean Sea Med
Mendoza Men
Mexico Mex
Midwest Mid
Monterrey Mnt
Mongolia Mon
Morocco Mor
Moscow Mos
Mozambique Moz
Nambia Nam
Norwegian Dependency Nde
Northeast Atlantic Nea
Northeast Indian Nei
Northeast Pacific Nep
Nevada Nev
New Foundland New
Nge Nge
Niger Nig
Nov Nov
North Pacific Ocean Npo
North Sudan Nsu
New South Wales Nsw
Northern Territory Nte
North Sea Nth
Northwest Atlantic Nwa
Norwegian Sea Nwg
Northwest Indian Nwi
Northwest Pacific Nwp
Northwest Territories Nwt
New Zealand Nze
Omsk Oms
Ontario Ont
Pakistan Pak
Peru Per
Phillipines Phi
Pacific Islands Pis
Poland Pol
Quebec Qbc
Queensland Qsl
Rio De Janero Rdj
Recife Rec
Red Sea Red
Ross Ice Shelf Ris
South Africa Saf
Salvador Sal
Sanae San
San Paolo Sao
Saudi Arabia Sar
Saskatchewan Sas
South Australia Sau
Scandinavia Sca
Santa Cruz Scr
South China Sea Scs
Southeast Atlantic Sea
Southeast Indian Sei
Southeast Pacific Sep
Shanghai Sha
Showa Sho
Southern Indian Ocean Sio
Sea of Japan Soj
Somalia Som
Sea of Oks Soo
South Pole Sop
Spain Spa
South Pacific Ocean Spo
South Sudan Ssu
St Petersburg Stp
Southwest Atlantic Swa
Southwest Indian Swi
Southwest Pacific Swp
Syria Syr
Tanzania Tan
Texas Tex
Thailand Tha
Thule Thu
Tibet Tib
Turkmenistan Tkm
Tasman Sea Tse
Turkey Tur
Uganda Uga
Ukraine Ukr
Union Uni
Uruguay Ura
Uzbekistan Uzb
Venezuela Ven
Victoria Vic
Vietnam Vie
Vladovostock Vla
Vostok Vos
West Atlantic Ocean Wao
West Australia Wau
Western China Wch
West Pacific Ocean Wpo
West Siberia Wsi
Yakutsk Yak
Yellow Sea Yse
Yukon Territory Yte
Zaire Zai
Zambia Zam
Zimbabwee Zim

Deluge

2008-11-26T19:58:03Z

Former.trout:

Deluge II

by Tim Sharrock and Stephen Agar

=== Variant Description: ===

0.Regular Diplomacy rules apply except when they don't.

1.The game begins in Winter 1900 which is played as a separate season.. Players may decide which type of unit to build in their home centres in readiness for Spring 1901. Russia may build F(StP)nc if it wishes.

2.Any army in a coastal province may, instead of being ordered to move or support, be ordered to turn into a fleet. Such a transformation will be successful provided the unit is not dislodged that move.

3.Rising sea levels result in the gradual submergence of provinces according to Table 1 below. Submergences occur every year after any adjustments in Winter. Once submerged, a s.c. is effectively destroyed and may not be used for the following Winter's adjustments.

==== Table 1 - Submergences ====

W 1901: Lon, Hol, Bel, Gas, Ven, Lvn.

W 1902: Yor, Pic, Apu, Rum, Sev, Fin, Syr, Den, Lpl.

W 1903: Arm, Bre, StP, Par, Tus, Nap, Bud, Kie.

W 1904: Ber, Mos, Mar, Por, Rom, Vie, Bul, Gre, Pru, Ruh, Gal, Ukr, Con

W 1905: Wal, Cly, Swe, Tri, Alb, War, Ice

W 1906: Edi, Spa, Tun, Ser, Smy, Sil, Boh.

W 1907: Nwy, Mun, Pie, Tyr, NAf, Bur, Ank.

4.Armies in provinces which submerge are drowned!

5.New supply centres are formed in the course of the game, after all Winter retreats and adjustments, according to Table 2.

==== Table 2 - New Supply Centres ====

W 1901: Wal, Ruh, Tyr.

W 1902: Ukr, Ice

W 1903: Pie.

W 1904: Boh, Sil.

W 1905: Swi

W 1906: NAf

When a new s.c. is created it immediately comes under the control of (1) any unit occupying that province, (2) the last country to have a unit in that province (spring or autumn), (3) the country within whose boundary the new s.c. lies or (4) if none of the above it is neutral.

6 Iceland is a valid space in this variant and it becomes passable after W 1901. The province of Switzerland becomes passable after W 1904.

6.Players may build units in any vacant supply centre which they control.

7.All Abstraction A/F convoy rules apply.

8.The winner is the survivor (if any) after W 1908.

Changes And Comments

The main changes are

•variable Winter 1901 placements

•addition of Iceland as a space and centre

•Con sinks a move earlier than in Deluge I

•confirmation that armies in sinking spaces drown, but flexible rules to allow the conversion of armies to fleets (but not vice versa)

•builds can be taken in any vacant owned centre.

==== Additional Rule Revisions ====

1. Creation of coasts. When a land space sinks at the end of a winter, coastal provinces may be created. If there are ANY fleets BUILT in these territories that will have multi coasts, the player must decide during the current WINTER which coast the fleet will be on. For established fleets, the GM will assign a coast based on the previous fall move.

Eg at the end of winter 1901, venice sinks creating 2 coasts in ROME, Piedmont and Tuscany.

if Italy builds a fleet in Rome, he must declare a coast.

If France had move a fleet to piedmont, it would be placed on the gulf of lyon coast side.

If a fleet had been moved to Tuscany, it would be placed on the gulf of lyon coast side.

2. Convoy (also know as fast Ferry in some versions of the game)
A fleet that carries an army over one sea space is convoying or fast ferrying. That is classified as it's move. If a CONVOY fails, then an A/F is created.

3. Army- Fleet Rules.

a) An A/F may only consist of two units belonging to the same country. IF a resulting move would see a creation of a multi-country A/F then the Army is returned to space it embarked from.

b) An A/F has the same "combat factor" as a single fleet; it may attack, support or be supported.

c) An A/F cannot convoy another army.

d) An Army cannot board an A/F.

e) An A/F can only exist in a sea space - it cannot be ordered to a coastal province as an entity - but it may support some other unit into a coastal province.

f) If an army is ordered to board a fleet, and the A/F is prevented from moving to another sea space the A/F remains intact.

g) If an army is ordered to board a fleet, and the fleet is attacked from another sea space, or if the fleet is ordered to support another unit, the army is considered to have failed to board and it remains in its land province. This is true even if the fleet successfully defends itself against attack.

h) A fleet which lands an army in a coastal province, before making a move, may then support that army to land as its move, or it may move elsewhere. If an army's disembarkation fails, the A/F remains intact and any orders for fleet movement will not be carried out.

i) A fleet may not simultaneously land one army and pick up another.

j) If an A/F is annihilated, then both units are removed from the board.

k) An A/F can be ordered to HOLD. (ie A Lon embarks F Nth, a/F nth Holds)

l) Retreats, Dislodgements and Annihilation. If an A/F is dislodged whilst trying to disembark its A, this move fails and the A and F must retreat together. If an A/F is dislodged and can only retreat to a land space (no suitable sea space being available), the F may retreat but the A is destroyed.

m)Where an A disembarks from the F, and the F then moves away without supporting the A; if the now vacated sea space is then occupied by another unsupported F or A/F, the A disembarkation succeeds; if the second occupation is supported, the disembarkation fails and the A continues with the F.

SO - Now you are completly confused.

CORRECT MOVE EXAMPLES:

A(Lon) E F(ENG); A/F(ENG) - MAO; A(MAO) D Por.

A/F(ENG); A(ENG) D Bre; F(ENG) - NTH.

A/F(ENG); F(ENG) S A(ENG) D Bre.

F(ENG) convoys A(Lon) - Bre.

INCORRECT MOVE EXAMPLE

A(Lon) E F(ENG); F(ENG) S A(Lon) - Bre.

Deluge Strategy Articles:

[[The Devil And The Deep Blue Sea]]

[[Category:Variant]]

Deluge

2008-11-26T19:53:15Z

Former.trout:

Deluge II

by Tim Sharrock and Stephen Agar

=== Variant Description: ===

0.Regular Diplomacy rules apply except when they don't.

1.The game begins in Winter 1900 which is played as a separate season.. Players may decide which type of unit to build in their home centres in readiness for Spring 1901. Russia may build F(StP)nc if it wishes.

2.Any army in a coastal province may, instead of being ordered to move or support, be ordered to turn into a fleet. Such a transformation will be successful provided the unit is not dislodged that move.

3.Rising sea levels result in the gradual submergence of provinces according to Table 1 below. Submergences occur every year after any adjustments in Winter. Once submerged, a s.c. is effectively destroyed and may not be used for the following Winter's adjustments.

==== Table 1 - Submergences ====

W 1901: Lon, Hol, Bel, Gas, Ven, Lvn.

W 1902: Yor, Pic, Apu, Rum, Sev, Fin, Syr, Den, Lpl.

W 1903: Arm, Bre, StP, Par, Tus, Nap, Bud, Kie.

W 1904: Ber, Mos, Mar, Por, Rom, Vie, Bul, Gre, Pru, Ruh, Gal, Ukr, Con

W 1905: Wal, Cly, Swe, Tri, Alb, War, Ice

W 1906: Edi, Spa, Tun, Ser, Smy, Sil, Boh.

W 1907: Nwy, Mun, Pie, Tyr, NAf, Bur, Ank.

4.Armies in provinces which submerge are drowned!

5.New supply centres are formed in the course of the game, after all Winter retreats and adjustments, according to Table 2.

==== Table 2 - New Supply Centres ====

W 1901: Wal, Ruh, Tyr.

W 1902: Ukr, Ice

W 1903: Pie.

W 1904: Boh, Sil.

W 1905: Swi

W 1906: NAf

When a new s.c. is created it immediately comes under the control of (1) any unit occupying that province, (2) the last country to have a unit in that province (spring or autumn), (3) the country within whose boundary the new s.c. lies or (4) if none of the above it is neutral.

6 Iceland is a valid space in this variant and it becomes passable after W 1901. The province of Switzerland becomes passable after W 1904.

6.Players may build units in any vacant supply centre which they control.

7.All Abstraction A/F convoy rules apply.

8.The winner is the survivor (if any) after W 1908.

Changes And Comments

The main changes are

•variable Winter 1901 placements

•addition of Iceland as a space and centre

•Con sinks a move earlier than in Deluge I

•confirmation that armies in sinking spaces drown, but flexible rules to allow the conversion of armies to fleets (but not vice versa)

•builds can be taken in any vacant owned centre.

==== Additional Rule Revisions ====

1. Creation of coasts. When a land space sinks at the end of a winter, coastal provinces may be created. If there are ANY fleets BUILT in these territories that will have multi coasts, the player must decide during the current WINTER which coast the fleet will be on. For established fleets, the GM will assign a coast based on the previous fall move.

Eg at the end of winter 1901, venice sinks creating 2 coasts in ROME, Piedmont and Tuscany.

if Italy builds a fleet in Rome, he must declare a coast.

If France had move a fleet to piedmont, it would be placed on the gulf of lyon coast side.

If a fleet had been moved to Tuscany, it would be placed on the gulf of lyon coast side.

2. Convoy (also know as fast Ferry in some versions of the game)
A fleet that carries an army over one sea space is convoying or fast ferrying. That is classified as it's move. If a CONVOY fails, then an A/F is created.

3. Army- Fleet Rules.

a) An A/F may only consist of two units belonging to the same country. IF a resulting move would see a creation of a multi-country A/F then the Army is returned to space it embarked from.

b) An A/F has the same "combat factor" as a single fleet; it may attack, support or be supported.

c) An A/F cannot convoy another army.

d) An Army cannot board an A/F.

e) An A/F can only exist in a sea space - it cannot be ordered to a coastal province as an entity - but it may support some other unit into a coastal province.

f) If an army is ordered to board a fleet, and the A/F is prevented from moving to another sea space the A/F remains intact.

g) If an army is ordered to board a fleet, and the fleet is attacked from another sea space, or if the fleet is ordered to support another unit, the army is considered to have failed to board and it remains in its land province. This is true even if the fleet successfully defends itself against attack.

h) A fleet which lands an army in a coastal province, before making a move, may then support that army to land as its move, or it may move elsewhere. If an army's disembarkation fails, the A/F remains intact and any orders for fleet movement will not be carried out.

i) A fleet may not simultaneously land one army and pick up another.

j) If an A/F is annihilated, then both units are removed from the board.

k) An A/F can be ordered to HOLD. (ie A Lon embarks F Nth, a/F nth Holds)

l) Retreats, Dislodgements and Annihilation. If an A/F is dislodged whilst trying to disembark its A, this move fails and the A and F must retreat together. If an A/F is dislodged and can only retreat to a land space (no suitable sea space being available), the F may retreat but the A is destroyed.

m)Where an A disembarks from the F, and the F then moves away without supporting the A; if the now vacated sea space is then occupied by another unsupported F or A/F, the A disembarkation succeeds; if the second occupation is supported, the disembarkation fails and the A continues with the F.

SO - Now you are completly confused.

CORRECT MOVES

A(Lon) E F(ENG); A/F(ENG) - MAO; A(MAO) D Por.

A/F(ENG); A(ENG) D Bre; F(ENG) - NTH.

A/F(ENG); F(ENG) S A(ENG) D Bre.

F(ENG) convoys A(Lon) - Bre.

INCORRECT MOVES

A(Lon) E F(ENG); F(ENG) S A(Lon) - Bre.

Deluge Strategy Articles:

[[The Devil And The Deep Blue Sea]]

[[Category:Variant]]

Deluge

2008-11-26T19:52:20Z

Former.trout:

Deluge II

by Tim Sharrock and Stephen Agar

=== Variant Description: ===

0.Regular Diplomacy rules apply except when they don't.

1.The game begins in Winter 1900 which is played as a separate season.. Players may decide which type of unit to build in their home centres in readiness for Spring 1901. Russia may build F(StP)nc if it wishes.

2.Any army in a coastal province may, instead of being ordered to move or support, be ordered to turn into a fleet. Such a transformation will be successful provided the unit is not dislodged that move.

3.Rising sea levels result in the gradual submergence of provinces according to Table 1 below. Submergences occur every year after any adjustments in Winter. Once submerged, a s.c. is effectively destroyed and may not be used for the following Winter's adjustments.

==== Table 1 - Submergences ====

W 1901: Lon, Hol, Bel, Gas, Ven, Lvn.

W 1902: Yor, Pic, Apu, Rum, Sev, Fin, Syr, Den, Lpl.

W 1903: Arm, Bre, StP, Par, Tus, Nap, Bud, Kie.

W 1904: Ber, Mos, Mar, Por, Rom, Vie, Bul, Gre, Pru, Ruh, Gal, Ukr, Con

W 1905: Wal, Cly, Swe, Tri, Alb, War, Ice

W 1906: Edi, Spa, Tun, Ser, Smy, Sil, Boh.

W 1907: Nwy, Mun, Pie, Tyr, NAf, Bur, Ank.

4.Armies in provinces which submerge are drowned!

5.New supply centres are formed in the course of the game, after all Winter retreats and adjustments, according to Table 2.

==== Table 2 - New Supply Centres ====

W 1901: Wal, Ruh, Tyr.

W 1902: Ukr, Ice

W 1903: Pie.

W 1904: Boh, Sil.

W 1905: Swi

W 1906: NAf

When a new s.c. is created it immediately comes under the control of (1) any unit occupying that province, (2) the last country to have a unit in that province (spring or autumn), (3) the country within whose boundary the new s.c. lies or (4) if none of the above it is neutral.

6 Iceland is a valid space in this variant and it becomes passable after W 1901. The province of Switzerland becomes passable after W 1904.

6.Players may build units in any vacant supply centre which they control.

7.All Abstraction A/F convoy rules apply.

8.The winner is the survivor (if any) after W 1908.

Changes And Comments

The main changes are

•variable Winter 1901 placements

•addition of Iceland as a space and centre

•Con sinks a move earlier than in Deluge I

•confirmation that armies in sinking spaces drown, but flexible rules to allow the conversion of armies to fleets (but not vice versa)

•builds can be taken in any vacant owned centre.

==== Additional Rule Revisions ====

1. Creation of coasts. When a land space sinks at the end of a winter, coastal provinces may be created. If there are ANY fleets BUILT in these territories that will have multi coasts, the player must decide during the current WINTER which coast the fleet will be on. For established fleets, the GM will assign a coast based on the previous fall move.

Eg at the end of winter 1901, venice sinks creating 2 coasts in ROME, Piedmont and Tuscany.

if Italy builds a fleet in Rome, he must declare a coast.

If France had move a fleet to piedmont, it would be placed on the gulf of lyon coast side.

If a fleet had been moved to Tuscany, it would be placed on the gulf of lyon coast side.

2. Convoy (also know as fast Ferry in some versions of the game)
A fleet that carries an army over one sea space is convoying or fast ferrying. That is classified as it's move. If a CONVOY fails, then an A/F is created.

3. Army- Fleet Rules.

a) An A/F may only consist of two units belonging to the same country. IF a resulting move would see a creation of a multi-country A/F then the Army is returned to space it embarked from.

b) An A/F has the same "combat factor" as a single fleet; it may attack, support or be supported.

c) An A/F cannot convoy another army.

d) An Army cannot board an A/F.

e) An A/F can only exist in a sea space - it cannot be ordered to a coastal province as an entity - but it may support some other unit into a coastal province.

f) If an army is ordered to board a fleet, and the A/F is prevented from moving to another sea space the A/F remains intact.

g) If an army is ordered to board a fleet, and the fleet is attacked from another sea space, or if the fleet is ordered to support another unit, the army is considered to have failed to board and it remains in its land province. This is true even if the fleet successfully defends itself against attack.

h) A fleet which lands an army in a coastal province, before making a move, may then support that army to land as its move, or it may move elsewhere. If an army's disembarkation fails, the A/F remains intact and any orders for fleet movement will not be carried out.

i) A fleet may not simultaneously land one army and pick up another.

j) If an A/F is annihilated, then both units are removed from the board.

k) An A/F can be ordered to HOLD. (ie A Lon embarks F Nth, a/F nth Holds)

l) Retreats, Dislodgements and Annihilation. If an A/F is dislodged whilst trying to disembark its A, this move fails and the A and F must retreat together. If an A/F is dislodged and can only retreat to a land space (no suitable sea space being available), the F may retreat but the A is destroyed.

m)Where an A disembarks from the F, and the F then moves away without supporting the A; if the now vacated sea space is then occupied by another unsupported F or A/F, the A disembarkation succeeds; if the second occupation is supported, the disembarkation fails and the A continues with the F.

SO - Now you are completly confused.

CORRECT MOVES

A(Lon) E F(ENG); A/F(ENG) - MAO; A(MAO) D Por.
A/F(ENG); A(ENG) D Bre; F(ENG) - NTH.
A/F(ENG); F(ENG) S A(ENG) D Bre.
F(ENG) convoys A(Lon) - Bre.

INCORRECT MOVES

A(Lon) E F(ENG); F(ENG) S A(Lon) - Bre.

Deluge Strategy Articles:

[[The Devil And The Deep Blue Sea]]

[[Category:Variant]]

The Art Of Diplomacy In The Art Of War

2008-04-27T20:46:47Z

Former.trout: New page: == The Art of Diplomacy in The Art of War== Simon Szykman ''Reprinted from The Diplomatic Pouch Fall 1995 Movement Issue'' ''All war is based on deception.'' ''-- Sun Tzu '' =...

== The Art of Diplomacy in The Art of War==
Simon Szykman
''Reprinted from The Diplomatic Pouch Fall 1995 Movement Issue''

''All war is based on deception.''
''-- Sun Tzu ''

=== Introduction ===

The Art of War was written about 2,500 years ago in China by Sun Tzu. It is not one of the most famous books ever written -- the average person has probably never heard of it (though probably many Diplomacy players have). But it is one of the most famous military treatises written because it is the oldest surviving one and quite possibly the first one ever written. For interested readers, the Art of War is available free online through Project Gutenberg.

[Note: The Project Gutenberg version seems to have been archived. An alternate location for the text is available through chinapage.com. -SS, 2/97]

In my opinion, a good player of the game of Diplomacy must not only be a good diplomat, but a good strategist. I also believe that a successful military leader (in the real world) must be not only a good strategist, but a good diplomat as well. Because I see the two as being strongly enmeshed, when I heard about Sun Tzu's Art of War, I was very interested in reading it to see if I could find principles that apply to the game of Diplomacy in a 2,500 year old document.

The Art of War is divided into thirteen chapters. Because Diplomacy is limited in scope, some of the chapters such as Terrain and The Attack by Fire do not apply (though they still make for fascinating reading). Others are very relevant. It is these that I will focus on and add some of my own thoughts to. I welcome any comments or stories of situations where the applying (or not applying) the principles discussed below have affected the course of a game you played in. These will appear in next issue's Pouch Deposits, or if I get enough of them I'll print them up in a followup column in the next issue.

Sun Tzu was unknown by his comtemporaries until after he wrote the Art of War. The treatise brought him to the notice of King Ho Lu, who appointed him as a general, and his military genius led to his becoming a legendary figure. Sun Tzu was not giving advice to strategy game enthusiasts, he was fighting wars in ancient China. Yet many of the strategies that we Diplomacy players have discovered and rediscovered, on our own or from watching and listening to other players, are by no means novel.

2,500 years ago, these principles were novel. War was more or less a disorganized free-for-all, and as far as is known, organized principles of military strategy did not exist (at least in written form) until The Art of War. It is said that Sun Tzu, commanding an army of 30,000 men, defeated an army of 200,000. Had Sun Tzu's opponent known of those principles, or had a similar set of principles of his own, the outcome would most likely have been different.

Many of the points that I focus in on may seem obvious. While the novice Diplomacy player may come away from this article with some knowledge that will improve play, many players will not. If you are looking to improve your game and are not a novice, this article probably won't be of much help. I found it interesting that I could read principles of military tactics that were put to paper (parchment?) two and a half millenia ago, and find familiarity in them. If you do as well, please read on.

=== The Art of War ===

In the Art of War, Sun Tzu says:

''The art of war is of vital importance to the State.''

Perhaps this is self-evident. He also says:

''The general that hearkens to my counsel and acts upon it, will conquer.... The general that hearkens not to my counsel nor acts upon it, will suffer defeat.''

What he's really saying with these two statements is "you've got a really important problem, and I'm the one who can tell you exactly what to do about it". Pretty bold words considering he wasn't appointed as a general until after he wrote the Art of War.

In a chapter called Laying Plans, Sun Tzu says:

''According as circumstances are favorable, one should modify one's plans.''

This is really one of the key points to being a good Diplomacy player: flexibility. It doesn't mean one should play haphazardly. Rather, it means you shouldn't stick to a plan to the point where it interferes with your play; don't exclude potential opportunities to improve your situation purely because it would mean changing your plan. Of course, changing your plan may have other costs which need to be taken into account.

I used to have a problem with this. I would make a strong commitment to an alliance and receive one in return. I would then abandon the border with that ally to use my units to attack somebody else. As you would expect, I got stabbed. Twice (in two games). By the same person - Mike Frigge. How does that saying go "stab me once, shame on you, stab me twice, shame on me"?

I have since learned better. Mike already knew better. He didn't make the alliances with the specific intention of stabbing me, but when I left him a with an undefended or underdefended border, he changed his plan and attacked me. The obvious lesson I learned from those games was not to leave borders open, even with allies. But the meta-lesson, and the more important one, is to remain flexible and always be willing to shift tracks if you have something to gain from it.

Sun Tzu also had the following to say:

''All warfare is based on deception Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him. If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Attack him where is is unprepared, appear when you are not expected.''

This is one of the key distinctions between Diplomacy and other strategy games. In many games it is to one's advantage to hide one's intentions, or even to distract an opponent's attention from what is really going on, but only in Diplomacy are trickery and deception key tactics used actively and offensively to get what you want. The game of Diplomacy requires skill not just in negotiating peace or a plan for attack with player A on player B. You need to be able to mislead others, let them think you are doing one thing when you are doing another. A good Diplomacy player can get another player to do things his way. An excellent player can manipulate an opponent into doing things his way, while convincing the opponent he is getting things done his own way. Dan Shoham mentions some of these points in his column in this issue.

Sun Tzu calls these methods "indirect methods" in a later chapter (Energy), and goes on to say:

''In all fighting, the direct method may be used for joining battle, but indirect methods will be needed in order to secure victory.''

Examples of indirect methods are: hiding order beneath disorder, simulating fear, keeping the enemy on the move, holding out baits to manipulate an opponent's actions - just the kind of tricks a Diplomacy player may use.

Another relevant point made is:

''Now the general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought. The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand.''

Okay, so perhaps the word "temple" doesn't quite fit in these days, but the idea does. In Diplomacy, you can gain a tremendous advantage by playing out the possibilities into the future. Try to predict what the other players will do. When deciding on your own moves, consider not just what will happen this move, but also the next move or two after that, and try to estimate how others will react in response to each of those moves. Determine the worst thing your opponent can do and consider the chances of him doing it. Do you play conservatively or take risks? Do you assume worst-case, or try to determine the most-probable moves which may not be worst case? It's all a big numbers game, and the more calculation you do, the better off you'll be.

Sun Tzu has the following to say in the chapter Attack by Stratagem:

''Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting. Thus, the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field....''

Here, I believe that Sun Tzu was stating the above ranking in terms of minimizing the cost of war (military expenses, lost lives, etc.), in which case it is preferable to not engage the enemy in actual fighting. But you can look at this also in the context of Diplomacy. Why else do we set up DMZs or arrange for non-agression pacts with neighbors? You have a limited number of units to use against opponents. It requires fewer units to disrupt an opponent's plans (say, by convincing his neighbor to attack him) or to keep enemy units at a distance by bouncing them than it does to defend against supported attacks. Any place you reduce the need for the presence of your units means you have more units to concentrate elsewhere, against other enemies.

''If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.''

In Diplomacy, the above applies not just to your enemies, but to all players; even an ally is an opponent in terms of the game. The more you know about your opponents, the better will be your chances of outguessing them, predicting their moves, deceiving them and manipulating them.

Most players have at some point been in a situation where they knew or could guess what another player would do, from watching their style of play or through press, and used that knowledge either to attack them or successfully defend against an attack. It is also quite probable that somebody has successfully predicted what you were going to do in the same manner. Thus, if you assume other players have the same goal, the above quote has an obvious corollary: don't let your opponents know you. For some reason Sun Tzu's two separate statements of this corrolary appear only several chapters later:

''Let your plans be dark and inpenetrable as night...''

and

''Do not repeat the tactics which have gained you one victory, but let your methods be regulated by the infinite variety of circumstances.''

In Tactical Dispositions Sun Tzu says:

''The good fighers of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy. To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself. Thus, the good figher is able to secure himself against defeat, but cannot make certain of defeating the enemy. He wins his battles by making no mistakes. Making no mistakes is what establishes the certainty of victory....''

Two important lessons for Diplomacy players: to make yourself as invulnerable to attack as possible, and to not make mistakes. If there is the possibility for you to be attacked, there is the possibility for you to lose. It's usually not long before players achieve understanding of the concept of stalemate lines. Once your position is secure, you have much more freedom to plan your moves and look for an opening for an attack of your own.

Not making mistakes is perhaps obvious, but that doesn't stop people. That includes myself as well. I recently was in a game where I had set up a stalemate line and guaranteed a win though it would take me a while to get the last SC. To hold my stalemate line, I had one unit that could either support another unit of mine or attack a neighboring enemy unit. I accidentally made a mistake with my orders and attacked my own unit, letting my two opponents take that SC. I reestablished the stalemate line, but without that SC, the game will now end as a 3-way draw instead of a win. Some bad moves are not recognized as such until after the fact, but considerable effort should be made to avoid making outright errors such as this.

Another piece of advice from the Art of War:

''There are [several] dangerous faults which may affect a general: (1) Recklessness, which leads to destruction; (2) cowardice, which leads to capture; (3) a hasty temper, which can be provoked by insults; (4) a delicacy of honor which is sensitive to shame''

These are things to avoid in yourself, and things to encourage and take advantage of in others. I've mentioned a couple of these points above. Dan Shoham spoke about hasty tempers in his column, and the idea of honor has come up countless times in discussions on whether or not stabbing is right or wrong, fair or unfair. The question of honor came up in Stephen Lepley's column as well.

I'll just close with another quote from the Art of War which I happened to like and which I think sums things up nicely:

''The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy's not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not in the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable. ''

Strategy

2008-04-27T20:38:28Z

Former.trout:

==Standard Strategy Articles:==
* [[Diplomacy Tips]] by Big Boy
* [[The Art Of Diplomacy]] by Richard Sharp
* [[Subtle Joys of Being Little]] by Rod Walker
* [[The Art of Negotiation in Diplomacy]] by Lewis Pulshiper
* [[The Diplomacy Survival Guide]] by Vincent Mous
* [[The Art Of Diplomacy In The Art Of War]] by Simon Szykman

'''Articles Written By [[Allan B Calhamer]]:'''
* [[Military Intelligence]] (1960)
* [[On Strengthening the hand of Austria-Hungary]] (1960)
* [[The Tactics of Diplomacy]] (1961)
* [[A Dozen Years of Diplomacy]] (1966)
* [[On the Play of Postal Diplomacy]] by Allan Calhamer (1966)
* [[The Invention of Diplomacy]] (1974)
* [[Across the Whole Board]] (1974)
* [[Objectives Other Than Winning]] (1974)
* [[Introduction to Diplomacy]] (1975)
* [[The Coast of Moscow]]

==Variant Strategy Articles:==

'''[[Colonial]] Variant:'''
* [[CDD Lab Notes]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Review]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 1 The British]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 2 The Chinese]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 3 The Dutch]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 4 The French]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 5 The Japanese]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 6 The Russians]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 7 The Turks]]

'''[[Deluge]] Variant:'''
* [[The Devil And The Deep Blue Sea]]

==Game Notes And Information:==
 
'''Game Paradoxes'''
* [[Convoy Paradoxes]]

'''Stalemate Lines'''
* [[The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy: Stalemates]] by Rod Walker

The Diplomacy Survival Guide

2008-04-25T23:20:17Z

Former.trout: New page: == The Diplomacy Survival Guide == By: Vincent Mous ''Reprinted from the Diplomatic Pouch - Spring 1995 Movement Issue'' So you've played Diplomacy for a while, and have done mod...

== The Diplomacy Survival Guide ==
By: Vincent Mous

''Reprinted from the Diplomatic Pouch - Spring 1995 Movement Issue''

So you've played Diplomacy for a while, and have done moderately well, winning some games, drawing more, and losing even more, and you ask yourself, what do I have to do to take my play to the next level? Well, the answer my friends, is in this column. Simply read it, and heed my advice! This is good stuff! Trust me...I wouldn't lie to you just to win a few more games, now would I?

Well, as an initial installment of the Diplomacy Survival Guide, I thought I would give you the Ten Rules for Surviving at Diplomacy. Well, ok, maybe not the Ten Rules, but the first ten. Oh, and before someone sues me for false representation, these are the ten rules for surviving. I never said anything about winning, right?

1. '''Paranoia is a good thing.'''
Do you ever get that creepy feeling when playing Diplomacy that everyone else
is out to get you? Do you ever suffer from delusions and irrational fears?
Well, relax. Those fears are perfectly rational -- everyone is out to get you.

2. '''Too much of a good thing is bad.'''
Although a healthy dose of paranoia is good for you, you have to learn to put
it aside somewhat. After all, maybe you can get some of the others before they
get you, right? Maybe you can be friends with someone and beat up on the
others, then finish your friend off before he gets you? Then again, maybe not.
The point is if you don't trust one of the six other scheming bastards (yes,
you are one too), then you won't get anywhere.

3. '''Security in numbers...or, let's all beat up on Russia!'''
If you organize an alliance which will take on another country, then there are
a few advantages that will follow. First, while you're all attacking that other
country, you're not getting attacked yourself. Second, you are in reduced
danger of a stab, since if one of the countries in an alliance stabs another,
then there is a greater chance of the other members in the alliance coming to
the rescue. This is because that makes people feel good, and even though we're
all backstabbers, we don't like to admit it. Third, you have more friends that
won't be expecting you to stab, because of my second point, so if you stab,
it'll be a real surprise. Finally, you get to grow and have more units, thus
the security in numbers (you didn't think I meant the number of countries in
your alliance, did you?).

4. '''Talk to everyone.'''
Ask them about the weather, their national football team, whether they've ever
tried lasagna and would like to meet in this nice little restaurant in Rome
that you know to try it out (especially if you're Austria talking to France).
Even if you're not going to ally with someone right away, it's always a good
thing to keep the channels of communication open. That way you can get an early
warning of a stab from someone else, or, even better, spread disinformation
when you're about to stab someone! It's also easier to start working with
someone late in a game if you've talked with them earlier.

5. '''Don't stop talking.'''
Even if you've stabbed someone, or if they've stabbed you, don't end the
communication. If nothing else, you need to either gloat and rub it in or swear
and vent your anger (as the case may be) to get the most out of the game!

More than that, though, if you've been stabbed, you may induce a guilt trip in
the stabber and convince him to call off the attack (or see something better
which the two of you could attack together). Then you can get your revenge in a
few years....

And if you stab someone, you may let yourself be convinced to recant -- thus
letting your victim get even more out of position, and getting the chance to
stab that player twice in a row! It may also be worthwile to let him live as a
puppet state for a few turns and use his support against others before
finishing him off (remember he'll likely be looking for revenge!).

----

'''''...It's often usefull to misleed other players about your jeenyus-level IQ. After all, although your brane power may excede that of the other six players cumbined, you do knot want to let them no....'''''

----

6. '''Brains are deadly...or, if you're smart, don't show it!'''
Someone who seems to know a lot, and talks about all sorts of openings and
proposes brilliant plans that look 5 years into the future will probably get
clobbered immediately by the other players because they'll recognize that he's
too dangerous (call it instinct). Therefore, make a few spelling and grammar
errors, propose a plan with an obvious mistake, or ask someone what a Lepanto
is or what the correct syntax for a convoy is. They will then think you are
harmless (or at least sufficiently so), and will have a tendency to ally with
you early in the game, since they'll think themselves able to take advantage of
you later on.

7. '''The early worm gets caught -- by the early bird.'''
When starting a game, don't decide too early on who your allies will be and
what your strategy is. Speak to everyone first, getting an idea of who the
players are and who the fools are. Then make standard opening moves in the
Spring and decide who to attack in the Fall or the Spring of the following
year. The worst way to start off a game is to attack someone right off the bat
and have someone else attack you.

8. '''One enemy is good. Three enemies is bad.'''
If you seem to be friendly and allied with everyone, your neighbours will all
start to get suspicious, since they'll be expecting a stab, and it'll be harder
for you to work with anyone. You may even provoke one of them to attack you --
which could happen at the same time as you attack someone else, and really
spoil your situation. Therefore, try having an enemy at all times; someone
weaker and smaller than you, of course!

----

'''''"There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics"'''''
- Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield, British PM 1868, 1874-1880

----

9. '''Brush up on your opening moves and best alliance statistics.'''
The Hall of Fame will give you a breakdown of which alliances win the most and
which countries are the best. You can also get a list of opening moves and
discussions about which win the most often and which are the most effective,
etc.

Well, not all alliances are created equal, and they usually tend to favor one
side over the other. Here is my view of the best primary ally for each country,
as well as the best secondary ally (you shouldn't just have one ally, but at
least two, so that you can stab one and still keep the other). I would say
more, but that would be another article (Manus, do I hear you calling?).
* Austria: Italy, Russia.
* England: Germany, Turkey
* France: England, Russia
* Germany: Italy, France
* Italy: Turkey, Germany
* Russia: England, Italy
* Turkey: Russia, France

10. '''Play England.'''
This is the easiest one to follow - Turkey being a good second choice if you
can survive the first few years. I've actually never been eliminated in a
standard Diplomacy game when playing England. Unfortunately, I've never won
either -- but that's not the point, right?

The fact is, England is the most defensive country there is, because it has a
natural moat surrounding it. There's not even a drawbridge to be lowered to let
the troops in once the castle wall is breached. Unfortunately, this same
obstacle also makes it hard for England to get her armies out onto the
continent.

And here's a final, bonus tip...

11. '''Reaching 18 centers helps.'''
You'll definitely survive if you reach 18 centers. I guarantee it! (Standard
games only -- yes, there's always a catch.)

Well, I hope this will be of use to you. I really recommend that you change your goal to survival from winning. After, with the likes of Dan Shoham out there, you don't even stand a chance, right? Just let me know which games you'll be playing in!

Oh, and this article is shareware, so you may use it for a period of one month. after which you must register by sending your name, address and five dollars to the author. (Just kidding.)

Vince Mous

Strategy

2008-04-25T23:11:00Z

Former.trout:

==Standard Strategy Articles:==
* [[Diplomacy Tips]] by Big Boy
* [[The Art Of Diplomacy]] by Richard Sharp
* [[Subtle Joys of Being Little]] by Rod Walker
* [[The Art of Negotiation in Diplomacy]] by Lewis Pulshiper
* [[The Diplomacy Survival Guide]] by Vincent Mous

'''Articles Written By [[Allan B Calhamer]]:'''
* [[Military Intelligence]] (1960)
* [[On Strengthening the hand of Austria-Hungary]] (1960)
* [[The Tactics of Diplomacy]] (1961)
* [[A Dozen Years of Diplomacy]] (1966)
* [[On the Play of Postal Diplomacy]] by Allan Calhamer (1966)
* [[The Invention of Diplomacy]] (1974)
* [[Across the Whole Board]] (1974)
* [[Objectives Other Than Winning]] (1974)
* [[Introduction to Diplomacy]] (1975)
* [[The Coast of Moscow]]

==Variant Strategy Articles:==

'''[[Colonial]] Variant:'''
* [[CDD Lab Notes]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Review]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 1 The British]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 2 The Chinese]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 3 The Dutch]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 4 The French]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 5 The Japanese]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 6 The Russians]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 7 The Turks]]

'''[[Deluge]] Variant:'''
* [[The Devil And The Deep Blue Sea]]

==Game Notes And Information:==
 
'''Game Paradoxes'''
* [[Convoy Paradoxes]]

'''Stalemate Lines'''
* [[The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy: Stalemates]] by Rod Walker

Art Of Negotiation Part 3

2008-04-18T04:38:17Z

Former.trout:

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

''Reprinted from The General, vol. 18 #3''

====Part 3====

Anyone who plays and studies Diplomacy can become a good tactician, for of the three elements of the game -- negotiation, strategy, and tactics -- the tactical element is the simplest and most predictable. Tactics is the ordering and arrangement of your units so as to accomplish your strategic objectives. The more numerous force usually succeeds and, if not pressed by time, never loses. Tactical problems can sometimes be solved with the help of mathematical game theory, but that is beyond the scope of this article. Little can be said about good tactics as a whole, but many individual points can be noted.

According to game theory, the best way to play a game is to maximize one's minimum gains -- assume that the enemy is a perfect player and move accordingly. When reduced to mathematics, this can involve a certain amount of probability, even in a game such as Diplomacy which uses no chance mechanism (dice). In terms of Diplomacy tactics it means that you must look for a move that will make gains regardless of what your opponent does, but always remember that there is rarely a single best move. Outguessing the opponent, whether by intuition or by probability, is part of the game. A gain can be possession of a supply center, destruction of an enemy unit, or, especially in Spring, occupation of a non-center space which will lead to capture of a supply center in Fall. Spring is the season of maneuver, Fall the season of capture. When you outnumber the enemy, you’re virtually certain to succeed if you don’t make a mistake and if unit mix and positioning don’t handicap you at the start of the war.

If you’re outnumbered or desperately need a quick advance to prevent a third player from gaining the upper hand, then you must take chances. Try to figure out how the enemy will move and then order your units to take best advantage of that move. You’ll probably get clobbered, but you might guess right and leave your enemy in all kinds of trouble and rather wary to boot.

Remember that in every case, tactics must be subordinated to strategy. A slow, delaying withdrawal in one area might be better than a flamboyant attempt to turn the tide if you’re doing well elsewhere.

I mentioned unit mix and positioning above. Numbers are important in Diplomacy, but other factors can alter the balance. The ratio of fleets to armies can be vital. If you have too many of one and not enough of the other you could be beaten by a weaker enemy. Each country tends to have a natural or average mix of units, as explained in part 2, and areas have obvious, optimum mixes as well. The Mediterranean area, including the adjacent lands (Italy, Iberia, southern Balkans, Turkey, Africa) is an area where fleets are much more valuable than armies. Central Europe is an army area. While this seems self-evident, all too many players fail to plan ahead when building new units. Think about where you intend to be two or three game years hence, and build units that will help at that time. After you’ve expanded to about ten units, it will take one or two years for new units to reach the battle lines -- plan ahead for it. Moreover, think about where you will build a unit before the opportunity comes, to avoid hasty decisions when faced with a time limit.

When you are doing well you need to expand as rapidly as possible, getting units behind the enemy's defensive stalemate lines before those lines form. I call this "headmanning," from the ice hockey term for moving the puck up to the most advanced attacker. In a sense the most advanced attacking unit "carries the puck" for the whole attack. If it is stopped, the entire attack will bunch up behind it. Get a few units out front as fast as possible, and let newly built units help destroy enemy resistance nearer your country. A single unit, leading a stream of units, can make the difference between success and failure of an attack which takes place several years hence. For example, when Turkey is expanding west it should headman a fleet into the Atlantic as soon as possible, probably before the last Italian center is captured, so that the western countries cannot seal Gibraltar (by F Portugal and F English S F mid-Atlantic).

When the units to headman aren’t available, a lone raider behind the enemy lines can cripple an enemy attack or defense for years. Most spaces in Diplomacy border with six other spaces. Although land/sea differences help, three to five units are needed to force a lone raider to disband for lack of a legal retreat. A common way to start a raid is to retreat after battle into enemy territory rather than toward home, but in many cases a wary opponent will make sure this isn’t possible.

Another trick of retreating, the "fast retreat home," can be worked with an ally. One player dislodges a unit of the other, who disbands it rather than retreat. This allows him to rebuild the unit at home at the end of the year, barring loss of a supply center. He can change an army to a fleet in this way or bring a useless unit back home to defend the motherland or help eliminate a raider.

Whether attacking or defending, write your orders carefully. Several times in almost every game, an unintelligible or miswritten order ruins a brilliant plan. Double check. It’s easy to write one thing when you mean another. Some players take advantage of this common failing by deliberately miswriting an order. This may confuse the enemy, but more often it’s a means of double-crossing an ally while pretending innocence.

Defense is often a slow, boring affair, but imaginative use of attacks is sometimes the only means of successful defense. For example, if Russia has A Bohemia and A Galicia, and Austria has A Vienna and A Rumania, it appears that Russia has a sure two to one against Vienna because Rumania cannot support Vienna. However, if Austria orders A Vienna-Galicia S by A Rumania, then the Russian will be stood off if he attacks with Galicia S by Bohemia (two vs. two) as he is likely to do. (If he attacks with Bohemia S by Galicia then A Rumania-Galicia would cut the support and save Vienna.)

Here is a more complex example. Russia has F Aegean and Armies Bohemia, Galicia, Rumania, and Bulgaria. Austria has Armies Vienna, Budapest, Serbia, and Greece. Outnumbered five to four, at first glance Austria seems certain to lose a center. Russia can concentrate two units on Vienna, two on Greece, and use Rumania to cut one support. If Austria merely "stonewalls" (Budapest and Vienna support each other, Serbia and Greece support each other) he is certain to lose either Vienna or Greece this season and another center next season. But if he attacks with all four units (Vienna-Galicia, Budapest-Galicia, Serbia-Bulgaria, Greece-Bulgaria) he may catch the Russian napping. If the Russian chooses to attack with Bohemia rather than Galicia, with Aegean rather than Bulgaria, his supports will be cut by Budapest and Serbia and his attacks will all fail.

Austria takes a chance, however, because he may lose two or even three centers rather than one to a cagey Russian player, as follows:

Austria
A Vienna-Galicia (dislodged)
A Budapest-Galicia
A Serbia-Bulgaria
A Greece-Bulgaria (dislodged)

Russia
A Rumania-Budapest
A Galicia-Vienna
A Bohemia S A Galicia-Vienna
A Bulgaria-Greece
F Aegean S F Bulgaria-Greece

[[Image:Pulshiper3.gif|left|200 px]]

On the other hand, despite the losses, Austria finds himself behind the Russian lines in Galicia and Bulgaria with Warsaw and Sevastopol open. If the Russian is an unimaginative tactician the risk of all-out attack is sometimes worth the beautiful result.

Nonetheless, an attack is not always the best means of disarranging the enemy. First, you can stand when your opponent expects you to attack and moves to block it. This will leave his unit(s) out of position and could even cost him a center. For example, France moves A Marseilles-Spain in Spring 1901 while Italy moves A Venice-Piedmont. Now France wants to protect Marseilles, but he wants to end the Fall season in Spain in order to capture it (Spring occupation is not sufficient). If France orders A Spain-Marseilles and Italy orders A Piedmont-Marseilles, France will defend Marseilles, capture Spain, and leave Marseilles open for a possible build. But if Italy holds instead, France is left with an army in Marseilles, no captured center, and no place to build a Mediterranean fleet to resist Italy further. This is a classic guessing game. More often than not France moves to Marseilles because he can’t afford to lose a home center.

Second, a nominally attacking unit can actually support a defender’s move in order to disrupt the defense. For example, in Spring 1901 Russia moves A Warsaw-Galicia while Austria orders A Vienna hold, A Budapest-Serbia. In Fall Austria wants to protect both Vienna and Budapest and capture Serbia, so he orders a self standoff: A Vienna-Budapest, A Serbia-Budapest. This is the classic means of defending three spaces with two units. Russia, however, may order A Galicia S Austrian A Serbia-Budapest. Then Serbia-Budapest succeeds (two vs. one) and Austria does not capture Serbia. Later in the game a similar situation can occur, but with Serbia now owned by Austria and a Russian unit in Bulgaria as well. Russia could order Galicia S Serbia-Budapest and Bulgaria-Serbia, capturing Serbia. In either case the Austrian can outguess the Russian by standing where he is. In cases like this, luck, intuition, and knowledge of your opponent (and game theory, if you know how to use it) are your tools. Even so, there is no way to predict the "best" move.

Finally, avoid centergrubbing. Position can be as important as possession of an additional supply center, especially in Spring. Don’t disarrange a good position in order to immediately capture an invitingly vulnerable center. You may sacrifice so much that you’ll soon lose that center and more besides. In particular, don’t open a hole in your line unless you’re sure you can close it before an enemy raider gets through. One enemy unit behind your lines can delay an entire offensive. Moreover, be wary of dislodging a defender where the defender can retreat through your lines into your rear. Don’t be lulled by the apparent simplicity of a position. Every good tactician pays attention to details that the less skillful don’t notice or don’t bother about.

File:Pulshiper3.gif

2008-04-18T04:36:42Z

Former.trout: Diagram for Lewis Pulshiper Strategy Article Part 3

Diagram for Lewis Pulshiper Strategy Article Part 3

Art Of Negotiation Part 3

2008-04-18T04:35:58Z

Former.trout:

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

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

====Part 1====

Anyone who plays and studies Diplomacy can become a good tactician, for of the three elements of the game -- negotiation, strategy, and tactics -- the tactical element is the simplest and most predictable. Tactics is the ordering and arrangement of your units so as to accomplish your strategic objectives. The more numerous force usually succeeds and, if not pressed by time, never loses. Tactical problems can sometimes be solved with the help of mathematical game theory, but that is beyond the scope of this article. Little can be said about good tactics as a whole, but many individual points can be noted.

According to game theory, the best way to play a game is to maximize one's minimum gains -- assume that the enemy is a perfect player and move accordingly. When reduced to mathematics, this can involve a certain amount of probability, even in a game such as Diplomacy which uses no chance mechanism (dice). In terms of Diplomacy tactics it means that you must look for a move that will make gains regardless of what your opponent does, but always remember that there is rarely a single best move. Outguessing the opponent, whether by intuition or by probability, is part of the game. A gain can be possession of a supply center, destruction of an enemy unit, or, especially in Spring, occupation of a non-center space which will lead to capture of a supply center in Fall. Spring is the season of maneuver, Fall the season of capture. When you outnumber the enemy, you’re virtually certain to succeed if you don’t make a mistake and if unit mix and positioning don’t handicap you at the start of the war.

If you’re outnumbered or desperately need a quick advance to prevent a third player from gaining the upper hand, then you must take chances. Try to figure out how the enemy will move and then order your units to take best advantage of that move. You’ll probably get clobbered, but you might guess right and leave your enemy in all kinds of trouble and rather wary to boot.

Remember that in every case, tactics must be subordinated to strategy. A slow, delaying withdrawal in one area might be better than a flamboyant attempt to turn the tide if you’re doing well elsewhere.

I mentioned unit mix and positioning above. Numbers are important in Diplomacy, but other factors can alter the balance. The ratio of fleets to armies can be vital. If you have too many of one and not enough of the other you could be beaten by a weaker enemy. Each country tends to have a natural or average mix of units, as explained in part 2, and areas have obvious, optimum mixes as well. The Mediterranean area, including the adjacent lands (Italy, Iberia, southern Balkans, Turkey, Africa) is an area where fleets are much more valuable than armies. Central Europe is an army area. While this seems self-evident, all too many players fail to plan ahead when building new units. Think about where you intend to be two or three game years hence, and build units that will help at that time. After you’ve expanded to about ten units, it will take one or two years for new units to reach the battle lines -- plan ahead for it. Moreover, think about where you will build a unit before the opportunity comes, to avoid hasty decisions when faced with a time limit.

When you are doing well you need to expand as rapidly as possible, getting units behind the enemy's defensive stalemate lines before those lines form. I call this "headmanning," from the ice hockey term for moving the puck up to the most advanced attacker. In a sense the most advanced attacking unit "carries the puck" for the whole attack. If it is stopped, the entire attack will bunch up behind it. Get a few units out front as fast as possible, and let newly built units help destroy enemy resistance nearer your country. A single unit, leading a stream of units, can make the difference between success and failure of an attack which takes place several years hence. For example, when Turkey is expanding west it should headman a fleet into the Atlantic as soon as possible, probably before the last Italian center is captured, so that the western countries cannot seal Gibraltar (by F Portugal and F English S F mid-Atlantic).

When the units to headman aren’t available, a lone raider behind the enemy lines can cripple an enemy attack or defense for years. Most spaces in Diplomacy border with six other spaces. Although land/sea differences help, three to five units are needed to force a lone raider to disband for lack of a legal retreat. A common way to start a raid is to retreat after battle into enemy territory rather than toward home, but in many cases a wary opponent will make sure this isn’t possible.

Another trick of retreating, the "fast retreat home," can be worked with an ally. One player dislodges a unit of the other, who disbands it rather than retreat. This allows him to rebuild the unit at home at the end of the year, barring loss of a supply center. He can change an army to a fleet in this way or bring a useless unit back home to defend the motherland or help eliminate a raider.

Whether attacking or defending, write your orders carefully. Several times in almost every game, an unintelligible or miswritten order ruins a brilliant plan. Double check. It’s easy to write one thing when you mean another. Some players take advantage of this common failing by deliberately miswriting an order. This may confuse the enemy, but more often it’s a means of double-crossing an ally while pretending innocence.

Defense is often a slow, boring affair, but imaginative use of attacks is sometimes the only means of successful defense. For example, if Russia has A Bohemia and A Galicia, and Austria has A Vienna and A Rumania, it appears that Russia has a sure two to one against Vienna because Rumania cannot support Vienna. However, if Austria orders A Vienna-Galicia S by A Rumania, then the Russian will be stood off if he attacks with Galicia S by Bohemia (two vs. two) as he is likely to do. (If he attacks with Bohemia S by Galicia then A Rumania-Galicia would cut the support and save Vienna.)

Here is a more complex example. Russia has F Aegean and Armies Bohemia, Galicia, Rumania, and Bulgaria. Austria has Armies Vienna, Budapest, Serbia, and Greece. Outnumbered five to four, at first glance Austria seems certain to lose a center. Russia can concentrate two units on Vienna, two on Greece, and use Rumania to cut one support. If Austria merely "stonewalls" (Budapest and Vienna support each other, Serbia and Greece support each other) he is certain to lose either Vienna or Greece this season and another center next season. But if he attacks with all four units (Vienna-Galicia, Budapest-Galicia, Serbia-Bulgaria, Greece-Bulgaria) he may catch the Russian napping. If the Russian chooses to attack with Bohemia rather than Galicia, with Aegean rather than Bulgaria, his supports will be cut by Budapest and Serbia and his attacks will all fail.

Austria takes a chance, however, because he may lose two or even three centers rather than one to a cagey Russian player, as follows:

Austria
A Vienna-Galicia (dislodged)
A Budapest-Galicia
A Serbia-Bulgaria
A Greece-Bulgaria (dislodged)

Russia
A Rumania-Budapest
A Galicia-Vienna
A Bohemia S A Galicia-Vienna
A Bulgaria-Greece
F Aegean S F Bulgaria-Greece

[[Image:Pulshiper3.gif|left|200 px]]

On the other hand, despite the losses, Austria finds himself behind the Russian lines in Galicia and Bulgaria with Warsaw and Sevastopol open. If the Russian is an unimaginative tactician the risk of all-out attack is sometimes worth the beautiful result.

Nonetheless, an attack is not always the best means of disarranging the enemy. First, you can stand when your opponent expects you to attack and moves to block it. This will leave his unit(s) out of position and could even cost him a center. For example, France moves A Marseilles-Spain in Spring 1901 while Italy moves A Venice-Piedmont. Now France wants to protect Marseilles, but he wants to end the Fall season in Spain in order to capture it (Spring occupation is not sufficient). If France orders A Spain-Marseilles and Italy orders A Piedmont-Marseilles, France will defend Marseilles, capture Spain, and leave Marseilles open for a possible build. But if Italy holds instead, France is left with an army in Marseilles, no captured center, and no place to build a Mediterranean fleet to resist Italy further. This is a classic guessing game. More often than not France moves to Marseilles because he can’t afford to lose a home center.

Second, a nominally attacking unit can actually support a defender’s move in order to disrupt the defense. For example, in Spring 1901 Russia moves A Warsaw-Galicia while Austria orders A Vienna hold, A Budapest-Serbia. In Fall Austria wants to protect both Vienna and Budapest and capture Serbia, so he orders a self standoff: A Vienna-Budapest, A Serbia-Budapest. This is the classic means of defending three spaces with two units. Russia, however, may order A Galicia S Austrian A Serbia-Budapest. Then Serbia-Budapest succeeds (two vs. one) and Austria does not capture Serbia. Later in the game a similar situation can occur, but with Serbia now owned by Austria and a Russian unit in Bulgaria as well. Russia could order Galicia S Serbia-Budapest and Bulgaria-Serbia, capturing Serbia. In either case the Austrian can outguess the Russian by standing where he is. In cases like this, luck, intuition, and knowledge of your opponent (and game theory, if you know how to use it) are your tools. Even so, there is no way to predict the "best" move.

Finally, avoid centergrubbing. Position can be as important as possession of an additional supply center, especially in Spring. Don’t disarrange a good position in order to immediately capture an invitingly vulnerable center. You may sacrifice so much that you’ll soon lose that center and more besides. In particular, don’t open a hole in your line unless you’re sure you can close it before an enemy raider gets through. One enemy unit behind your lines can delay an entire offensive. Moreover, be wary of dislodging a defender where the defender can retreat through your lines into your rear. Don’t be lulled by the apparent simplicity of a position. Every good tactician pays attention to details that the less skillful don’t notice or don’t bother about.

Art Of Negotiation Part 3

2008-04-18T04:31:50Z

Former.trout: New page: Anyone who plays and studies Diplomacy can become a good tactician, for of the three elements of the game -- negotiation, strategy, and tactics -- the tactical element is the simplest and ...

Anyone who plays and studies Diplomacy can become a good tactician, for of the three elements of the game -- negotiation, strategy, and tactics -- the tactical element is the simplest and most predictable. Tactics is the ordering and arrangement of your units so as to accomplish your strategic objectives. The more numerous force usually succeeds and, if not pressed by time, never loses. Tactical problems can sometimes be solved with the help of mathematical game theory, but that is beyond the scope of this article. Little can be said about good tactics as a whole, but many individual points can be noted.

According to game theory, the best way to play a game is to maximize one's minimum gains -- assume that the enemy is a perfect player and move accordingly. When reduced to mathematics, this can involve a certain amount of probability, even in a game such as Diplomacy which uses no chance mechanism (dice). In terms of Diplomacy tactics it means that you must look for a move that will make gains regardless of what your opponent does, but always remember that there is rarely a single best move. Outguessing the opponent, whether by intuition or by probability, is part of the game. A gain can be possession of a supply center, destruction of an enemy unit, or, especially in Spring, occupation of a non-center space which will lead to capture of a supply center in Fall. Spring is the season of maneuver, Fall the season of capture. When you outnumber the enemy, you’re virtually certain to succeed if you don’t make a mistake and if unit mix and positioning don’t handicap you at the start of the war.

If you’re outnumbered or desperately need a quick advance to prevent a third player from gaining the upper hand, then you must take chances. Try to figure out how the enemy will move and then order your units to take best advantage of that move. You’ll probably get clobbered, but you might guess right and leave your enemy in all kinds of trouble and rather wary to boot.

Remember that in every case, tactics must be subordinated to strategy. A slow, delaying withdrawal in one area might be better than a flamboyant attempt to turn the tide if you’re doing well elsewhere.

I mentioned unit mix and positioning above. Numbers are important in Diplomacy, but other factors can alter the balance. The ratio of fleets to armies can be vital. If you have too many of one and not enough of the other you could be beaten by a weaker enemy. Each country tends to have a natural or average mix of units, as explained in part 2, and areas have obvious, optimum mixes as well. The Mediterranean area, including the adjacent lands (Italy, Iberia, southern Balkans, Turkey, Africa) is an area where fleets are much more valuable than armies. Central Europe is an army area. While this seems self-evident, all too many players fail to plan ahead when building new units. Think about where you intend to be two or three game years hence, and build units that will help at that time. After you’ve expanded to about ten units, it will take one or two years for new units to reach the battle lines -- plan ahead for it. Moreover, think about where you will build a unit before the opportunity comes, to avoid hasty decisions when faced with a time limit.

When you are doing well you need to expand as rapidly as possible, getting units behind the enemy's defensive stalemate lines before those lines form. I call this "headmanning," from the ice hockey term for moving the puck up to the most advanced attacker. In a sense the most advanced attacking unit "carries the puck" for the whole attack. If it is stopped, the entire attack will bunch up behind it. Get a few units out front as fast as possible, and let newly built units help destroy enemy resistance nearer your country. A single unit, leading a stream of units, can make the difference between success and failure of an attack which takes place several years hence. For example, when Turkey is expanding west it should headman a fleet into the Atlantic as soon as possible, probably before the last Italian center is captured, so that the western countries cannot seal Gibraltar (by F Portugal and F English S F mid-Atlantic).

When the units to headman aren’t available, a lone raider behind the enemy lines can cripple an enemy attack or defense for years. Most spaces in Diplomacy border with six other spaces. Although land/sea differences help, three to five units are needed to force a lone raider to disband for lack of a legal retreat. A common way to start a raid is to retreat after battle into enemy territory rather than toward home, but in many cases a wary opponent will make sure this isn’t possible.

Another trick of retreating, the "fast retreat home," can be worked with an ally. One player dislodges a unit of the other, who disbands it rather than retreat. This allows him to rebuild the unit at home at the end of the year, barring loss of a supply center. He can change an army to a fleet in this way or bring a useless unit back home to defend the motherland or help eliminate a raider.

Whether attacking or defending, write your orders carefully. Several times in almost every game, an unintelligible or miswritten order ruins a brilliant plan. Double check. It’s easy to write one thing when you mean another. Some players take advantage of this common failing by deliberately miswriting an order. This may confuse the enemy, but more often it’s a means of double-crossing an ally while pretending innocence.

Defense is often a slow, boring affair, but imaginative use of attacks is sometimes the only means of successful defense. For example, if Russia has A Bohemia and A Galicia, and Austria has A Vienna and A Rumania, it appears that Russia has a sure two to one against Vienna because Rumania cannot support Vienna. However, if Austria orders A Vienna-Galicia S by A Rumania, then the Russian will be stood off if he attacks with Galicia S by Bohemia (two vs. two) as he is likely to do. (If he attacks with Bohemia S by Galicia then A Rumania-Galicia would cut the support and save Vienna.)

Here is a more complex example. Russia has F Aegean and Armies Bohemia, Galicia, Rumania, and Bulgaria. Austria has Armies Vienna, Budapest, Serbia, and Greece. Outnumbered five to four, at first glance Austria seems certain to lose a center. Russia can concentrate two units on Vienna, two on Greece, and use Rumania to cut one support. If Austria merely "stonewalls" (Budapest and Vienna support each other, Serbia and Greece support each other) he is certain to lose either Vienna or Greece this season and another center next season. But if he attacks with all four units (Vienna-Galicia, Budapest-Galicia, Serbia-Bulgaria, Greece-Bulgaria) he may catch the Russian napping. If the Russian chooses to attack with Bohemia rather than Galicia, with Aegean rather than Bulgaria, his supports will be cut by Budapest and Serbia and his attacks will all fail.

Austria takes a chance, however, because he may lose two or even three centers rather than one to a cagey Russian player, as follows:

Austria
A Vienna-Galicia (dislodged)
A Budapest-Galicia
A Serbia-Bulgaria
A Greece-Bulgaria (dislodged)
F Aegean S F Bulgaria-Greece

Russia
A Rumania-Budapest
A Galicia-Vienna
A Bohemia S A Galicia-Vienna
A Bulgaria-Greece

On the other hand, despite the losses, Austria finds himself behind the Russian lines in Galicia and Bulgaria with Warsaw and Sevastopol open. If the Russian is an unimaginative tactician the risk of all-out attack is sometimes worth the beautiful result.

Nonetheless, an attack is not always the best means of disarranging the enemy. First, you can stand when your opponent expects you to attack and moves to block it. This will leave his unit(s) out of position and could even cost him a center. For example, France moves A Marseilles-Spain in Spring 1901 while Italy moves A Venice-Piedmont. Now France wants to protect Marseilles, but he wants to end the Fall season in Spain in order to capture it (Spring occupation is not sufficient). If France orders A Spain-Marseilles and Italy orders A Piedmont-Marseilles, France will defend Marseilles, capture Spain, and leave Marseilles open for a possible build. But if Italy holds instead, France is left with an army in Marseilles, no captured center, and no place to build a Mediterranean fleet to resist Italy further. This is a classic guessing game. More often than not France moves to Marseilles because he can’t afford to lose a home center.

Second, a nominally attacking unit can actually support a defender’s move in order to disrupt the defense. For example, in Spring 1901 Russia moves A Warsaw-Galicia while Austria orders A Vienna hold, A Budapest-Serbia. In Fall Austria wants to protect both Vienna and Budapest and capture Serbia, so he orders a self standoff: A Vienna-Budapest, A Serbia-Budapest. This is the classic means of defending three spaces with two units. Russia, however, may order A Galicia S Austrian A Serbia-Budapest. Then Serbia-Budapest succeeds (two vs. one) and Austria does not capture Serbia. Later in the game a similar situation can occur, but with Serbia now owned by Austria and a Russian unit in Bulgaria as well. Russia could order Galicia S Serbia-Budapest and Bulgaria-Serbia, capturing Serbia. In either case the Austrian can outguess the Russian by standing where he is. In cases like this, luck, intuition, and knowledge of your opponent (and game theory, if you know how to use it) are your tools. Even so, there is no way to predict the "best" move.

Finally, avoid centergrubbing. Position can be as important as possession of an additional supply center, especially in Spring. Don’t disarrange a good position in order to immediately capture an invitingly vulnerable center. You may sacrifice so much that you’ll soon lose that center and more besides. In particular, don’t open a hole in your line unless you’re sure you can close it before an enemy raider gets through. One enemy unit behind your lines can delay an entire offensive. Moreover, be wary of dislodging a defender where the defender can retreat through your lines into your rear. Don’t be lulled by the apparent simplicity of a position. Every good tactician pays attention to details that the less skillful don’t notice or don’t bother about.

Art Of Negotiation Part 1

2008-04-18T04:25:05Z

Former.trout: New page: ===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,...

===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

2008-04-18T04:24:07Z

Former.trout:

===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 2

2008-04-18T04:23:20Z

Former.trout: New 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 ...

The Art of Negotiation in Diplomacy

2008-04-18T04:23:07Z

Former.trout:

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

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

*[[Art Of Negotiation Part 1]]
*[[Art Of Negotiation Part 2]]
*[[Art Of Negotiation Part 3]]

File:Pulshiper2.gif

2008-04-18T04:21:24Z

Former.trout: Diagram for Pulshiper Strategy Article Part 2

Diagram for Pulshiper Strategy Article Part 2

Part 2

2008-04-18T04:19:36Z

Former.trout:

Part 2

2008-04-18T04:16:46Z

Former.trout:

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

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

====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.)

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.

Part 2

2008-04-18T04:14:59Z

Former.trout: New page: 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 countrie...

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.)

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.

Part 1

2008-04-18T04:05:12Z

The Art of Negotiation in Diplomacy

2008-04-18T04:03:21Z

Former.trout: New page: ===The Art Of Negotiation In Diplomacy=== by Lewis Pulshiper ''Reprinted from The General, vol. 18 #1'' *Part 1 *Part 2 *Part 3

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

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

*[[Part 1]]
*[[Part 2]]
*[[Part 3]]

Strategy

2008-04-18T04:00:29Z

Former.trout:

==Standard Strategy Articles:==
* [[Diplomacy Tips]] by Big Boy
* [[The Art Of Diplomacy]] by Richard Sharp
* [[Subtle Joys of Being Little]] by Rod Walker
* [[The Art of Negotiation in Diplomacy]] by Lewis Pulshiper

'''Articles Written By [[Allan B Calhamer]]:'''
* [[Military Intelligence]] (1960)
* [[On Strengthening the hand of Austria-Hungary]] (1960)
* [[The Tactics of Diplomacy]] (1961)
* [[A Dozen Years of Diplomacy]] (1966)
* [[On the Play of Postal Diplomacy]] by Allan Calhamer (1966)
* [[The Invention of Diplomacy]] (1974)
* [[Across the Whole Board]] (1974)
* [[Objectives Other Than Winning]] (1974)
* [[Introduction to Diplomacy]] (1975)
* [[The Coast of Moscow]]

==Variant Strategy Articles:==

'''[[Colonial]] Variant:'''
* [[CDD Lab Notes]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Review]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 1 The British]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 2 The Chinese]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 3 The Dutch]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 4 The French]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 5 The Japanese]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 6 The Russians]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 7 The Turks]]

'''[[Deluge]] Variant:'''
* [[The Devil And The Deep Blue Sea]]

==Game Notes And Information:==
 
'''Game Paradoxes'''
* [[Convoy Paradoxes]]

'''Stalemate Lines'''
* [[The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy: Stalemates]] by Rod Walker

Loeb9

2008-04-06T05:54:25Z

Former.trout:

Created by Danny Loeb

[[Image:Loeb9.gif]]

Variant Description:

This 9 player variant to diplomacy follows the standard rules with the following exceptions:

8th player:

Spain is divided into four regions:
*Navarre: Adjacent to the Mid Atlantic, Gascony, Catalonia, Madrid and Portugal.
*Madrid: Adjacent to Portugal, Navarre, Catalonia and Cordoba.
*Catalonia: Adjacent to Cordoba, Madrid, Navarre, Gascony, Marseilles, Gulf of Lyon and Western Mediterranean.
*Cordoba: Adjacent to Portugal, Madrid, Catalonia, Western Mediterranean and the Mid Atlantic.

Madrid and Cordoba are supply centers.

The Spanish player begins with Fleet Portugal, Army Cordoba and Army Madrid.

The following islands are now spaces: Iceland, Ireland, Corsica, Sardinia
and Sicily.

Ireland is a neutral supply center.

Passage between Cordoba and North Africa and passage between Naples and
Sicily is allowed by armies. However, such a move is made with a force
equal to the number of supports (as opposed to one plus the number of
supports). Note that fleets may not make this move and support cannot
be given in this fashion. This form of movement is treated very much
like convoyed movement by the adjudicator. An unsupported unit will
have no effect whatsoever on the destination province for the purposes
of cutting support or banning retreats.

9th player:

An extra space is inserted on the north end of the map called the
Arctic Ocean. A unit in the Arctic Ocean may not be given any sort of
orders durning a fall turn. No unit may attempt to move into the
Arctic Ocean during a fall turn. The Arctic Ocean is adjacent to the
North Atlantic, Norwegian Sea, Barents Sea and Siberia.

St Pete is divided in half. The eastern half is not a supply center.
It is called Siberia and it is adjacent to Barents Sea, St Pete,
Moscow, Kazakz and the Arctic Ocean.

Moscow is divided in half. The eastern half is not a supply center.
It is called Kazakz and is is adjacent to Siberia, Moscow and
Sevastople.

Prussia and Silesia are neutral supply centers.

The Norwegian player begins with Army Norway, Fleet Denmark and Fleet
Sweden.

The Russian fleet in St Pete starts out on the north coast rather than
the south coast.

Victory conditions are 20 centers.

[[Image:Loeb9_ra.gif]]

 
[[Image:Loeb9_rp.gif]]

The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy: Stalemates

2008-03-29T21:02:55Z

Former.trout:

==The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy: Stalemates==
by: Rod Walker
 

A stalemate is a position on the board which prevents any further advance by the enemy. A stalemate line is a line of units, none of which can be dislodged by any combination of opposing attacks and supports.

In the following commentary, a "stalemate line" is also defined as follows:

1. The line has not more than 17 units, holding not more than 17 centers (and not fewer centers than units). 
2. The line is held by one or more players against an alliance of two or more players (who would then control 17 or more centers and units). 
3. There are no enemy units behind the line and the enemy has no capacity for building any such unit. 

The first known stalemate positions were published in ''Wild 'n Woolly'' in 1966. Since that time, several dozen such lines have been discovered and published. Six basic positions and some of their variants are discussed below.

In many instances, the position will work whether a given unit is an army or fleet. In these cases, the abbreviation "U" (for "unit") will be used instead of "A" or "F".

===Position 1===

[[Image:Stalemate_1.gif|thumb|260 px]]
Centers:
Turkey, Sevastapol, Balkans, Austria, Italy, Tunis. (15) 

Units:
A Sev, A Ukr, A Gal, A Bud (or Vie or Rum), A Boh, A Trl, F Pie, F Lyo, F Wes, F NAf. (10) 

Orders:
* A Sev S Ukr
* A Bud S Gal
* A Trl S Boh
* F Pie S Lyo
* F NAf S Wes.

Discovered by Conrad von Metzke in 1966, this position uses only 10 units to hold nearly half the board (15 centers). The army in Budapest could just as easily be in Vienna or Rumania. However, to reduce the number of centers covered requires, paradoxically, an increase in the number of units. There are some 13- and 14-unit positions which can be held. (See Position 4 below.)

''((Eric Verheiden's "Minimal Southern Stalemate Positions" outlines six 13-unit variations on this position that still hold all of Italy. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).)) ''

===Position 1a===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_1a.gif|thumb|260 px]]
A variant of this position requires only 3 fleets:

F NAf, F Wes, and F TyS. F Pie becomes A Pie; and we must add A Tus.
The revised orders for this portion of the line:

* F Wes H
* F NAf S Wes
* F TyS S Wes
* A Pie H
* A Tus S Pie

Here 11 units still hold 15 centers.

In these positions, the East holds all of Italy. It has been asserted that an Eastern stalemate is impossible without all of Italy (John Beshera, 1971), but that is a mistake. Karl Pettis and others have since noted positions holding only part of Italy; there are possible stalemate lines holding only Venice, or only Naples, or Venice/Rome, Naples/Rome, or even Venice/Naples. (See Position 6 for an Eastern stalemate which holds no Italian centers at all.)

''((See John Beshera's "Fundamental Stalemate Positions, III" for many of these variations. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 2===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_2.gif|thumb|260 px]]
* F Mid H
* F Por S Mid
* F NAt S Mid.

This was first noted by John McCallum in 1966. It uses three units to blockade the exit from the Mediterranean. It holds four centers (England & Portugal). F NAt could be Iri or Eng.

England (or a Power that holds England) can maintain this position indefinitely under certain circumstances. The enemy must be a Southern Power (Austria, Italy, or Turkey). The Atlantic Powers (France, Germany, Russia) have been eliminated or are allied. It is not impossible to see a game stalemated like this: Assume, for instance, two Southern Powers have overrun the board. Their armies occupy all of Europe. However, their fleets are bottled inside the Mediterranean and they can't get out. They hold 30 centers (15 each or perhaps 14-16 or 13-17). Neither can win without stabbing the other. This is a powerful negotiating weapon in England's hands.

 
 

===Position 2a===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_2a.gif|thumb|260 px]]

In a variant of this position, England can hold 8 centers with 6 units. Here Russia may still be in the game, so long as she has no fleets in the North. In the South, the set-up is as in Position 2. In the North:

* U Den H
* U StP H
* F Bar S StP.

This position leaves England with two extra units with which to harass the enemy, contemplate expansion, or take advantage of stabs on the other side. It can be expanded to include France, Iberia, Belgium, Holland, and parts of Germany. A large number of resulting positions cover 14 to 16 centers. Many of these take into account enemy fleets in the North. (See Position 5b for an example.)

''((See Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Series of Progressive Northern Stalemate Positions" for a full development of this progression to 17 centers. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))''

 
 

===Position 3===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_3.gif|thumb|260 px]]

* U Arm H
* U Con H
* U NAf H
* U Spa H
* U Por S Spa
* F Wes S Spa.

This unusual position holds 6 centers (Turkey, Iberia, Tunis). The enemy is presumably an Anglo-German alliance that has swept the rest of the board. It will not hold if there is an enemy fleet in the Black Sea or the Mediterranean.

''((See Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Series of Progressive Southern Stalemate Positions" for a full development of this progression up the Italian peninsula and into Austria. Several of the positions hold Marseilles and Trieste, so the enemy alliance could potentially include an active France or Austria. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).)) ''

 

===Position 4===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_4.gif|thumb|260 px]]

* U Arm H
* U Rum H
* U Bul(ec) S Rum
* F Bla S Rum
* A Bud H
* A Ser S Bud
* A Trl H
* A Tri S Trl
* A Ven S Trl
* F Wes H
* F NAf S Wes
* F Lyo H
* F Pie S Lyo

This is Position 1 reduced to 13 centers (Italy, Turkey, Balkans, Tri, Bud, Tun). There are variants in which Vie or Sev could be added for 14 centers, and one which adds both and omits Tun.

''((Eric Verheiden's "Minimal Southern Stalemate Positions" examines these and other variations on this theme. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))''

In the last case, the position around Italy becomes:

===Position 4a===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_4a.gif|thumb|260 px]]

* F Ion H
* F Gre S Ion
* U Rom H
* U Nap S Rom
* U Ven H
* U Apu S Ven
* F Adr S Ven

With a few adjustments, including U Ven S Tri, the Eastern power could hold Vienna and Budapest without holding Tyrolia, Bohemia or Galicia.

''((See Part II of Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Series of Progressive Southern Stalemate Positions" for more details on this position. John Beshera's "Fundamental Stalemate Positions, III" details related positions which hold only parts of Italy, but which expand into Russia and Germany. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))''

 

===Position 5===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_5.gif|thumb|260 px]]

* U Nwy H
* U Swe S Nwy
* F NAt H
* F Iri H
* U Bre H
* F Eng S Bre
* A Bur H
* A Par S Bur
* A Bel S Bur
* U Kie H
* A Ruh S Kie

This position holds 11 centers against any Southern power. There can be no enemy fleets in the North, which means that Russia has been eliminated.

 
 

===Position 5a===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_5a.gif|thumb|260 px]]

If Russia is still active, there is an 11-unit position that holds 12 centers. Remove U Swe and add U StP. Then:

* U StP H
* U Nwy S StP

There are several variations of this position.

''((See Eric Verheiden's "Northern Stalemate Positions" for more variations, including extensions into Russia. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).)) ''

 
 

===Position 5b===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_5b.gif|thumb|260 px]]

* U Nwy H
* F Bar S Nwy
* F Ska S Nwy
* U Kie H
* U Hol S Kie
* A Ruh S Kie
* U Den H
* F Hel S Den
* A Bur H
* F Lyo H
* F Mar S Lyo
* F Wes S Lyo
* U Tun H
* U NAf S Tun

This typical Northern position holds 14 centers. The opposition could have fleets in StP, Swe, Bal, and/or Ber without being able to break out. Tunis must be held or the Mediterranean would eventually be lost. Variants of this position run up to 17 centers.

''((See Eric Verheiden's "Western Stalemate Positions" for numerous variations, including extensions into Italy. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).)) ''

 

===Position 6===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_6.gif|thumb|260 px]]

* U Den H
* U StP(sc) S Lvn
* F Mid H
* F Por S Mid
* F NAt (or Iri or Eng) S Mid
* U Con H
* F Bla (or U Ank) S Con
* U Smy H
* U Syr S Smy
* A Ukr H
* A Mos S Ukr
* A Sev S Ukr

This position is one in which Russia (minus Warsaw) can stalemate with 13 centers. Russia is the one Power which could eliminate both England and Turkey and have fleets in both North and South: an essential prerequisite for this position. This could also expand (into Warsaw or Bulgaria and Rumania), or it could contract in a number of ways.

''((See Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Progressive Series of Asymmetrical Stalemate Positions" for a full development of the variations. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).)) ''

===Position 6a===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_6a.gif|thumb|260 px]]

* F Mid H
* F Por S Mid
* F NAt (or Iri or Eng) S Mid
* F Aeg H, F Con S Aeg
* F Eas S Aeg
* U Arm H.

This is the minimum contraction of Position 6. One of the 4 Southern units is supplied by a center in the North. Although Russia is virtually the only Power which can achieve this configuration, it is now centered entirely on the two corner powers. Of course, there can be no fleets in the North nor in the Black Sea. (This means that the coalition Russia is facing would be Austria/Italy.)

 
 

[[Image:Eas-1.gif|thumb|260 px]]

''((The only significant line not covered in this article is the Eastern line detailed in Eric Verheiden's "Eastern Stalemate Positions". These position use Turkey, Russia and Scandinavia as a base to expand into parts of Austria and Germany. These positions tend to be very large - all of the cataloged positions hold 16 or 17 centers. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).)) ''

 
 

===The Use Of Stalemates===

List of stalemate positions are tedious reading, at best. One is tempted to ask, what good is all this? The answer may be that a stalemate is the best alternative if you can't win or maybe it isn't. Every individual game develops its own character. A player's decision as to whether he is even interested in a stalemate depends on how he feels about the game as a whole and about the other players. Perhaps he will prefer to come in second. Perhaps he will even prefer to be eliminated in order to help achieve a particular result. It is silly to insist that there is any single "best" goal in Diplomacy. Everyone has his own priorities and trying to fit them all into one's own mold is small-minded.

However, an awareness of potential stalemate lines is essential to strong play, especially in a tournament setting or postal play. A stalemate line is a powerful position and the threat of a stalemate is a potent diplomatic weapon. On one hand, a winning alliance can be broken up by an opposition which can force a stalemate.

On the other hand, a small power can use her stalemate position to bargain with the others. A strategic situation may often mean achievement of stalemate to one side and breakthrough to the other. Each should be willing to pay a high price for an alliance. A small power which controls the key position may be able to bargain quite well for herself.

Stalemates are frequently hard to arrange and are often tactically complex (if an alliance is involved on the defensive side). For these reasons, players may be tempted to spend more time on them than they are worth. A stalemate is, after all, a sort of last refuge. It is the final resort of a large power that can't win or of one or more players who can't stop an impending victory any other way.

Compared to a free-wheeling game where the situation is flexible, a stalemate is dull and uninteresting. Most drawn games come about because one faction has become "entrenched". In the final analysis, it represents the ultimate failure and breakdown of diplomacy. Still, a stalemate is sometimes better than any available alternative. An alter Diplomacy player should be ready to use his knowledge of stalemates whenever necessary.

''Reprinted from The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy, 2nd edition (March 1979).'' 
''Adapted for Dipwiki from The Diplomatic Pouch''

The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy: Stalemates

2008-03-29T21:00:00Z

Former.trout:

==The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy: Stalemates==
by: Rod Walker
 

A stalemate is a position on the board which prevents any further advance by the enemy. A stalemate line is a line of units, none of which can be dislodged by any combination of opposing attacks and supports.

In the following commentary, a "stalemate line" is also defined as follows:

1. The line has not more than 17 units, holding not more than 17 centers (and not fewer centers than units). 
2. The line is held by one or more players against an alliance of two or more players (who would then control 17 or more centers and units). 
3. There are no enemy units behind the line and the enemy has no capacity for building any such unit. 

The first known stalemate positions were published in ''Wild 'n Woolly'' in 1966. Since that time, several dozen such lines have been discovered and published. Six basic positions and some of their variants are discussed below.

In many instances, the position will work whether a given unit is an army or fleet. In these cases, the abbreviation "U" (for "unit") will be used instead of "A" or "F".

===Position 1===

[[Image:Stalemate_1.gif|thumb|260 px]]
Centers:
Turkey, Sevastapol, Balkans, Austria, Italy, Tunis. (15) 

Units:
A Sev, A Ukr, A Gal, A Bud (or Vie or Rum), A Boh, A Trl, F Pie, F Lyo, F Wes, F NAf. (10) 

Orders:
* A Sev S Ukr
* A Bud S Gal
* A Trl S Boh
* F Pie S Lyo
* F NAf S Wes.

Discovered by Conrad von Metzke in 1966, this position uses only 10 units to hold nearly half the board (15 centers). The army in Budapest could just as easily be in Vienna or Rumania. However, to reduce the number of centers covered requires, paradoxically, an increase in the number of units. There are some 13- and 14-unit positions which can be held. (See Position 4 below.)

''((Eric Verheiden's "Minimal Southern Stalemate Positions" outlines six 13-unit variations on this position that still hold all of Italy. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).)) ''

===Position 1a===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_1a.gif|thumb|260 px]]
A variant of this position requires only 3 fleets:

F NAf, F Wes, and F TyS. F Pie becomes A Pie; and we must add A Tus.
The revised orders for this portion of the line:

* F Wes H
* F NAf S Wes
* F TyS S Wes
* A Pie H
* A Tus S Pie

Here 11 units still hold 15 centers.

In these positions, the East holds all of Italy. It has been asserted that an Eastern stalemate is impossible without all of Italy (John Beshera, 1971), but that is a mistake. Karl Pettis and others have since noted positions holding only part of Italy; there are possible stalemate lines holding only Venice, or only Naples, or Venice/Rome, Naples/Rome, or even Venice/Naples. (See Position 6 for an Eastern stalemate which holds no Italian centers at all.)

''((See John Beshera's "Fundamental Stalemate Positions, III" for many of these variations. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 2===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_2.gif|thumb|260 px]]
* F Mid H
* F Por S Mid
* F NAt S Mid.

This was first noted by John McCallum in 1966. It uses three units to blockade the exit from the Mediterranean. It holds four centers (England & Portugal). F NAt could be Iri or Eng.

England (or a Power that holds England) can maintain this position indefinitely under certain circumstances. The enemy must be a Southern Power (Austria, Italy, or Turkey). The Atlantic Powers (France, Germany, Russia) have been eliminated or are allied. It is not impossible to see a game stalemated like this: Assume, for instance, two Southern Powers have overrun the board. Their armies occupy all of Europe. However, their fleets are bottled inside the Mediterranean and they can't get out. They hold 30 centers (15 each or perhaps 14-16 or 13-17). Neither can win without stabbing the other. This is a powerful negotiating weapon in England's hands.

 
 

===Position 2a===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_2a.gif|thumb|260 px]]

In a variant of this position, England can hold 8 centers with 6 units. Here Russia may still be in the game, so long as she has no fleets in the North. In the South, the set-up is as in Position 2. In the North:

* U Den H
* U StP H
* F Bar S StP.

This position leaves England with two extra units with which to harass the enemy, contemplate expansion, or take advantage of stabs on the other side. It can be expanded to include France, Iberia, Belgium, Holland, and parts of Germany. A large number of resulting positions cover 14 to 16 centers. Many of these take into account enemy fleets in the North. (See Position 5b for an example.)

''((See Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Series of Progressive Northern Stalemate Positions" for a full development of this progression to 17 centers. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))''

 
 

===Position 3===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_3.gif|thumb|260 px]]

* U Arm H
* U Con H
* U NAf H
* U Spa H
* U Por S Spa
* F Wes S Spa.

This unusual position holds 6 centers (Turkey, Iberia, Tunis). The enemy is presumably an Anglo-German alliance that has swept the rest of the board. It will not hold if there is an enemy fleet in the Black Sea or the Mediterranean.

''((See Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Series of Progressive Southern Stalemate Positions" for a full development of this progression up the Italian peninsula and into Austria. Several of the positions hold Marseilles and Trieste, so the enemy alliance could potentially include an active France or Austria. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).)) ''

 

===Position 4===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_4.gif|thumb|260 px]]

* U Arm H
* U Rum H
* U Bul(ec) S Rum
* F Bla S Rum
* A Bud H
* A Ser S Bud
* A Trl H
* A Tri S Trl
* A Ven S Trl
* F Wes H
* F NAf S Wes
* F Lyo H
* F Pie S Lyo

This is Position 1 reduced to 13 centers (Italy, Turkey, Balkans, Tri, Bud, Tun). There are variants in which Vie or Sev could be added for 14 centers, and one which adds both and omits Tun.

''((Eric Verheiden's "Minimal Southern Stalemate Positions" examines these and other variations on this theme. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))''

In the last case, the position around Italy becomes:

===Position 4a===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_4a.gif|thumb|260 px]]

* F Ion H
* F Gre S Ion
* U Rom H
* U Nap S Rom
* U Ven H
* U Apu S Ven
* F Adr S Ven

With a few adjustments, including U Ven S Tri, the Eastern power could hold Vienna and Budapest without holding Tyrolia, Bohemia or Galicia.

''((See Part II of Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Series of Progressive Southern Stalemate Positions" for more details on this position. John Beshera's "Fundamental Stalemate Positions, III" details related positions which hold only parts of Italy, but which expand into Russia and Germany. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))''

 

===Position 5===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_5.gif|thumb|260 px]]

* U Nwy H
* U Swe S Nwy
* F NAt H
* F Iri H
* U Bre H
* F Eng S Bre
* A Bur H
* A Par S Bur
* A Bel S Bur
* U Kie H
* A Ruh S Kie

This position holds 11 centers against any Southern power. There can be no enemy fleets in the North, which means that Russia has been eliminated.

 
 

===Position 5a===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_5a.gif|thumb|260 px]]

If Russia is still active, there is an 11-unit position that holds 12 centers. Remove U Swe and add U StP. Then:

* U StP H
* U Nwy S StP

There are several variations of this position.

''((See Eric Verheiden's "Northern Stalemate Positions" for more variations, including extensions into Russia. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).)) ''

 
 

===Position 5b===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_5b.gif|thumb|260 px]]

* U Nwy H
* F Bar S Nwy
* F Ska S Nwy
* U Kie H
* U Hol S Kie
* A Ruh S Kie
* U Den H
* F Hel S Den
* A Bur H
* F Lyo H
* F Mar S Lyo
* F Wes S Lyo
* U Tun H
* U NAf S Tun

This typical Northern position holds 14 centers. The opposition could have fleets in StP, Swe, Bal, and/or Ber without being able to break out. Tunis must be held or the Mediterranean would eventually be lost. Variants of this position run up to 17 centers.

''((See Eric Verheiden's "Western Stalemate Positions" for numerous variations, including extensions into Italy. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).)) ''

 

===Position 6===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_6.gif|thumb|260 px]]

* U Den H
* U StP(sc) S Lvn
* F Mid H
* F Por S Mid
* F NAt (or Iri or Eng) S Mid
* U Con H
* F Bla (or U Ank) S Con
* U Smy H
* U Syr S Smy
* A Ukr H
* A Mos S Ukr
* A Sev S Ukr

This position is one in which Russia (minus Warsaw) can stalemate with 13 centers. Russia is the one Power which could eliminate both England and Turkey and have fleets in both North and South: an essential prerequisite for this position. This could also expand (into Warsaw or Bulgaria and Rumania), or it could contract in a number of ways.

''((See Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Progressive Series of Asymmetrical Stalemate Positions" for a full development of the variations. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).)) ''

===Position 6a===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_6a.gif|thumb|260 px]]

* F Mid H
* F Por S Mid
* F NAt (or Iri or Eng) S Mid
* F Aeg H, F Con S Aeg
* F Eas S Aeg
* U Arm H.

This is the minimum contraction of Position 6. One of the 4 Southern units is supplied by a center in the North. Although Russia is virtually the only Power which can achieve this configuration, it is now centered entirely on the two corner powers. Of course, there can be no fleets in the North nor in the Black Sea. (This means that the coalition Russia is facing would be Austria/Italy.)

----

[[Image:Eas-1.gif|thumb|260 px]]

''((The only significant line not covered in this article is the Eastern line detailed in Eric Verheiden's "Eastern Stalemate Positions". These position use Turkey, Russia and Scandinavia as a base to expand into parts of Austria and Germany. These positions tend to be very large - all of the cataloged positions hold 16 or 17 centers. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).)) ''

===The Use Of Stalemates===

List of stalemate positions are tedious reading, at best. One is tempted to ask, what good is all this? The answer may be that a stalemate is the best alternative if you can't win or maybe it isn't. Every individual game develops its own character. A player's decision as to whether he is even interested in a stalemate depends on how he feels about the game as a whole and about the other players. Perhaps he will prefer to come in second. Perhaps he will even prefer to be eliminated in order to help achieve a particular result. It is silly to insist that there is any single "best" goal in Diplomacy. Everyone has his own priorities and trying to fit them all into one's own mold is small-minded.

However, an awareness of potential stalemate lines is essential to strong play, especially in a tournament setting or postal play. A stalemate line is a powerful position and the threat of a stalemate is a potent diplomatic weapon. On one hand, a winning alliance can be broken up by an opposition which can force a stalemate.

On the other hand, a small power can use her stalemate position to bargain with the others. A strategic situation may often mean achievement of stalemate to one side and breakthrough to the other. Each should be willing to pay a high price for an alliance. A small power which controls the key position may be able to bargain quite well for herself.

Stalemates are frequently hard to arrange and are often tactically complex (if an alliance is involved on the defensive side). For these reasons, players may be tempted to spend more time on them than they are worth. A stalemate is, after all, a sort of last refuge. It is the final resort of a large power that can't win or of one or more players who can't stop an impending victory any other way.

Compared to a free-wheeling game where the situation is flexible, a stalemate is dull and uninteresting. Most drawn games come about because one faction has become "entrenched". In the final analysis, it represents the ultimate failure and breakdown of diplomacy. Still, a stalemate is sometimes better than any available alternative. An alter Diplomacy player should be ready to use his knowledge of stalemates whenever necessary.

''Reprinted from The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy, 2nd edition (March 1979).'' 
''Adapted for Dipwiki from The Diplomatic Pouch''

The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy: Stalemates

2008-03-29T20:54:28Z

Former.trout:

==The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy: Stalemates==
by: Rod Walker
 

A stalemate is a position on the board which prevents any further advance by the enemy. A stalemate line is a line of units, none of which can be dislodged by any combination of opposing attacks and supports.

In the following commentary, a "stalemate line" is also defined as follows:

1. The line has not more than 17 units, holding not more than 17 centers (and not fewer centers than units). 
2. The line is held by one or more players against an alliance of two or more players (who would then control 17 or more centers and units). 
3. There are no enemy units behind the line and the enemy has no capacity for building any such unit. 

The first known stalemate positions were published in ''Wild 'n Woolly'' in 1966. Since that time, several dozen such lines have been discovered and published. Six basic positions and some of their variants are discussed below.

In many instances, the position will work whether a given unit is an army or fleet. In these cases, the abbreviation "U" (for "unit") will be used instead of "A" or "F".

===Position 1===

[[Image:Stalemate_1.gif|thumb|260 px]]
Centers:
Turkey, Sevastapol, Balkans, Austria, Italy, Tunis. (15) 

Units:
A Sev, A Ukr, A Gal, A Bud (or Vie or Rum), A Boh, A Trl, F Pie, F Lyo, F Wes, F NAf. (10) 

Orders:
* A Sev S Ukr
* A Bud S Gal
* A Trl S Boh
* F Pie S Lyo
* F NAf S Wes.

Discovered by Conrad von Metzke in 1966, this position uses only 10 units to hold nearly half the board (15 centers). The army in Budapest could just as easily be in Vienna or Rumania. However, to reduce the number of centers covered requires, paradoxically, an increase in the number of units. There are some 13- and 14-unit positions which can be held. (See Position 4 below.)

''((Eric Verheiden's "Minimal Southern Stalemate Positions" outlines six 13-unit variations on this position that still hold all of Italy. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).)) ''

===Position 1a===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_1a.gif|thumb|260 px]]
A variant of this position requires only 3 fleets:

F NAf, F Wes, and F TyS. F Pie becomes A Pie; and we must add A Tus.
The revised orders for this portion of the line:

* F Wes H
* F NAf S Wes
* F TyS S Wes
* A Pie H
* A Tus S Pie

Here 11 units still hold 15 centers.

In these positions, the East holds all of Italy. It has been asserted that an Eastern stalemate is impossible without all of Italy (John Beshera, 1971), but that is a mistake. Karl Pettis and others have since noted positions holding only part of Italy; there are possible stalemate lines holding only Venice, or only Naples, or Venice/Rome, Naples/Rome, or even Venice/Naples. (See Position 6 for an Eastern stalemate which holds no Italian centers at all.)

''((See John Beshera's "Fundamental Stalemate Positions, III" for many of these variations. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 2===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_2.gif|thumb|260 px]]
* F Mid H
* F Por S Mid
* F NAt S Mid.

This was first noted by John McCallum in 1966. It uses three units to blockade the exit from the Mediterranean. It holds four centers (England & Portugal). F NAt could be Iri or Eng.

England (or a Power that holds England) can maintain this position indefinitely under certain circumstances. The enemy must be a Southern Power (Austria, Italy, or Turkey). The Atlantic Powers (France, Germany, Russia) have been eliminated or are allied. It is not impossible to see a game stalemated like this: Assume, for instance, two Southern Powers have overrun the board. Their armies occupy all of Europe. However, their fleets are bottled inside the Mediterranean and they can't get out. They hold 30 centers (15 each or perhaps 14-16 or 13-17). Neither can win without stabbing the other. This is a powerful negotiating weapon in England's hands.

 
 

===Position 2a===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_2a.gif|thumb|260 px]]

In a variant of this position, England can hold 8 centers with 6 units. Here Russia may still be in the game, so long as she has no fleets in the North. In the South, the set-up is as in Position 2. In the North:

* U Den H
* U StP H
* F Bar S StP.

This position leaves England with two extra units with which to harass the enemy, contemplate expansion, or take advantage of stabs on the other side. It can be expanded to include France, Iberia, Belgium, Holland, and parts of Germany. A large number of resulting positions cover 14 to 16 centers. Many of these take into account enemy fleets in the North. (See Position 5b for an example.)

''((See Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Series of Progressive Northern Stalemate Positions" for a full development of this progression to 17 centers. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))''

 
 

===Position 3===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_3.gif|thumb|260 px]]

* U Arm H
* U Con H
* U NAf H
* U Spa H
* U Por S Spa
* F Wes S Spa.

This unusual position holds 6 centers (Turkey, Iberia, Tunis). The enemy is presumably an Anglo-German alliance that has swept the rest of the board. It will not hold if there is an enemy fleet in the Black Sea or the Mediterranean.

''((See Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Series of Progressive Southern Stalemate Positions" for a full development of this progression up the Italian peninsula and into Austria. Several of the positions hold Marseilles and Trieste, so the enemy alliance could potentially include an active France or Austria. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).)) ''

 

===Position 4===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_4.gif|thumb|260 px]]

* U Arm H
* U Rum H
* U Bul(ec) S Rum
* F Bla S Rum
* A Bud H
* A Ser S Bud
* A Trl H
* A Tri S Trl
* A Ven S Trl
* F Wes H
* F NAf S Wes
* F Lyo H
* F Pie S Lyo

This is Position 1 reduced to 13 centers (Italy, Turkey, Balkans, Tri, Bud, Tun). There are variants in which Vie or Sev could be added for 14 centers, and one which adds both and omits Tun.

''((Eric Verheiden's "Minimal Southern Stalemate Positions" examines these and other variations on this theme. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))''

In the last case, the position around Italy becomes:

===Position 4a===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_4a.gif|thumb|260 px]]

* F Ion H
* F Gre S Ion
* U Rom H
* U Nap S Rom
* U Ven H
* U Apu S Ven
* F Adr S Ven

With a few adjustments, including U Ven S Tri, the Eastern power could hold Vienna and Budapest without holding Tyrolia, Bohemia or Galicia.

''((See Part II of Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Series of Progressive Southern Stalemate Positions" for more details on this position. John Beshera's "Fundamental Stalemate Positions, III" details related positions which hold only parts of Italy, but which expand into Russia and Germany. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))''

===Position 5===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_5.gif|thumb|260 px]]

* U Nwy H
* U Swe S Nwy
* F NAt H
* F Iri H
* U Bre H
* F Eng S Bre
* A Bur H
* A Par S Bur
* A Bel S Bur
* U Kie H
* A Ruh S Kie

This position holds 11 centers against any Southern power. There can be no enemy fleets in the North, which means that Russia has been eliminated.

===Position 5a===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_5a.gif|thumb|260 px]]

If Russia is still active, there is an 11-unit position that holds 12 centers. Remove U Swe and add U StP. Then:

* U StP H
* U Nwy S StP

There are several variations of this position.

''((See Eric Verheiden's "Northern Stalemate Positions" for more variations, including extensions into Russia. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).)) ''

===Position 5b===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_5b.gif|thumb|260 px]]

* U Nwy H
* F Bar S Nwy
* F Ska S Nwy
* U Kie H
* U Hol S Kie
* A Ruh S Kie
* U Den H
* F Hel S Den
* A Bur H
* F Lyo H
* F Mar S Lyo
* F Wes S Lyo
* U Tun H
* U NAf S Tun

This typical Northern position holds 14 centers. The opposition could have fleets in StP, Swe, Bal, and/or Ber without being able to break out. Tunis must be held or the Mediterranean would eventually be lost. Variants of this position run up to 17 centers.

''((See Eric Verheiden's "Western Stalemate Positions" for numerous variations, including extensions into Italy. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).)) ''

===Position 6===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_6.gif|thumb|260 px]]

U Den H, U StP(sc) S Lvn, F Mid H, F Por S Mid, F NAt (or Iri or Eng) S Mid, U Con H, F Bla (or U Ank) S Con, U Syr H, U Smy S Smy, A Ukr H, A Mos S Ukr, A Sev S Ukr.
This position is one in which Russia (minus Warsaw) can stalemate with 13 centers. Russia is the one Power which could eliminate both England and Turkey and have fleets in both North and South: an essential prerequisite for this position. This could also expand (into Warsaw or Bulgaria and Rumania), or it could contract in a number of ways.

((See Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Progressive Series of Asymmetrical Stalemate Positions" for a full development of the variations. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 6a===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_6a.gif|thumb|260 px]]

F Mid H, F Por S Mid, F NAt (or Iri or Eng) S Mid, F Aeg H, F Con S Aeg, F Eas S Aeg, U Arm H.
This is the minimum contraction of Position 6. One of the 4 Southern units is supplied by a center in the North. Although Russia is virtually the only Power which can achieve this configuration, it is now centered entirely on the two corner powers. Of course, there can be no fleets in the North nor in the Black Sea. (This means that the coalition Russia is facing would be Austria/Italy.)

[[Image:Eas-1.gif|thumb|260 px]]

((The only significant line not covered in this article is the Eastern line detailed in Eric Verheiden's "Eastern Stalemate Positions". These position use Turkey, Russia and Scandinavia as a base to expand into parts of Austria and Germany. These positions tend to be very large - all of the cataloged positions hold 16 or 17 centers. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))
The Use Of Stalemates

----

List of stalemate positions are tedious reading, at best. One is tempted to ask, what good is all this? The answer may be that a stalemate is the best alternative if you can't win or maybe it isn't. Every individual game develops its own character. A player's decision as to whether he is even interested in a stalemate depends on how he feels about the game as a whole and about the other players. Perhaps he will prefer to come in second. Perhaps he will even prefer to be eliminated in order to help achieve a particular result. It is silly to insist that there is any single "best" goal in Diplomacy. Everyone has his own priorities and trying to fit them all into one's own mold is small-minded.

However, an awareness of potential stalemate lines is essential to strong play, especially in a tournament setting or postal play. A stalemate line is a powerful position and the threat of a stalemate is a potent diplomatic weapon. On one hand, a winning alliance can be broken up by an opposition which can force a stalemate.

On the other hand, a small power can use her stalemate position to bargain with the others. A strategic situation may often mean achievement of stalemate to one side and breakthrough to the other. Each should be willing to pay a high price for an alliance. A small power which controls the key position may be able to bargain quite well for herself.

Stalemates are frequently hard to arrange and are often tactically complex (if an alliance is involved on the defensive side). For these reasons, players may be tempted to spend more time on them than they are worth. A stalemate is, after all, a sort of last refuge. It is the final resort of a large power that can't win or of one or more players who can't stop an impending victory any other way.

Compared to a free-wheeling game where the situation is flexible, a stalemate is dull and uninteresting. Most drawn games come about because one faction has become "entrenched". In the final analysis, it represents the ultimate failure and breakdown of diplomacy. Still, a stalemate is sometimes better than any available alternative. An alter Diplomacy player should be ready to use his knowledge of stalemates whenever necessary.

''Reprinted from The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy, 2nd edition (March 1979).'' 
''Adapted for Dipwiki from The Diplomatic Pouch''

The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy: Stalemates

2008-03-29T20:50:06Z

Former.trout:

==The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy: Stalemates==
by: Rod Walker
 

A stalemate is a position on the board which prevents any further advance by the enemy. A stalemate line is a line of units, none of which can be dislodged by any combination of opposing attacks and supports.

In the following commentary, a "stalemate line" is also defined as follows:

1. The line has not more than 17 units, holding not more than 17 centers (and not fewer centers than units). 
2. The line is held by one or more players against an alliance of two or more players (who would then control 17 or more centers and units). 
3. There are no enemy units behind the line and the enemy has no capacity for building any such unit. 

The first known stalemate positions were published in ''Wild 'n Woolly'' in 1966. Since that time, several dozen such lines have been discovered and published. Six basic positions and some of their variants are discussed below.

In many instances, the position will work whether a given unit is an army or fleet. In these cases, the abbreviation "U" (for "unit") will be used instead of "A" or "F".

===Position 1===

[[Image:Stalemate_1.gif|thumb|260 px]]
Centers:
Turkey, Sevastapol, Balkans, Austria, Italy, Tunis. (15) 

Units:
A Sev, A Ukr, A Gal, A Bud (or Vie or Rum), A Boh, A Trl, F Pie, F Lyo, F Wes, F NAf. (10) 

Orders:
* A Sev S Ukr
* A Bud S Gal
* A Trl S Boh
* F Pie S Lyo
* F NAf S Wes.

Discovered by Conrad von Metzke in 1966, this position uses only 10 units to hold nearly half the board (15 centers). The army in Budapest could just as easily be in Vienna or Rumania. However, to reduce the number of centers covered requires, paradoxically, an increase in the number of units. There are some 13- and 14-unit positions which can be held. (See Position 4 below.)

''((Eric Verheiden's "Minimal Southern Stalemate Positions" outlines six 13-unit variations on this position that still hold all of Italy. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).)) ''

===Position 1a===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_1a.gif|thumb|260 px]]
A variant of this position requires only 3 fleets:

F NAf, F Wes, and F TyS. F Pie becomes A Pie; and we must add A Tus.
The revised orders for this portion of the line:

* F Wes H
* F NAf S Wes
* F TyS S Wes
* A Pie H
* A Tus S Pie

Here 11 units still hold 15 centers.

In these positions, the East holds all of Italy. It has been asserted that an Eastern stalemate is impossible without all of Italy (John Beshera, 1971), but that is a mistake. Karl Pettis and others have since noted positions holding only part of Italy; there are possible stalemate lines holding only Venice, or only Naples, or Venice/Rome, Naples/Rome, or even Venice/Naples. (See Position 6 for an Eastern stalemate which holds no Italian centers at all.)

''((See John Beshera's "Fundamental Stalemate Positions, III" for many of these variations. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 2===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_2.gif|thumb|260 px]]
* F Mid H
* F Por S Mid
* F NAt S Mid.

This was first noted by John McCallum in 1966. It uses three units to blockade the exit from the Mediterranean. It holds four centers (England & Portugal). F NAt could be Iri or Eng.

England (or a Power that holds England) can maintain this position indefinitely under certain circumstances. The enemy must be a Southern Power (Austria, Italy, or Turkey). The Atlantic Powers (France, Germany, Russia) have been eliminated or are allied. It is not impossible to see a game stalemated like this: Assume, for instance, two Southern Powers have overrun the board. Their armies occupy all of Europe. However, their fleets are bottled inside the Mediterranean and they can't get out. They hold 30 centers (15 each or perhaps 14-16 or 13-17). Neither can win without stabbing the other. This is a powerful negotiating weapon in England's hands.

 
 

===Position 2a===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_2a.gif|thumb|260 px]]

In a variant of this position, England can hold 8 centers with 6 units. Here Russia may still be in the game, so long as she has no fleets in the North. In the South, the set-up is as in Position 2. In the North:

* U Den H
* U StP H
* F Bar S StP.

This position leaves England with two extra units with which to harass the enemy, contemplate expansion, or take advantage of stabs on the other side. It can be expanded to include France, Iberia, Belgium, Holland, and parts of Germany. A large number of resulting positions cover 14 to 16 centers. Many of these take into account enemy fleets in the North. (See Position 5b for an example.)

''((See Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Series of Progressive Northern Stalemate Positions" for a full development of this progression to 17 centers. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))''

 
 

===Position 3===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_3.gif|thumb|260 px]]

* U Arm H
* U Con H
* U NAf H
* U Spa H
* U Por S Spa
* F Wes S Spa.

This unusual position holds 6 centers (Turkey, Iberia, Tunis). The enemy is presumably an Anglo-German alliance that has swept the rest of the board. It will not hold if there is an enemy fleet in the Black Sea or the Mediterranean.

''((See Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Series of Progressive Southern Stalemate Positions" for a full development of this progression up the Italian peninsula and into Austria. Several of the positions hold Marseilles and Trieste, so the enemy alliance could potentially include an active France or Austria. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).)) ''

 

===Position 4===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_4.gif|thumb|260 px]]

* U Arm H
* U Rum H
* U Bul(ec) S Rum
* F Bla S Rum
* A Bud H
* A Ser S Bud
* A Trl H
* A Tri S Trl
* A Ven S Trl
* F Wes H
* F NAf S Wes
* F Lyo H
* F Pie S Lyo

This is Position 1 reduced to 13 centers (Italy, Turkey, Balkans, Tri, Bud, Tun). There are variants in which Vie or Sev could be added for 14 centers, and one which adds both and omits Tun.

''((Eric Verheiden's "Minimal Southern Stalemate Positions" examines these and other variations on this theme. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))''

In the last case, the position around Italy becomes:

===Position 4a===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_4a.gif|thumb|260 px]]

F Ion H, F Gre S Ion, U Rom H, U Nap S Rom, U Ven H, U Apu S Ven, F Adr S Ven.
With a few adjustments, including U Ven S Tri, the Eastern power could hold Vienna and Budapest without holding Tyrolia, Bohemia or Galicia.

((See Part II of Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Series of Progressive Southern Stalemate Positions" for more details on this position. John Beshera's "Fundamental Stalemate Positions, III" details related positions which hold only parts of Italy, but which expand into Russia and Germany. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 5===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_5.gif|thumb|260 px]]

U Nwy H, U Swe S Nwy, F NAt H, F Iri H, U Bre H, F Eng S Bre, A Bur H, A Par S Bur, A Bel S Bur, U Kie H, A Ruh S Kie.
This position holds 11 centers against any Southern power. There can be no enemy fleets in the North, which means that Russia has been eliminated.

===Position 5a===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_5a.gif|thumb|260 px]]

If Russia is still active, there is an 11-unit position that holds 12 centers. Remove U Swe and add U StP. Then:

U StP H, U Nwy S StP.
There are several variations of this position.

((See Eric Verheiden's "Northern Stalemate Positions" for more variations, including extensions into Russia. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 5b===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_5b.gif|thumb|260 px]]

U Nwy H, F Bar S Nwy, F Ska S Nwy, U Kie H, U Hol S Kie, A Ruh S Kie, U Den H, F Hel S Den, A Bur H, F Lyo H, F Mar S Lyo, F Wes S Lyo, U Tun H, U NAf S Tun.
This typical Northern position holds 14 centers. The opposition could have fleets in StP, Swe, Bal, and/or Ber without being able to break out. Tunis must be held or the Mediterranean would eventually be lost. Variants of this position run up to 17 centers.

((See Eric Verheiden's "Western Stalemate Positions" for numerous variations, including extensions into Italy. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 6===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_6.gif|thumb|260 px]]

U Den H, U StP(sc) S Lvn, F Mid H, F Por S Mid, F NAt (or Iri or Eng) S Mid, U Con H, F Bla (or U Ank) S Con, U Syr H, U Smy S Smy, A Ukr H, A Mos S Ukr, A Sev S Ukr.
This position is one in which Russia (minus Warsaw) can stalemate with 13 centers. Russia is the one Power which could eliminate both England and Turkey and have fleets in both North and South: an essential prerequisite for this position. This could also expand (into Warsaw or Bulgaria and Rumania), or it could contract in a number of ways.

((See Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Progressive Series of Asymmetrical Stalemate Positions" for a full development of the variations. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 6a===

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_6a.gif|thumb|260 px]]

F Mid H, F Por S Mid, F NAt (or Iri or Eng) S Mid, F Aeg H, F Con S Aeg, F Eas S Aeg, U Arm H.
This is the minimum contraction of Position 6. One of the 4 Southern units is supplied by a center in the North. Although Russia is virtually the only Power which can achieve this configuration, it is now centered entirely on the two corner powers. Of course, there can be no fleets in the North nor in the Black Sea. (This means that the coalition Russia is facing would be Austria/Italy.)

[[Image:Eas-1.gif|thumb|260 px]]

((The only significant line not covered in this article is the Eastern line detailed in Eric Verheiden's "Eastern Stalemate Positions". These position use Turkey, Russia and Scandinavia as a base to expand into parts of Austria and Germany. These positions tend to be very large - all of the cataloged positions hold 16 or 17 centers. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))
The Use Of Stalemates

----

List of stalemate positions are tedious reading, at best. One is tempted to ask, what good is all this? The answer may be that a stalemate is the best alternative if you can't win or maybe it isn't. Every individual game develops its own character. A player's decision as to whether he is even interested in a stalemate depends on how he feels about the game as a whole and about the other players. Perhaps he will prefer to come in second. Perhaps he will even prefer to be eliminated in order to help achieve a particular result. It is silly to insist that there is any single "best" goal in Diplomacy. Everyone has his own priorities and trying to fit them all into one's own mold is small-minded.

However, an awareness of potential stalemate lines is essential to strong play, especially in a tournament setting or postal play. A stalemate line is a powerful position and the threat of a stalemate is a potent diplomatic weapon. On one hand, a winning alliance can be broken up by an opposition which can force a stalemate.

On the other hand, a small power can use her stalemate position to bargain with the others. A strategic situation may often mean achievement of stalemate to one side and breakthrough to the other. Each should be willing to pay a high price for an alliance. A small power which controls the key position may be able to bargain quite well for herself.

Stalemates are frequently hard to arrange and are often tactically complex (if an alliance is involved on the defensive side). For these reasons, players may be tempted to spend more time on them than they are worth. A stalemate is, after all, a sort of last refuge. It is the final resort of a large power that can't win or of one or more players who can't stop an impending victory any other way.

Compared to a free-wheeling game where the situation is flexible, a stalemate is dull and uninteresting. Most drawn games come about because one faction has become "entrenched". In the final analysis, it represents the ultimate failure and breakdown of diplomacy. Still, a stalemate is sometimes better than any available alternative. An alter Diplomacy player should be ready to use his knowledge of stalemates whenever necessary.

''Reprinted from The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy, 2nd edition (March 1979).'' 
''Adapted for Dipwiki from The Diplomatic Pouch''

The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy: Stalemates

2008-03-29T17:11:56Z

Former.trout:

==The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy: Stalemates==
by: Rod Walker
 

A stalemate is a position on the board which prevents any further advance by the enemy. A stalemate line is a line of units, none of which can be dislodged by any combination of opposing attacks and supports.

In the following commentary, a "stalemate line" is also defined as follows:

1. The line has not more than 17 units, holding not more than 17 centers (and not fewer centers than units). 
2. The line is held by one or more players against an alliance of two or more players (who would then control 17 or more centers and units). 
3. There are no enemy units behind the line and the enemy has no capacity for building any such unit. 

The first known stalemate positions were published in ''Wild 'n Woolly'' in 1966. Since that time, several dozen such lines have been discovered and published. Six basic positions and some of their variants are discussed below.

In many instances, the position will work whether a given unit is an army or fleet. In these cases, the abbreviation "U" (for "unit") will be used instead of "A" or "F".

[[Image:Stalemate_1.gif|thumb|260 px]]

===Position 1===

Centers:
Turkey, Sevastapol, Balkans, Austria, Italy, Tunis. (15) 

Units:
A Sev, A Ukr, A Gal, A Bud (or Vie or Rum), A Boh, A Trl, F Pie, F Lyo, F Wes, F NAf. (10) 

Orders:
* A Sev S Ukr
* A Bud S Gal
* A Trl S Boh
* F Pie S Lyo
* F NAf S Wes.

Discovered by Conrad von Metzke in 1966, this position uses only 10 units to hold nearly half the board (15 centers). The army in Budapest could just as easily be in Vienna or Rumania. However, to reduce the number of centers covered requires, paradoxically, an increase in the number of units. There are some 13- and 14-unit positions which can be held. (See Position 4 below.)

''((Eric Verheiden's "Minimal Southern Stalemate Positions" outlines six 13-unit variations on this position that still hold all of Italy. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).)) ''

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_1a.gif|thumb|260 px]]

===Position 1a===

A variant of this position requires only 3 fleets:

F NAf, F Wes, and F TyS. F Pie becomes A Pie; and we must add A Tus.
The revised orders for this portion of the line:

* F Wes H
* F NAf S Wes
* F TyS S Wes
* A Pie H
* A Tus S Pie

Here 11 units still hold 15 centers.

In these positions, the East holds all of Italy. It has been asserted that an Eastern stalemate is impossible without all of Italy (John Beshera, 1971), but that is a mistake. Karl Pettis and others have since noted positions holding only part of Italy; there are possible stalemate lines holding only Venice, or only Naples, or Venice/Rome, Naples/Rome, or even Venice/Naples. (See Position 6 for an Eastern stalemate which holds no Italian centers at all.)

''((See John Beshera's "Fundamental Stalemate Positions, III" for many of these variations. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_2.gif|thumb|260 px]]

===Position 2===

* F Mid H
* F Por S Mid
* F NAt S Mid.

This was first noted by John McCallum in 1966. It uses three units to blockade the exit from the Mediterranean. It holds four centers (England & Portugal). F NAt could be Iri or Eng.

England (or a Power that holds England) can maintain this position indefinitely under certain circumstances. The enemy must be a Southern Power (Austria, Italy, or Turkey). The Atlantic Powers (France, Germany, Russia) have been eliminated or are allied. It is not impossible to see a game stalemated like this: Assume, for instance, two Southern Powers have overrun the board. Their armies occupy all of Europe. However, their fleets are bottled inside the Mediterranean and they can't get out. They hold 30 centers (15 each or perhaps 14-16 or 13-17). Neither can win without stabbing the other. This is a powerful negotiating weapon in England's hands.

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_2a.gif|thumb|260 px]]

===Position 2a===

In a variant of this position, England can hold 8 centers with 6 units. Here Russia may still be in the game, so long as she has no fleets in the North. In the South, the set-up is as in Position 2. In the North:

* U Den H
* U StP H
* F Bar S StP.

This position leaves England with two extra units with which to harass the enemy, contemplate expansion, or take advantage of stabs on the other side. It can be expanded to include France, Iberia, Belgium, Holland, and parts of Germany. A large number of resulting positions cover 14 to 16 centers. Many of these take into account enemy fleets in the North. (See Position 5b for an example.)

''((See Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Series of Progressive Northern Stalemate Positions" for a full development of this progression to 17 centers. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))''

[[Image:Stalemate_Line_3.gif|thumb|260 px]]

===Position 3===

* U Arm H
* U Con H
* U NAf H
* U Spa H
* U Por S Spa
* F Wes S Spa.

This unusual position holds 6 centers (Turkey, Iberia, Tunis). The enemy is presumably an Anglo-German alliance that has swept the rest of the board. It will not hold if there is an enemy fleet in the Black Sea or the Mediterranean.

''((See Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Series of Progressive Southern Stalemate Positions" for a full development of this progression up the Italian peninsula and into Austria. Several of the positions hold Marseilles and Trieste, so the enemy alliance could potentially include an active France or Austria. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).)) ''

===Position 4===

U Arm H, U Rum H, U Bul(ec) S Rum, F Bla S Rum, A Bud H, A Ser S Bud, A Trl H, A Tri S Trl, A Ven S Trl, F Wes H, F NAf S Wes, F Lyo H, F Pie S Lyo.
This is Position 1 reduced to 13 centers (Italy, Turkey, Balkans, Tri, Bud, Tun). There are variants in which Vie or Sev could be added for 14 centers, and one which adds both and omits Tun.

((Eric Verheiden's "Minimal Southern Stalemate Positions" examines these and other variations on this theme. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))
In the last case, the position around Italy becomes:

===Position 4a===

F Ion H, F Gre S Ion, U Rom H, U Nap S Rom, U Ven H, U Apu S Ven, F Adr S Ven.
With a few adjustments, including U Ven S Tri, the Eastern power could hold Vienna and Budapest without holding Tyrolia, Bohemia or Galicia.

((See Part II of Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Series of Progressive Southern Stalemate Positions" for more details on this position. John Beshera's "Fundamental Stalemate Positions, III" details related positions which hold only parts of Italy, but which expand into Russia and Germany. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 5===

U Nwy H, U Swe S Nwy, F NAt H, F Iri H, U Bre H, F Eng S Bre, A Bur H, A Par S Bur, A Bel S Bur, U Kie H, A Ruh S Kie.
This position holds 11 centers against any Southern power. There can be no enemy fleets in the North, which means that Russia has been eliminated.

===Position 5a===

If Russia is still active, there is an 11-unit position that holds 12 centers. Remove U Swe and add U StP. Then:

U StP H, U Nwy S StP.
There are several variations of this position.

((See Eric Verheiden's "Northern Stalemate Positions" for more variations, including extensions into Russia. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 5b===

U Nwy H, F Bar S Nwy, F Ska S Nwy, U Kie H, U Hol S Kie, A Ruh S Kie, U Den H, F Hel S Den, A Bur H, F Lyo H, F Mar S Lyo, F Wes S Lyo, U Tun H, U NAf S Tun.
This typical Northern position holds 14 centers. The opposition could have fleets in StP, Swe, Bal, and/or Ber without being able to break out. Tunis must be held or the Mediterranean would eventually be lost. Variants of this position run up to 17 centers.

((See Eric Verheiden's "Western Stalemate Positions" for numerous variations, including extensions into Italy. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 6===

U Den H, U StP(sc) S Lvn, F Mid H, F Por S Mid, F NAt (or Iri or Eng) S Mid, U Con H, F Bla (or U Ank) S Con, U Syr H, U Smy S Smy, A Ukr H, A Mos S Ukr, A Sev S Ukr.
This position is one in which Russia (minus Warsaw) can stalemate with 13 centers. Russia is the one Power which could eliminate both England and Turkey and have fleets in both North and South: an essential prerequisite for this position. This could also expand (into Warsaw or Bulgaria and Rumania), or it could contract in a number of ways.

((See Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Progressive Series of Asymmetrical Stalemate Positions" for a full development of the variations. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 6a===

F Mid H, F Por S Mid, F NAt (or Iri or Eng) S Mid, F Aeg H, F Con S Aeg, F Eas S Aeg, U Arm H.
This is the minimum contraction of Position 6. One of the 4 Southern units is supplied by a center in the North. Although Russia is virtually the only Power which can achieve this configuration, it is now centered entirely on the two corner powers. Of course, there can be no fleets in the North nor in the Black Sea. (This means that the coalition Russia is facing would be Austria/Italy.)
((The only significant line not covered in this article is the Eastern line detailed in Eric Verheiden's "Eastern Stalemate Positions". These position use Turkey, Russia and Scandinavia as a base to expand into parts of Austria and Germany. These positions tend to be very large - all of the cataloged positions hold 16 or 17 centers. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))
The Use Of Stalemates

----

List of stalemate positions are tedious reading, at best. One is tempted to ask, what good is all this? The answer may be that a stalemate is the best alternative if you can't win or maybe it isn't. Every individual game develops its own character. A player's decision as to whether he is even interested in a stalemate depends on how he feels about the game as a whole and about the other players. Perhaps he will prefer to come in second. Perhaps he will even prefer to be eliminated in order to help achieve a particular result. It is silly to insist that there is any single "best" goal in Diplomacy. Everyone has his own priorities and trying to fit them all into one's own mold is small-minded.

However, an awareness of potential stalemate lines is essential to strong play, especially in a tournament setting or postal play. A stalemate line is a powerful position and the threat of a stalemate is a potent diplomatic weapon. On one hand, a winning alliance can be broken up by an opposition which can force a stalemate.

On the other hand, a small power can use her stalemate position to bargain with the others. A strategic situation may often mean achievement of stalemate to one side and breakthrough to the other. Each should be willing to pay a high price for an alliance. A small power which controls the key position may be able to bargain quite well for herself.

Stalemates are frequently hard to arrange and are often tactically complex (if an alliance is involved on the defensive side). For these reasons, players may be tempted to spend more time on them than they are worth. A stalemate is, after all, a sort of last refuge. It is the final resort of a large power that can't win or of one or more players who can't stop an impending victory any other way.

Compared to a free-wheeling game where the situation is flexible, a stalemate is dull and uninteresting. Most drawn games come about because one faction has become "entrenched". In the final analysis, it represents the ultimate failure and breakdown of diplomacy. Still, a stalemate is sometimes better than any available alternative. An alter Diplomacy player should be ready to use his knowledge of stalemates whenever necessary.

''Reprinted from The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy, 2nd edition (March 1979).'' 
''Adapted for Dipwiki from The Diplomatic Pouch''

The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy: Stalemates

2008-03-29T16:29:32Z

Former.trout:

==The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy: Stalemates==
by: Rod Walker
 

A stalemate is a position on the board which prevents any further advance by the enemy. A stalemate line is a line of units, none of which can be dislodged by any combination of opposing attacks and supports.

In the following commentary, a "stalemate line" is also defined as follows:

1. The line has not more than 17 units, holding not more than 17 centers (and not fewer centers than units). 
2. The line is held by one or more players against an alliance of two or more players (who would then control 17 or more centers and units). 
3. There are no enemy units behind the line and the enemy has no capacity for building any such unit. 

The first known stalemate positions were published in ''Wild 'n Woolly'' in 1966. Since that time, several dozen such lines have been discovered and published. Six basic positions and some of their variants are discussed below.

In many instances, the position will work whether a given unit is an army or fleet. In these cases, the abbreviation "U" (for "unit") will be used instead of "A" or "F".

===Position 1===

[[Image:Stalemate_1.gif|thumb|300 px]]

Centers:
Turkey, Sevastapol, Balkans, Austria, Italy, Tunis. (15) 

Units:
A Sev, A Ukr, A Gal, A Bud (or Vie or Rum), A Boh, A Trl, F Pie, F Lyo, F Wes, F NAf. (10) 

Orders:
* A Sev S Ukr
* A Bud S Gal
* A Trl S Boh
* F Pie S Lyo
* F NAf S Wes.

Discovered by Conrad von Metzke in 1966, this position uses only 10 units to hold nearly half the board (15 centers). The army in Budapest could just as easily be in Vienna or Rumania. However, to reduce the number of centers covered requires, paradoxically, an increase in the number of units. There are some 13- and 14-unit positions which can be held. (See Position 4 below.)

''((Eric Verheiden's "Minimal Southern Stalemate Positions" outlines six 13-unit variations on this position that still hold all of Italy. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).)) ''

===Position 1a===

A variant of this position requires only 3 fleets:

F NAf, F Wes, and F TyS. F Pie becomes A Pie; and we must add A Tus.
The revised orders for this portion of the line:

F Wes H, F NAf S Wes, F TyS S Wes, A Pie H, A Tus S Pie
Here 11 units still hold 15 centers.

In these positions, the East holds all of Italy. It has been asserted that an Eastern stalemate is impossible without all of Italy (John Beshera, 1971), but that is a mistake. Karl Pettis and others have since noted positions holding only part of Italy; there are possible stalemate lines holding only Venice, or only Naples, or Venice/Rome, Naples/Rome, or even Venice/Naples. (See Position 6 for an Eastern stalemate which holds no Italian centers at all.)

((See John Beshera's "Fundamental Stalemate Positions, III" for many of these variations. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 2===

F Mid H, F Por S Mid, F NAt S Mid.
This was first noted by John McCallum in 1966. It uses three units to blockade the exit from the Mediterranean. It holds four centers (England & Portugal). F NAt could be Iri or Eng.

England (or a Power that holds England) can maintain this position indefinitely under certain circumstances. The enemy must be a Southern Power (Austria, Italy, or Turkey). The Atlantic Powers (France, Germany, Russia) have been eliminated or are allied. It is not impossible to see a game stalemated like this: Assume, for instance, two Southern Powers have overrun the board. Their armies occupy all of Europe. However, their fleets are bottled inside the Mediterranean and they can't get out. They hold 30 centers (15 each or perhaps 14-16 or 13-17). Neither can win without stabbing the other. This is a powerful negotiating weapon in England's hands.

===Position 2a===

In a variant of this position, England can hold 8 centers with 6 units. Here Russia may still be in the game, so long as she has no fleets in the North. In the South, the set-up is as in Position 2. In the North:

U Den H, U StP H, F Bar S StP.
This position leaves England with two extra units with which to harass the enemy, contemplate expansion, or take advantage of stabs on the other side. It can be expanded to include France, Iberia, Belgium, Holland, and parts of Germany. A large number of resulting positions cover 14 to 16 centers. Many of these take into account enemy fleets in the North. (See Position 5b for an example.)

((See Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Series of Progressive Northern Stalemate Positions" for a full development of this progression to 17 centers. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 3===

U Arm H, U Con H, U NAf H, U Spa H, U Por S Spa, F Wes S Spa.
This unusual position holds 6 centers (Turkey, Iberia, Tunis). The enemy is presumably an Anglo-German alliance that has swept the rest of the board. It will not hold if there is an enemy fleet in the Black Sea or the Mediterranean.

((See Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Series of Progressive Southern Stalemate Positions" for a full development of this progression up the Italian peninsula and into Austria. Several of the positions hold Marseilles and Trieste, so the enemy alliance could potentially include an active France or Austria. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 4===

U Arm H, U Rum H, U Bul(ec) S Rum, F Bla S Rum, A Bud H, A Ser S Bud, A Trl H, A Tri S Trl, A Ven S Trl, F Wes H, F NAf S Wes, F Lyo H, F Pie S Lyo.
This is Position 1 reduced to 13 centers (Italy, Turkey, Balkans, Tri, Bud, Tun). There are variants in which Vie or Sev could be added for 14 centers, and one which adds both and omits Tun.

((Eric Verheiden's "Minimal Southern Stalemate Positions" examines these and other variations on this theme. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))
In the last case, the position around Italy becomes:

===Position 4a===

F Ion H, F Gre S Ion, U Rom H, U Nap S Rom, U Ven H, U Apu S Ven, F Adr S Ven.
With a few adjustments, including U Ven S Tri, the Eastern power could hold Vienna and Budapest without holding Tyrolia, Bohemia or Galicia.

((See Part II of Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Series of Progressive Southern Stalemate Positions" for more details on this position. John Beshera's "Fundamental Stalemate Positions, III" details related positions which hold only parts of Italy, but which expand into Russia and Germany. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 5===

U Nwy H, U Swe S Nwy, F NAt H, F Iri H, U Bre H, F Eng S Bre, A Bur H, A Par S Bur, A Bel S Bur, U Kie H, A Ruh S Kie.
This position holds 11 centers against any Southern power. There can be no enemy fleets in the North, which means that Russia has been eliminated.

===Position 5a===

If Russia is still active, there is an 11-unit position that holds 12 centers. Remove U Swe and add U StP. Then:

U StP H, U Nwy S StP.
There are several variations of this position.

((See Eric Verheiden's "Northern Stalemate Positions" for more variations, including extensions into Russia. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 5b===

U Nwy H, F Bar S Nwy, F Ska S Nwy, U Kie H, U Hol S Kie, A Ruh S Kie, U Den H, F Hel S Den, A Bur H, F Lyo H, F Mar S Lyo, F Wes S Lyo, U Tun H, U NAf S Tun.
This typical Northern position holds 14 centers. The opposition could have fleets in StP, Swe, Bal, and/or Ber without being able to break out. Tunis must be held or the Mediterranean would eventually be lost. Variants of this position run up to 17 centers.

((See Eric Verheiden's "Western Stalemate Positions" for numerous variations, including extensions into Italy. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 6===

U Den H, U StP(sc) S Lvn, F Mid H, F Por S Mid, F NAt (or Iri or Eng) S Mid, U Con H, F Bla (or U Ank) S Con, U Syr H, U Smy S Smy, A Ukr H, A Mos S Ukr, A Sev S Ukr.
This position is one in which Russia (minus Warsaw) can stalemate with 13 centers. Russia is the one Power which could eliminate both England and Turkey and have fleets in both North and South: an essential prerequisite for this position. This could also expand (into Warsaw or Bulgaria and Rumania), or it could contract in a number of ways.

((See Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Progressive Series of Asymmetrical Stalemate Positions" for a full development of the variations. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 6a===

F Mid H, F Por S Mid, F NAt (or Iri or Eng) S Mid, F Aeg H, F Con S Aeg, F Eas S Aeg, U Arm H.
This is the minimum contraction of Position 6. One of the 4 Southern units is supplied by a center in the North. Although Russia is virtually the only Power which can achieve this configuration, it is now centered entirely on the two corner powers. Of course, there can be no fleets in the North nor in the Black Sea. (This means that the coalition Russia is facing would be Austria/Italy.)
((The only significant line not covered in this article is the Eastern line detailed in Eric Verheiden's "Eastern Stalemate Positions". These position use Turkey, Russia and Scandinavia as a base to expand into parts of Austria and Germany. These positions tend to be very large - all of the cataloged positions hold 16 or 17 centers. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))
The Use Of Stalemates

----

List of stalemate positions are tedious reading, at best. One is tempted to ask, what good is all this? The answer may be that a stalemate is the best alternative if you can't win or maybe it isn't. Every individual game develops its own character. A player's decision as to whether he is even interested in a stalemate depends on how he feels about the game as a whole and about the other players. Perhaps he will prefer to come in second. Perhaps he will even prefer to be eliminated in order to help achieve a particular result. It is silly to insist that there is any single "best" goal in Diplomacy. Everyone has his own priorities and trying to fit them all into one's own mold is small-minded.

However, an awareness of potential stalemate lines is essential to strong play, especially in a tournament setting or postal play. A stalemate line is a powerful position and the threat of a stalemate is a potent diplomatic weapon. On one hand, a winning alliance can be broken up by an opposition which can force a stalemate.

On the other hand, a small power can use her stalemate position to bargain with the others. A strategic situation may often mean achievement of stalemate to one side and breakthrough to the other. Each should be willing to pay a high price for an alliance. A small power which controls the key position may be able to bargain quite well for herself.

Stalemates are frequently hard to arrange and are often tactically complex (if an alliance is involved on the defensive side). For these reasons, players may be tempted to spend more time on them than they are worth. A stalemate is, after all, a sort of last refuge. It is the final resort of a large power that can't win or of one or more players who can't stop an impending victory any other way.

Compared to a free-wheeling game where the situation is flexible, a stalemate is dull and uninteresting. Most drawn games come about because one faction has become "entrenched". In the final analysis, it represents the ultimate failure and breakdown of diplomacy. Still, a stalemate is sometimes better than any available alternative. An alter Diplomacy player should be ready to use his knowledge of stalemates whenever necessary.

''Reprinted from The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy, 2nd edition (March 1979).'' 
''Adapted for Dipwiki from The Diplomatic Pouch''

The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy: Stalemates

2008-03-29T16:24:43Z

Former.trout:

==The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy: Stalemates==
by: Rod Walker
 

A stalemate is a position on the board which prevents any further advance by the enemy. A stalemate line is a line of units, none of which can be dislodged by any combination of opposing attacks and supports.

In the following commentary, a "stalemate line" is also defined as follows:

1. The line has not more than 17 units, holding not more than 17 centers (and not fewer centers than units). 
2. The line is held by one or more players against an alliance of two or more players (who would then control 17 or more centers and units). 
3. There are no enemy units behind the line and the enemy has no capacity for building any such unit. 

The first known stalemate positions were published in ''Wild 'n Woolly'' in 1966. Since that time, several dozen such lines have been discovered and published. Six basic positions and some of their variants are discussed below.

In many instances, the position will work whether a given unit is an army or fleet. In these cases, the abbreviation "U" (for "unit") will be used instead of "A" or "F".

===Position 1===

[[Image:Stalemate_1.gif|thumb]]
Centers:
Turkey, Sevastapol, Balkans, Austria, Italy, Tunis. (15)
Units:
A Sev, A Ukr, A Gal, A Bud (or Vie or Rum), A Boh, A Trl, F Pie, F Lyo, F Wes, F NAf. (10)
Orders:
A Sev S Ukr; A Bud S Gal; A Trl S Boh; F Pie S Lyo; F NAf S Wes.
Discovered by Conrad von Metzke in 1966, this position uses only 10 units to hold nearly half the board (15 centers). The army in Budapest could just as easily be in Vienna or Rumania. However, to reduce the number of centers covered requires, paradoxically, an increase in the number of units. There are some 13- and 14-unit positions which can be held. (See Position 4 below.)

((Eric Verheiden's "Minimal Southern Stalemate Positions" outlines six 13-unit variations on this position that still hold all of Italy. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 1a===

A variant of this position requires only 3 fleets:

F NAf, F Wes, and F TyS. F Pie becomes A Pie; and we must add A Tus.
The revised orders for this portion of the line:

F Wes H, F NAf S Wes, F TyS S Wes, A Pie H, A Tus S Pie
Here 11 units still hold 15 centers.

In these positions, the East holds all of Italy. It has been asserted that an Eastern stalemate is impossible without all of Italy (John Beshera, 1971), but that is a mistake. Karl Pettis and others have since noted positions holding only part of Italy; there are possible stalemate lines holding only Venice, or only Naples, or Venice/Rome, Naples/Rome, or even Venice/Naples. (See Position 6 for an Eastern stalemate which holds no Italian centers at all.)

((See John Beshera's "Fundamental Stalemate Positions, III" for many of these variations. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 2===

F Mid H, F Por S Mid, F NAt S Mid.
This was first noted by John McCallum in 1966. It uses three units to blockade the exit from the Mediterranean. It holds four centers (England & Portugal). F NAt could be Iri or Eng.

England (or a Power that holds England) can maintain this position indefinitely under certain circumstances. The enemy must be a Southern Power (Austria, Italy, or Turkey). The Atlantic Powers (France, Germany, Russia) have been eliminated or are allied. It is not impossible to see a game stalemated like this: Assume, for instance, two Southern Powers have overrun the board. Their armies occupy all of Europe. However, their fleets are bottled inside the Mediterranean and they can't get out. They hold 30 centers (15 each or perhaps 14-16 or 13-17). Neither can win without stabbing the other. This is a powerful negotiating weapon in England's hands.

===Position 2a===

In a variant of this position, England can hold 8 centers with 6 units. Here Russia may still be in the game, so long as she has no fleets in the North. In the South, the set-up is as in Position 2. In the North:

U Den H, U StP H, F Bar S StP.
This position leaves England with two extra units with which to harass the enemy, contemplate expansion, or take advantage of stabs on the other side. It can be expanded to include France, Iberia, Belgium, Holland, and parts of Germany. A large number of resulting positions cover 14 to 16 centers. Many of these take into account enemy fleets in the North. (See Position 5b for an example.)

((See Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Series of Progressive Northern Stalemate Positions" for a full development of this progression to 17 centers. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 3===

U Arm H, U Con H, U NAf H, U Spa H, U Por S Spa, F Wes S Spa.
This unusual position holds 6 centers (Turkey, Iberia, Tunis). The enemy is presumably an Anglo-German alliance that has swept the rest of the board. It will not hold if there is an enemy fleet in the Black Sea or the Mediterranean.

((See Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Series of Progressive Southern Stalemate Positions" for a full development of this progression up the Italian peninsula and into Austria. Several of the positions hold Marseilles and Trieste, so the enemy alliance could potentially include an active France or Austria. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 4===

U Arm H, U Rum H, U Bul(ec) S Rum, F Bla S Rum, A Bud H, A Ser S Bud, A Trl H, A Tri S Trl, A Ven S Trl, F Wes H, F NAf S Wes, F Lyo H, F Pie S Lyo.
This is Position 1 reduced to 13 centers (Italy, Turkey, Balkans, Tri, Bud, Tun). There are variants in which Vie or Sev could be added for 14 centers, and one which adds both and omits Tun.

((Eric Verheiden's "Minimal Southern Stalemate Positions" examines these and other variations on this theme. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))
In the last case, the position around Italy becomes:

===Position 4a===

F Ion H, F Gre S Ion, U Rom H, U Nap S Rom, U Ven H, U Apu S Ven, F Adr S Ven.
With a few adjustments, including U Ven S Tri, the Eastern power could hold Vienna and Budapest without holding Tyrolia, Bohemia or Galicia.

((See Part II of Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Series of Progressive Southern Stalemate Positions" for more details on this position. John Beshera's "Fundamental Stalemate Positions, III" details related positions which hold only parts of Italy, but which expand into Russia and Germany. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 5===

U Nwy H, U Swe S Nwy, F NAt H, F Iri H, U Bre H, F Eng S Bre, A Bur H, A Par S Bur, A Bel S Bur, U Kie H, A Ruh S Kie.
This position holds 11 centers against any Southern power. There can be no enemy fleets in the North, which means that Russia has been eliminated.

===Position 5a===

If Russia is still active, there is an 11-unit position that holds 12 centers. Remove U Swe and add U StP. Then:

U StP H, U Nwy S StP.
There are several variations of this position.

((See Eric Verheiden's "Northern Stalemate Positions" for more variations, including extensions into Russia. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 5b===

U Nwy H, F Bar S Nwy, F Ska S Nwy, U Kie H, U Hol S Kie, A Ruh S Kie, U Den H, F Hel S Den, A Bur H, F Lyo H, F Mar S Lyo, F Wes S Lyo, U Tun H, U NAf S Tun.
This typical Northern position holds 14 centers. The opposition could have fleets in StP, Swe, Bal, and/or Ber without being able to break out. Tunis must be held or the Mediterranean would eventually be lost. Variants of this position run up to 17 centers.

((See Eric Verheiden's "Western Stalemate Positions" for numerous variations, including extensions into Italy. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 6===

U Den H, U StP(sc) S Lvn, F Mid H, F Por S Mid, F NAt (or Iri or Eng) S Mid, U Con H, F Bla (or U Ank) S Con, U Syr H, U Smy S Smy, A Ukr H, A Mos S Ukr, A Sev S Ukr.
This position is one in which Russia (minus Warsaw) can stalemate with 13 centers. Russia is the one Power which could eliminate both England and Turkey and have fleets in both North and South: an essential prerequisite for this position. This could also expand (into Warsaw or Bulgaria and Rumania), or it could contract in a number of ways.

((See Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Progressive Series of Asymmetrical Stalemate Positions" for a full development of the variations. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 6a===

F Mid H, F Por S Mid, F NAt (or Iri or Eng) S Mid, F Aeg H, F Con S Aeg, F Eas S Aeg, U Arm H.
This is the minimum contraction of Position 6. One of the 4 Southern units is supplied by a center in the North. Although Russia is virtually the only Power which can achieve this configuration, it is now centered entirely on the two corner powers. Of course, there can be no fleets in the North nor in the Black Sea. (This means that the coalition Russia is facing would be Austria/Italy.)
((The only significant line not covered in this article is the Eastern line detailed in Eric Verheiden's "Eastern Stalemate Positions". These position use Turkey, Russia and Scandinavia as a base to expand into parts of Austria and Germany. These positions tend to be very large - all of the cataloged positions hold 16 or 17 centers. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))
The Use Of Stalemates

----

List of stalemate positions are tedious reading, at best. One is tempted to ask, what good is all this? The answer may be that a stalemate is the best alternative if you can't win or maybe it isn't. Every individual game develops its own character. A player's decision as to whether he is even interested in a stalemate depends on how he feels about the game as a whole and about the other players. Perhaps he will prefer to come in second. Perhaps he will even prefer to be eliminated in order to help achieve a particular result. It is silly to insist that there is any single "best" goal in Diplomacy. Everyone has his own priorities and trying to fit them all into one's own mold is small-minded.

However, an awareness of potential stalemate lines is essential to strong play, especially in a tournament setting or postal play. A stalemate line is a powerful position and the threat of a stalemate is a potent diplomatic weapon. On one hand, a winning alliance can be broken up by an opposition which can force a stalemate.

On the other hand, a small power can use her stalemate position to bargain with the others. A strategic situation may often mean achievement of stalemate to one side and breakthrough to the other. Each should be willing to pay a high price for an alliance. A small power which controls the key position may be able to bargain quite well for herself.

Stalemates are frequently hard to arrange and are often tactically complex (if an alliance is involved on the defensive side). For these reasons, players may be tempted to spend more time on them than they are worth. A stalemate is, after all, a sort of last refuge. It is the final resort of a large power that can't win or of one or more players who can't stop an impending victory any other way.

Compared to a free-wheeling game where the situation is flexible, a stalemate is dull and uninteresting. Most drawn games come about because one faction has become "entrenched". In the final analysis, it represents the ultimate failure and breakdown of diplomacy. Still, a stalemate is sometimes better than any available alternative. An alter Diplomacy player should be ready to use his knowledge of stalemates whenever necessary.

''Reprinted from The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy, 2nd edition (March 1979).'' 
''Adapted for Dipwiki from The Diplomatic Pouch''

File:Eas-1.gif

2008-03-29T16:16:45Z

Former.trout: Stalemate Line East Example

Stalemate Line East Example

File:Stalemate Line 6a.gif

2008-03-29T16:16:16Z

Former.trout: Stalemate Line 6a Example

Stalemate Line 6a Example

File:Stalemate Line 6.gif

2008-03-29T16:15:54Z

Former.trout: Stalemate Line 6 Example

Stalemate Line 6 Example

File:Stalemate Line 5b.gif

2008-03-29T16:15:25Z

Former.trout: Stalemate Line 5b Example

Stalemate Line 5b Example

File:Stalemate Line 5a.gif

2008-03-29T16:15:03Z

Former.trout: Stalemate Line 5a Example

Stalemate Line 5a Example

File:Stalemate Line 5.gif

2008-03-29T16:14:44Z

Former.trout: Stalemate Line 5 Example

Stalemate Line 5 Example

File:Stalemate Line 4.gif

2008-03-29T16:14:20Z

Former.trout: Stalemate Line 4 Example

Stalemate Line 4 Example

File:Stalemate Line 4a.gif

2008-03-29T16:13:40Z

Former.trout: Stalemate Line 4a Example

Stalemate Line 4a Example

File:Stalemate Line 3.gif

2008-03-29T16:13:01Z

Former.trout: Stalemate Line 3 example

Stalemate Line 3 example

File:Stalemate Line 2a.gif

2008-03-29T16:12:22Z

Former.trout: Stalemate Line 2a example

Stalemate Line 2a example

File:Stalemate Line 2.gif

2008-03-29T16:12:02Z

Former.trout: Stalemate Line 2 Example

Stalemate Line 2 Example

File:Stalemate Line 1a.gif

2008-03-29T16:11:16Z

Former.trout: Stalemate Line 1a Example

Stalemate Line 1a Example

File:Stalemate 1.gif

2008-03-29T16:09:03Z

Former.trout: Stalemate Line Exampe 1

Stalemate Line Exampe 1

The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy: Stalemates

2008-03-29T14:08:36Z

Former.trout:

==The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy: Stalemates==
by: Rod Walker
 

A stalemate is a position on the board which prevents any further advance by the enemy. A stalemate line is a line of units, none of which can be dislodged by any combination of opposing attacks and supports.

In the following commentary, a "stalemate line" is also defined as follows:

The line has not more than 17 units, holding not more than 17 centers (and not fewer centers than units).
The line is held by one or more players against an alliance of two or more players (who would then control 17 or more centers and units).
There are no enemy units behind the line and the enemy has no capacity for building any such unit.
The first known stalemate positions were published in ''Wild 'n Woolly'' in 1966. Since that time, several dozen such lines have been discovered and published. Six basic positions and some of their variants are discussed below.

In many instances, the position will work whether a given unit is an army or fleet. In these cases, the abbreviation "U" (for "unit") will be used instead of "A" or "F".

===Position 1===

Centers:
Turkey, Sevastapol, Balkans, Austria, Italy, Tunis. (15)
Units:
A Sev, A Ukr, A Gal, A Bud (or Vie or Rum), A Boh, A Trl, F Pie, F Lyo, F Wes, F NAf. (10)
Orders:
A Sev S Ukr; A Bud S Gal; A Trl S Boh; F Pie S Lyo; F NAf S Wes.
Discovered by Conrad von Metzke in 1966, this position uses only 10 units to hold nearly half the board (15 centers). The army in Budapest could just as easily be in Vienna or Rumania. However, to reduce the number of centers covered requires, paradoxically, an increase in the number of units. There are some 13- and 14-unit positions which can be held. (See Position 4 below.)

((Eric Verheiden's "Minimal Southern Stalemate Positions" outlines six 13-unit variations on this position that still hold all of Italy. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 1a===

A variant of this position requires only 3 fleets:

F NAf, F Wes, and F TyS. F Pie becomes A Pie; and we must add A Tus.
The revised orders for this portion of the line:

F Wes H, F NAf S Wes, F TyS S Wes, A Pie H, A Tus S Pie
Here 11 units still hold 15 centers.

In these positions, the East holds all of Italy. It has been asserted that an Eastern stalemate is impossible without all of Italy (John Beshera, 1971), but that is a mistake. Karl Pettis and others have since noted positions holding only part of Italy; there are possible stalemate lines holding only Venice, or only Naples, or Venice/Rome, Naples/Rome, or even Venice/Naples. (See Position 6 for an Eastern stalemate which holds no Italian centers at all.)

((See John Beshera's "Fundamental Stalemate Positions, III" for many of these variations. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 2===

F Mid H, F Por S Mid, F NAt S Mid.
This was first noted by John McCallum in 1966. It uses three units to blockade the exit from the Mediterranean. It holds four centers (England & Portugal). F NAt could be Iri or Eng.

England (or a Power that holds England) can maintain this position indefinitely under certain circumstances. The enemy must be a Southern Power (Austria, Italy, or Turkey). The Atlantic Powers (France, Germany, Russia) have been eliminated or are allied. It is not impossible to see a game stalemated like this: Assume, for instance, two Southern Powers have overrun the board. Their armies occupy all of Europe. However, their fleets are bottled inside the Mediterranean and they can't get out. They hold 30 centers (15 each or perhaps 14-16 or 13-17). Neither can win without stabbing the other. This is a powerful negotiating weapon in England's hands.

===Position 2a===

In a variant of this position, England can hold 8 centers with 6 units. Here Russia may still be in the game, so long as she has no fleets in the North. In the South, the set-up is as in Position 2. In the North:

U Den H, U StP H, F Bar S StP.
This position leaves England with two extra units with which to harass the enemy, contemplate expansion, or take advantage of stabs on the other side. It can be expanded to include France, Iberia, Belgium, Holland, and parts of Germany. A large number of resulting positions cover 14 to 16 centers. Many of these take into account enemy fleets in the North. (See Position 5b for an example.)

((See Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Series of Progressive Northern Stalemate Positions" for a full development of this progression to 17 centers. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 3===

U Arm H, U Con H, U NAf H, U Spa H, U Por S Spa, F Wes S Spa.
This unusual position holds 6 centers (Turkey, Iberia, Tunis). The enemy is presumably an Anglo-German alliance that has swept the rest of the board. It will not hold if there is an enemy fleet in the Black Sea or the Mediterranean.

((See Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Series of Progressive Southern Stalemate Positions" for a full development of this progression up the Italian peninsula and into Austria. Several of the positions hold Marseilles and Trieste, so the enemy alliance could potentially include an active France or Austria. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 4===

U Arm H, U Rum H, U Bul(ec) S Rum, F Bla S Rum, A Bud H, A Ser S Bud, A Trl H, A Tri S Trl, A Ven S Trl, F Wes H, F NAf S Wes, F Lyo H, F Pie S Lyo.
This is Position 1 reduced to 13 centers (Italy, Turkey, Balkans, Tri, Bud, Tun). There are variants in which Vie or Sev could be added for 14 centers, and one which adds both and omits Tun.

((Eric Verheiden's "Minimal Southern Stalemate Positions" examines these and other variations on this theme. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))
In the last case, the position around Italy becomes:

===Position 4a===

F Ion H, F Gre S Ion, U Rom H, U Nap S Rom, U Ven H, U Apu S Ven, F Adr S Ven.
With a few adjustments, including U Ven S Tri, the Eastern power could hold Vienna and Budapest without holding Tyrolia, Bohemia or Galicia.

((See Part II of Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Series of Progressive Southern Stalemate Positions" for more details on this position. John Beshera's "Fundamental Stalemate Positions, III" details related positions which hold only parts of Italy, but which expand into Russia and Germany. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 5===

U Nwy H, U Swe S Nwy, F NAt H, F Iri H, U Bre H, F Eng S Bre, A Bur H, A Par S Bur, A Bel S Bur, U Kie H, A Ruh S Kie.
This position holds 11 centers against any Southern power. There can be no enemy fleets in the North, which means that Russia has been eliminated.

===Position 5a===

If Russia is still active, there is an 11-unit position that holds 12 centers. Remove U Swe and add U StP. Then:

U StP H, U Nwy S StP.
There are several variations of this position.

((See Eric Verheiden's "Northern Stalemate Positions" for more variations, including extensions into Russia. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 5b===

U Nwy H, F Bar S Nwy, F Ska S Nwy, U Kie H, U Hol S Kie, A Ruh S Kie, U Den H, F Hel S Den, A Bur H, F Lyo H, F Mar S Lyo, F Wes S Lyo, U Tun H, U NAf S Tun.
This typical Northern position holds 14 centers. The opposition could have fleets in StP, Swe, Bal, and/or Ber without being able to break out. Tunis must be held or the Mediterranean would eventually be lost. Variants of this position run up to 17 centers.

((See Eric Verheiden's "Western Stalemate Positions" for numerous variations, including extensions into Italy. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 6===

U Den H, U StP(sc) S Lvn, F Mid H, F Por S Mid, F NAt (or Iri or Eng) S Mid, U Con H, F Bla (or U Ank) S Con, U Syr H, U Smy S Smy, A Ukr H, A Mos S Ukr, A Sev S Ukr.
This position is one in which Russia (minus Warsaw) can stalemate with 13 centers. Russia is the one Power which could eliminate both England and Turkey and have fleets in both North and South: an essential prerequisite for this position. This could also expand (into Warsaw or Bulgaria and Rumania), or it could contract in a number of ways.

((See Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Progressive Series of Asymmetrical Stalemate Positions" for a full development of the variations. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

===Position 6a===

F Mid H, F Por S Mid, F NAt (or Iri or Eng) S Mid, F Aeg H, F Con S Aeg, F Eas S Aeg, U Arm H.
This is the minimum contraction of Position 6. One of the 4 Southern units is supplied by a center in the North. Although Russia is virtually the only Power which can achieve this configuration, it is now centered entirely on the two corner powers. Of course, there can be no fleets in the North nor in the Black Sea. (This means that the coalition Russia is facing would be Austria/Italy.)
((The only significant line not covered in this article is the Eastern line detailed in Eric Verheiden's "Eastern Stalemate Positions". These position use Turkey, Russia and Scandinavia as a base to expand into parts of Austria and Germany. These positions tend to be very large - all of the cataloged positions hold 16 or 17 centers. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))
The Use Of Stalemates

----

List of stalemate positions are tedious reading, at best. One is tempted to ask, what good is all this? The answer may be that a stalemate is the best alternative if you can't win or maybe it isn't. Every individual game develops its own character. A player's decision as to whether he is even interested in a stalemate depends on how he feels about the game as a whole and about the other players. Perhaps he will prefer to come in second. Perhaps he will even prefer to be eliminated in order to help achieve a particular result. It is silly to insist that there is any single "best" goal in Diplomacy. Everyone has his own priorities and trying to fit them all into one's own mold is small-minded.

However, an awareness of potential stalemate lines is essential to strong play, especially in a tournament setting or postal play. A stalemate line is a powerful position and the threat of a stalemate is a potent diplomatic weapon. On one hand, a winning alliance can be broken up by an opposition which can force a stalemate.

On the other hand, a small power can use her stalemate position to bargain with the others. A strategic situation may often mean achievement of stalemate to one side and breakthrough to the other. Each should be willing to pay a high price for an alliance. A small power which controls the key position may be able to bargain quite well for herself.

Stalemates are frequently hard to arrange and are often tactically complex (if an alliance is involved on the defensive side). For these reasons, players may be tempted to spend more time on them than they are worth. A stalemate is, after all, a sort of last refuge. It is the final resort of a large power that can't win or of one or more players who can't stop an impending victory any other way.

Compared to a free-wheeling game where the situation is flexible, a stalemate is dull and uninteresting. Most drawn games come about because one faction has become "entrenched". In the final analysis, it represents the ultimate failure and breakdown of diplomacy. Still, a stalemate is sometimes better than any available alternative. An alter Diplomacy player should be ready to use his knowledge of stalemates whenever necessary.

''Reprinted from The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy, 2nd edition (March 1979).'' 
''Adapted for Dipwiki from The Diplomatic Pouch''

The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy: Stalemates

2008-03-29T13:53:17Z

Former.trout: New page: The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy: Stalemates Rod Walker A stalemate is a position on the board which prevents any further advance by the enemy. A stalemate line is a line of units, none of ...

The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy: Stalemates
Rod Walker

A stalemate is a position on the board which prevents any further advance by the enemy. A stalemate line is a line of units, none of which can be dislodged by any combination of opposing attacks and supports.

In the following commentary, a "stalemate line" is also defined as follows:

The line has not more than 17 units, holding not more than 17 centers (and not fewer centers than units).
The line is held by one or more players against an alliance of two or more players (who would then control 17 or more centers and units).
There are no enemy units behind the line and the enemy has no capacity for building any such unit.
The first known stalemate positions were published in Wild 'n Woolly in 1966. Since that time, several dozen such lines have been discovered and published. Six basic positions and some of their variants are discussed below.

In many instances, the position will work whether a given unit is an army or fleet. In these cases, the abbreviation "U" (for "unit") will be used instead of "A" or "F".

Position 1

Centers:
Turkey, Sevastapol, Balkans, Austria, Italy, Tunis. (15)
Units:
A Sev, A Ukr, A Gal, A Bud (or Vie or Rum), A Boh, A Trl, F Pie, F Lyo, F Wes, F NAf. (10)
Orders:
A Sev S Ukr; A Bud S Gal; A Trl S Boh; F Pie S Lyo; F NAf S Wes.
Discovered by Conrad von Metzke in 1966, this position uses only 10 units to hold nearly half the board (15 centers). The army in Budapest could just as easily be in Vienna or Rumania. However, to reduce the number of centers covered requires, paradoxically, an increase in the number of units. There are some 13- and 14-unit positions which can be held. (See Position 4 below.)

((Eric Verheiden's "Minimal Southern Stalemate Positions" outlines six 13-unit variations on this position that still hold all of Italy. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

Position 1a

A variant of this position requires only 3 fleets:

F NAf, F Wes, and F TyS. F Pie becomes A Pie; and we must add A Tus.
The revised orders for this portion of the line:

F Wes H, F NAf S Wes, F TyS S Wes, A Pie H, A Tus S Pie
Here 11 units still hold 15 centers.

In these positions, the East holds all of Italy. It has been asserted that an Eastern stalemate is impossible without all of Italy (John Beshera, 1971), but that is a mistake. Karl Pettis and others have since noted positions holding only part of Italy; there are possible stalemate lines holding only Venice, or only Naples, or Venice/Rome, Naples/Rome, or even Venice/Naples. (See Position 6 for an Eastern stalemate which holds no Italian centers at all.)

((See John Beshera's "Fundamental Stalemate Positions, III" for many of these variations. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

Position 2

F Mid H, F Por S Mid, F NAt S Mid.
This was first noted by John McCallum in 1966. It uses three units to blockade the exit from the Mediterranean. It holds four centers (England & Portugal). F NAt could be Iri or Eng.

England (or a Power that holds England) can maintain this position indefinitely under certain circumstances. The enemy must be a Southern Power (Austria, Italy, or Turkey). The Atlantic Powers (France, Germany, Russia) have been eliminated or are allied. It is not impossible to see a game stalemated like this: Assume, for instance, two Southern Powers have overrun the board. Their armies occupy all of Europe. However, their fleets are bottled inside the Mediterranean and they can't get out. They hold 30 centers (15 each or perhaps 14-16 or 13-17). Neither can win without stabbing the other. This is a powerful negotiating weapon in England's hands.

Position 2a

In a variant of this position, England can hold 8 centers with 6 units. Here Russia may still be in the game, so long as she has no fleets in the North. In the South, the set-up is as in Position 2. In the North:

U Den H, U StP H, F Bar S StP.
This position leaves England with two extra units with which to harass the enemy, contemplate expansion, or take advantage of stabs on the other side. It can be expanded to include France, Iberia, Belgium, Holland, and parts of Germany. A large number of resulting positions cover 14 to 16 centers. Many of these take into account enemy fleets in the North. (See Position 5b for an example.)

((See Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Series of Progressive Northern Stalemate Positions" for a full development of this progression to 17 centers. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

Position 3

U Arm H, U Con H, U NAf H, U Spa H, U Por S Spa, F Wes S Spa.
This unusual position holds 6 centers (Turkey, Iberia, Tunis). The enemy is presumably an Anglo-German alliance that has swept the rest of the board. It will not hold if there is an enemy fleet in the Black Sea or the Mediterranean.

((See Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Series of Progressive Southern Stalemate Positions" for a full development of this progression up the Italian peninsula and into Austria. Several of the positions hold Marseilles and Trieste, so the enemy alliance could potentially include an active France or Austria. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

Position 4

U Arm H, U Rum H, U Bul(ec) S Rum, F Bla S Rum, A Bud H, A Ser S Bud, A Trl H, A Tri S Trl, A Ven S Trl, F Wes H, F NAf S Wes, F Lyo H, F Pie S Lyo.
This is Position 1 reduced to 13 centers (Italy, Turkey, Balkans, Tri, Bud, Tun). There are variants in which Vie or Sev could be added for 14 centers, and one which adds both and omits Tun.

((Eric Verheiden's "Minimal Southern Stalemate Positions" examines these and other variations on this theme. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))
In the last case, the position around Italy becomes:

Position 4a

F Ion H, F Gre S Ion, U Rom H, U Nap S Rom, U Ven H, U Apu S Ven, F Adr S Ven.
With a few adjustments, including U Ven S Tri, the Eastern power could hold Vienna and Budapest without holding Tyrolia, Bohemia or Galicia.

((See Part II of Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Series of Progressive Southern Stalemate Positions" for more details on this position. John Beshera's "Fundamental Stalemate Positions, III" details related positions which hold only parts of Italy, but which expand into Russia and Germany. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

Position 5

U Nwy H, U Swe S Nwy, F NAt H, F Iri H, U Bre H, F Eng S Bre, A Bur H, A Par S Bur, A Bel S Bur, U Kie H, A Ruh S Kie.
This position holds 11 centers against any Southern power. There can be no enemy fleets in the North, which means that Russia has been eliminated.

Position 5a

If Russia is still active, there is an 11-unit position that holds 12 centers. Remove U Swe and add U StP. Then:

U StP H, U Nwy S StP.
There are several variations of this position.

((See Eric Verheiden's "Northern Stalemate Positions" for more variations, including extensions into Russia. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

Position 5b

U Nwy H, F Bar S Nwy, F Ska S Nwy, U Kie H, U Hol S Kie, A Ruh S Kie, U Den H, F Hel S Den, A Bur H, F Lyo H, F Mar S Lyo, F Wes S Lyo, U Tun H, U NAf S Tun.
This typical Northern position holds 14 centers. The opposition could have fleets in StP, Swe, Bal, and/or Ber without being able to break out. Tunis must be held or the Mediterranean would eventually be lost. Variants of this position run up to 17 centers.

((See Eric Verheiden's "Western Stalemate Positions" for numerous variations, including extensions into Italy. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

Position 6

U Den H, U StP(sc) S Lvn, F Mid H, F Por S Mid, F NAt (or Iri or Eng) S Mid, U Con H, F Bla (or U Ank) S Con, U Syr H, U Smy S Smy, A Ukr H, A Mos S Ukr, A Sev S Ukr.
This position is one in which Russia (minus Warsaw) can stalemate with 13 centers. Russia is the one Power which could eliminate both England and Turkey and have fleets in both North and South: an essential prerequisite for this position. This could also expand (into Warsaw or Bulgaria and Rumania), or it could contract in a number of ways.

((See Robert Bryan Lipton's "A Progressive Series of Asymmetrical Stalemate Positions" for a full development of the variations. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))

Position 6a

F Mid H, F Por S Mid, F NAt (or Iri or Eng) S Mid, F Aeg H, F Con S Aeg, F Eas S Aeg, U Arm H.
This is the minimum contraction of Position 6. One of the 4 Southern units is supplied by a center in the North. Although Russia is virtually the only Power which can achieve this configuration, it is now centered entirely on the two corner powers. Of course, there can be no fleets in the North nor in the Black Sea. (This means that the coalition Russia is facing would be Austria/Italy.)
((The only significant line not covered in this article is the Eastern line detailed in Eric Verheiden's "Eastern Stalemate Positions". These position use Turkey, Russia and Scandinavia as a base to expand into parts of Austria and Germany. These positions tend to be very large - all of the cataloged positions hold 16 or 17 centers. --- Matthew Self, The Diplomatic Pouch (December 1995).))
The Use Of Stalemates

List of stalemate positions are tedious reading, at best. One is tempted to ask, what good is all this? The answer may be that a stalemate is the best alternative if you can't win or maybe it isn't. Every individual game develops its own character. A player's decision as to whether he is even interested in a stalemate depends on how he feels about the game as a whole and about the other players. Perhaps he will prefer to come in second. Perhaps he will even prefer to be eliminated in order to help achieve a particular result. It is silly to insist that there is any single "best" goal in Diplomacy. Everyone has his own priorities and trying to fit them all into one's own mold is small-minded.

However, an awareness of potential stalemate lines is essential to strong play, especially in a tournament setting or postal play. A stalemate line is a powerful position and the threat of a stalemate is a potent diplomatic weapon. On one hand, a winning alliance can be broken up by an opposition which can force a stalemate.

On the other hand, a small power can use her stalemate position to bargain with the others. A strategic situation may often mean achievement of stalemate to one side and breakthrough to the other. Each should be willing to pay a high price for an alliance. A small power which controls the key position may be able to bargain quite well for herself.

Stalemates are frequently hard to arrange and are often tactically complex (if an alliance is involved on the defensive side). For these reasons, players may be tempted to spend more time on them than they are worth. A stalemate is, after all, a sort of last refuge. It is the final resort of a large power that can't win or of one or more players who can't stop an impending victory any other way.

Compared to a free-wheeling game where the situation is flexible, a stalemate is dull and uninteresting. Most drawn games come about because one faction has become "entrenched". In the final analysis, it represents the ultimate failure and breakdown of diplomacy. Still, a stalemate is sometimes better than any available alternative. An alter Diplomacy player should be ready to use his knowledge of stalemates whenever necessary.

Reprinted from The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy, 2nd edition (March 1979).
Converted to HTML by Matthew Self (mself@btw.com), December 1995.

Strategy

2008-03-29T13:51:47Z

Former.trout:

==Standard Strategy Articles:==
* [[Diplomacy Tips]] by Big Boy
* [[The Art Of Diplomacy]] by Richard Sharp
* [[Subtle Joys of Being Little]] by Rod Walker

'''Articles Written By [[Allan B Calhamer]]:'''
* [[Military Intelligence]] (1960)
* [[On Strengthening the hand of Austria-Hungary]] (1960)
* [[The Tactics of Diplomacy]] (1961)
* [[A Dozen Years of Diplomacy]] (1966)
* [[On the Play of Postal Diplomacy]] by Allan Calhamer (1966)
* [[The Invention of Diplomacy]] (1974)
* [[Across the Whole Board]] (1974)
* [[Objectives Other Than Winning]] (1974)
* [[Introduction to Diplomacy]] (1975)
* [[The Coast of Moscow]]

==Variant Strategy Articles:==

'''[[Colonial]] Variant:'''
* [[CDD Lab Notes]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Review]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 1 The British]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 2 The Chinese]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 3 The Dutch]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 4 The French]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 5 The Japanese]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 6 The Russians]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 7 The Turks]]

'''[[Deluge]] Variant:'''
* [[The Devil And The Deep Blue Sea]]

==Game Notes And Information:==
 
'''Game Paradoxes'''
* [[Convoy Paradoxes]]

'''Stalemate Lines'''
* [[The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy: Stalemates]] by Rod Walker

Strategy

2008-03-29T13:51:27Z

Former.trout:

==Standard Strategy Articles:==
* [[Diplomacy Tips]] by Big Boy
* [[The Art Of Diplomacy]] by Richard Sharp
* [[Subtle Joys of Being Little]] by Rod Walker

'''Articles Written By [[Allan B Calhamer]]:'''
* [[Military Intelligence]] (1960)
* [[On Strengthening the hand of Austria-Hungary]] (1960)
* [[The Tactics of Diplomacy]] (1961)
* [[A Dozen Years of Diplomacy]] (1966)
* [[On the Play of Postal Diplomacy]] by Allan Calhamer (1966)
* [[The Invention of Diplomacy]] (1974)
* [[Across the Whole Board]] (1974)
* [[Objectives Other Than Winning]] (1974)
* [[Introduction to Diplomacy]] (1975)
* [[The Coast of Moscow]]

==Variant Strategy Articles:==

'''[[Colonial]] Variant:'''
* [[CDD Lab Notes]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Review]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 1 The British]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 2 The Chinese]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 3 The Dutch]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 4 The French]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 5 The Japanese]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 6 The Russians]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 7 The Turks]]

'''[[Deluge]] Variant:'''
* [[The Devil And The Deep Blue Sea]]

==Game Notes And Information:==
 
'''Game Paradoxes'''
* [[Convoy Paradoxes]]

 
'''Stalemate Lines'''
* [[The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy: Stalemates]] by Rod Walker

Strategy

2008-03-29T13:50:54Z

Former.trout:

==Standard Strategy Articles:==
* [[Diplomacy Tips]] by Big Boy
* [[The Art Of Diplomacy]] by Richard Sharp
* [[Subtle Joys of Being Little]] by Rod Walker

'''Articles Written By [[Allan B Calhamer]]:'''
* [[Military Intelligence]] (1960)
* [[On Strengthening the hand of Austria-Hungary]] (1960)
* [[The Tactics of Diplomacy]] (1961)
* [[A Dozen Years of Diplomacy]] (1966)
* [[On the Play of Postal Diplomacy]] by Allan Calhamer (1966)
* [[The Invention of Diplomacy]] (1974)
* [[Across the Whole Board]] (1974)
* [[Objectives Other Than Winning]] (1974)
* [[Introduction to Diplomacy]] (1975)
* [[The Coast of Moscow]]

==Variant Strategy Articles:==

'''[[Colonial]] Variant:'''
* [[CDD Lab Notes]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Review]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 1 The British]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 2 The Chinese]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 3 The Dutch]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 4 The French]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 5 The Japanese]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 6 The Russians]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 7 The Turks]]

'''[[Deluge]] Variant:'''
* [[The Devil And The Deep Blue Sea]]

==Game Notes And Information:==

'''Game Paradoxes'''
* [[Convoy Paradoxes]]

'''Stalemate Lines'''
* [[The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy: Stalemates]] by Rod Walker

Strategy

2008-03-29T13:50:24Z

Former.trout:

==Standard Strategy Articles:==
* [[Diplomacy Tips]] by Big Boy
* [[The Art Of Diplomacy]] by Richard Sharp
* [[Subtle Joys of Being Little]] by Rod Walker

'''Articles Written By [[Allan B Calhamer]]:'''
* [[Military Intelligence]] (1960)
* [[On Strengthening the hand of Austria-Hungary]] (1960)
* [[The Tactics of Diplomacy]] (1961)
* [[A Dozen Years of Diplomacy]] (1966)
* [[On the Play of Postal Diplomacy]] by Allan Calhamer (1966)
* [[The Invention of Diplomacy]] (1974)
* [[Across the Whole Board]] (1974)
* [[Objectives Other Than Winning]] (1974)
* [[Introduction to Diplomacy]] (1975)
* [[The Coast of Moscow]]

==Variant Strategy Articles:==

'''[[Colonial]] Variant:'''
* [[CDD Lab Notes]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Review]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 1 The British]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 2 The Chinese]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 3 The Dutch]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 4 The French]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 5 The Japanese]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 6 The Russians]]
* [[Colonial Diplomacy Part 7 The Turks]]

'''[[Deluge]] Variant:'''
* [[The Devil And The Deep Blue Sea]]

==Game Notes And Information:==

'''Game Paradoxes'''
* [[Convoy Paradoxes]]

'''Stalemate Lines'''
* [[The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy: Stalemates]] by Rod Walker