The King is Dead, Long Live the King

by Rod Walker

From Diplomacy World #1

(Transcribed by Perfect Peter Sullivan)

Every dog had its day and in the case of La Guerre, it was one of Buddy Tretick's ideas. Like all his stuff, it was at the time a half-baked answer to a non-existent problem, but with a little tinkering, it's not a bad sort of thing.

The idea I'm talking about we will call the Tretick Standby System. May as well give credit... and all that. Anyway, Buddy had this half-cracked notion that the minute a GM asks a stand-by player to send in orders for some guy who might be dropped, he becomes privy to all sorts of secret information and what not. And therefore, he can't stand-by for any other country in that game. Ever. Yeah... well, how much a stand-by might learn of vital importance from this one hopeful stint and trying to become a replacement player is pretty moot. So forget that.

For most of us, a stand-by list consists of any people -- usually not too many -- available for the job, in priority order. But there is another way of running that railroad, and if you have enough people, you can do it. So many people volunteered to do stand-by in the revived Erehwon that, taking them at their word, I have decided to try this method.

Under the Tretick System, there are 7 stand-by players (with more than 7, the extra people are on a priority waiting list). Each stand-by is assigned to a specific country and may replace for that country only. (In my version, these stand-bys are assigned on the basis of preference lists they submit after they see who's playing each country.)

This system would tend to be a bit complex, with stand-bys replacing players and substitutes replacing stand-bys, but once you get the hang of it, bookkeeping won't be too much of a problem. However, you will need a lot of people to run it this way. Large-circulation zines can do it, I suspect.

The reason I like the system is the potential it has for improving the game. There is nothing preventing a stand-by from submitting orders and General Orders for his country. He can even write the regular players and negotiate if he wishes, and perhaps even coordinate with the guy he might replace. If the stand-by takes an active interest, there would never be a missed season for his country; he and the regular player could play as a team (but they don't have to).

The result could be a vastly improved game, in which more people have a greater interest in what is going on. This will be particularly true of the stand-by players. Each will have a definite concern for his country, instead of being relegated to sitting around waiting for... he's not quite sure what. (I will admit that some stand-by players will lose interest if their countries start going down the tubes, but that happens with regular players too, so why worry about it?)

Of course, each GM will have his own frills to add to the system. I intend to try it out, and hope that some other GMs will too. Naturally, I'd like comments and maybe suggestions for making the machinery creak along more smoothly. Who knows, maybe yet the name of Tretick will be the object in this hobby of something besides (admittedly deserved) excoriation.

What About That Subsidy?

by Anonymous

From Diplomacy World #19

(Transcribed by Marvelous Melinda Holley)

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article is anonymous. It was distributed in photocopy form to an unknown number of postal Diplomacy people on April 24, 1978, in the form of an “issue” of a “fanzine” called FACE-TO-FACE; there are several essays included, all dealing with one or another aspect of face-to-face play as distinct from postal play. “The High Horse” in the present DW was conceived and written before I saw the present item; has someone been reading my mind? This anonymous article was designed to spark controversy and discussion; I agree that the discussion is worthwhile; I am therefore reprinting one of the most relevant items from FACE-TO-FACE. As both author and publisher are unknown, I have no idea where you can write for your own copy of the issue.

As some of you may know, Avalon-Hill (the owners of Diplomacy) provide a subsidy to the postal hobby, continuing a policy begun by the previous owners, Games Research. This generosity (we’re talking about $800 per annum here, no small peanuts) not only helps – or should help – the hobby, but forms a tangible form of expression from the owner. The question then naturally arises: Where does this money come from and where does it go? What are the relative shares of the postal and face-to-face hobbies?

Traditionally, the subsidy has gone into two activities. The first is the “Boardman Number Custodian.” He is a record-keeper of postal games. For some reason, postal Diplomacy players want to keep statistical records of all the postal games. They print up the country-by-country, year-by-year supply center charts, along with the names of the players who played the position (even if only for one season). Usually, the Gamesmaster prints the information in his magazine when the game ends, then the Custodian does it all over again a few months later. The Custodian also assigns a unique label, the “Boardman Number,” to each game. They are done the same way as those other ephemeral objects, the comets: the year, and then a letter. 1978A would be the first for this year. Really dashing, romantic names, eh? Anyhow, as you can imagine, people don’t exactly break down doors to get at this stuff, with the result that the Custodian runs in the red. The point of all this is that subsidy money which has gone to the Custodian has subsidized a purely postal activity. It is of virtually no interest whatsoever to a face-to-face player.

The other activity subsidized is the magazine Diplomacy World, which Avalon-Hill owns. This presents a more mixed picture. There is a good deal of material of interest to the face-to-face player, and I recommend it highly. Numerous articles have appeared on alliances, openings and other topics. Variants are printed. There is also a “Demonstration Game” with successful postal players, complete with commentary. In addition to this appeals-to-both-types material, there is a good deal of space devoted to purely postal matters. Thus, there are periodic lists of all the Publishers presently publishing. There are always lists of publishers with game openings in regular (but, oddly, not variant) Diplomacy. Compilations of who has won or drawn postal games are given. Entire pages are taken up with rating lists, based on postal play, natch. On the other side of the coin, there’s practically no material targeted to the face-to-face player specifically. An article on face-to-face techniques is quite rare. There are occasional accounts of tournaments, but even these tend to be oriented to the doings of big-shot postal players. Thus, while DW has much appeal to a face-to-face player, its main appeal is for postal players.

So we see that Avalon-Hill’s subsidy has traditionally been oriented toward the postal hobby. But where does the money come from? Presumably from the sales of Diplomacy sets. But who promotes these the most? Not postal players! They don’t need to drag in more people to get up a game. They just write into a Gamesmaster and wait until he collects seven names. If Avalon-Hill stopped selling the sets, postal players could keep going for years and never notice. Not so with the face-to-facers. Take the plight of a person in a high school Diplomacy club or a college Strategic Games society. Time marches on; players graduate. Some develop other interests which push Diplomacy aside. It gets harder and harder to get up a full game, and there’s only one solution: Recruit fresh blood! Turn the heads of those freshmen with Risk or AfrikaKorps or Heinlein under their arms. We’re the ones who sell the Diplomacy Sets, Avalon-Hill, not those postal players. If you’d support us as much as you do them, the resultant growth in the face-to-face Diplomacy would bring forth greater sales of Diplomacy sets. That would be good for you and for us, because it would make it easier for us to get up a game. The only people it might not be good for are the postal players. In the postal press you often hear the suggestion that maybe the postal hobby is too big already, and that certain postal institutions will be overwhelmed. You hear people reminiscing that it was better in the good old days when the hobby was smaller and more personal!

How can support of face-to-face play be expressed? First off, support for face-to-face tournaments – not just the big ones like Origins, but those one-day minicons, too. Providing trophies or certificates would be a nice move. Maybe you could subsidize the entrance fees to the larger ones, which generally need such fees to cover the room rent. Remember, postal players are a little more affluent than we. They pay $8–$10 per game, typically, in fees and sub costs. They may pay an equal sum to that in postage cost and an occasional long-distance phone call. Face-to-facers in general aren’t that well off.

I’m not suggesting that Avalon-Hill should cut off the postal hobby. Not at all. But I do think that as long as you do support the Diplomacy hobby, the dollars could be spread out a little more evenly.

DIPLOMACY WORLD replies: There are a few factual inaccuracies here. Avalon-Hill does not own DW. Avalon-Hill does, I am given to understand, provide trophies and prizes for some tournaments. The $800-per-year subsidy – actually, $200 per issue – will terminate shortly, as soon as DW’s circulation arrives at 1000, which is probably going to happen by the end of 1978 at the latest. And the description of DW’s contents is a bit outdated, though not too. Of course, the paragraph describing the Boardman Number Custodian is pure yellow journalism; maybe you don’t give a hoot about what he does, but that’s hardly evidence that it’s worthless, or that others are equally disinterested.

The overriding point, however, remains well-taken: Why is “Diplomacy” invariably taken to mean “POSTAL Diplomacy?” Is it because face-to-face play is generally random and disorganized except at formal conventions? Is it because those conventions are often commercial ventures in themselves, sometimes by game manufacturers in competition with Avalon-Hill? Is it because the face-to-face “hobby” – if such terms can be applied to what is essentially an amorphous mass – has never applied for subsidy?

Or is Avalon-Hill remiss? It’s not to be disputed that face-to-face players are responsible for the bulk of game set sales. The majority of postal players find out about the postal hobby via flyers in the game sets, which of course means after they’ve bought the game. And postal Diplomacy can easily be played, unlike face-to-face, without a game set at all; a photocopy map and some pins will do. (At least one active postal publisher, in serious danger of copyright infringement, has offered to provide free Xerox maps to anyone who does not want to buy the game. Fortunately for Avalon-Hill – and, for other reasons, for the postal hobby – this Gamesmaster is considered poor, and is not the subject of recommendation.)

Comments on this bit are invited, for publication here. We’ll print a cross-section of responses, though it will hardly be representative, since, for now, most DW readers are still postally oriented.

ARCHIVES PUBLISHERS SURVEY

by Walter Buchanan

From Diplomacy World #19

(Transcribed by Marvelous Melinda Holley)

Since last printed in DIPLOMACY WORLD 16, this chronological list of currently active Diplomacy publishers has gone out of date. This is due to many new ‘zine starts, changes of address, and the high attrition rate of Diplomacy publishers in general. I have listed all publishers in order from the time they first began publication, noting with an asterisk the ones who have had publishing breaks of over three months. For those publishers a footnote in parentheses has been added after the name. A list of the publishing periods of those publishers can be found at the end of the survey. (A few British publishers may be omitted, as I haven’t heard from them in reply to a trade offer.) I’d like to encourage all present and potential publishers to trade with me and with Cal White, the Boardman Number Custodian, in order that we keep up-to-date records on the hobby.

		  1963
		  1. May 12      John Boardman, 234 E. 19th St., Brooklyn, New York 11226
		  
		  1965
		  2. Apr 1 *     Conrad von Metzke, P.O. Box 626, San Diego, California 92112 (1)
		  
		  1966
		  3. Jul 15      Hal Naus, 1011 Barrett Ave., Chula Vista, California 92011
		  
		  1967
		  4. Dec *       Doug Beyerlein, 640 College, Menlo Park, California 94025 (2)
		  
		  1969
		  5. Jul 2       Don Turnbull, 5 Greelands, Red Cross Lane, Cambridge, U.K. CB2 2QY
		  
		  1971
		  6. Jan 24      Walter Buchanan, R.R. #3, Box 324, Lebanon, Indiana 46052
		  7. Sep         Herb Barents, R. R. 4, 1142 S. 96th Ave., Zeeland, Michigan 96464
		  8. Sep         Michael Leisnard, Ave de Tervueren, 415, B-1150 Brumelles, Belgium
		  
		  1972
		  9. Jan 31 *    John Piggott, Flat 6, 15 Freeland Rd., London W.5, U.K. (3)
		  10. Jan 31     John Van De Graaf, 37343 Glenbrook, Mt. Clemens, Michigan 48043
		  11. Mar        Fred Davis, 1427 Clairidge Rd., Baltimore, Maryland 21207
		  12. Sep        Jim Benes, 417 S. Stough St., Hinsdale, Illinois 60521
		  13. Sep        John Leeder, 1211 5th St. NW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2M 3B6
		  14. Oct        Richard Sharp, 27 Elm Close, Amersham, Bucks, U.K.
		  15. Nov 1      Mike Bartnikowski, 943 Stewart, Lincoln Park, Michigan 48146
		  16. Nov 15     Mick Bullock, 14 Nursery Ave., Halifax, W. Yorkshire, U.K. HX35SZ
		  17. Dec        Enrico Manfredi, Via Vecchia di Barbaricina, 20, I-56100 Pisa, Italy
		  
		  1973
		  18. Jan 1      Don Horton, 16 Jordan Ct., Sacramento, California 95826
		  19. Jun 15     Robert Lipton, 556 Green Pl., Woodmere, New York 11598
		  20. Oct        Peter Walker, R. R. 3, Belfast, Prince Edward Island, Canada C0A IA0
		  21. Dec 20 *   John Mirassou, Rt. 2, Box 623AC, Morgan Hill, California 95037 (4)
		  22. Dec 21     Steve Norris, 1161 Greenland Ave., Nashville, Tennessee 37216
		  
		  1974
		  23. Jan 1      Jim Bumpas, 948 Loraine Ave., Los Altos, California 94022
		  24. Feb 24     Roland Prevot, 16 rue Descombes, 75017 Paris, France
		  25. Apr 27     Douglas Reif, 67 Grosvenor Rd., Kenmore, New York 14223
		  26. Jun        Raymond Heuer, 102-42 Jamaica Ave., Richmond Hill, New York 11418
		  27. Jun        Richard Loomis (Flying Buffalo, Inc.), P.O. Box 1467, Scottsdale AZ 85252
		  28. Jun 3      Gil Neiger, Box 4293, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912
		  29. Jun 21     Ed Kollmer, Box 2, Great Barrington, Massachusetts 01230
		  30. Jul        John Lovibond, 1 Oak Lea Ave., Fulshaw Park, Winmslow, Cheshire, U.K. SK9 1QL
		  31. Jul 20     Dave Kadlecek, 833 Loring Ave., Crockett, California 94525
		  32. Jul 27     Randolph Smyth, 249 First Ave, Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada K1S 2G5
		  33. Aug 25     Mike Kershaw, 238 N. Bowling Green Way, Los Angeles, California 90049
		  34. Sep 10     Bob Hartwig, 5030 N. 109th St., Longmont, Colorado 80501
		  35. Sep 11     Robert Sacks, 4861 Broadway, Apt. 5-V, New York, New York 10034
		  36. Oct        Tony Watson, 201 Minnesota, Las Vegas, Nevada 89107
		  37. Oct 27     Larry M. Fong, P.O. Box 11090, Oakland, California 94611
		  38. Nov 1      Peter Birks, Darwin College, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, U.K.
		  39. Nov 5      David Head, Box 1231, Huntsville, Ontario, Canada P0A 1K0
		  40. Dec        Greg Costikyan, P.O. Box 865, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912
		  41. Dec        Laurence Gillespie, 23 Robert Allen Dr., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3M 3G9
		  
		  1975
		  42. Jan        Walter Luc Haas, Postfach 7, CH-4024, Basel 24, Switzerland
		  43. Feb 7      Richard Kovalcik, Bexley Hall, #205, 50 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139
		  44. Feb 8      Ale E.B. Jonsson, Gruvvagen 26, S-981 00 Kiruna, Sweden
		  45. Mar        Russell Fox, 5160 Donna Ave., Tarzana, California 91356
		  46. Apr 1      Roger Oliver, P.O. Box 452, Denville, New Jersey 07834
		  47. May 14     Ben Grossman, 29 E. 9th St., #9, New York, New York 10003
		  48. Jun 13     Clive Booth, 71 Clara Mount Rd., Langley, Heanor, Debyshire, U.K. DE7 7HS
		  49. Jun 13     Graham Mills, 236 Brooklands Rd., Weybridge, Surrey, U.K.
		  50. Jun 29     Brad Hessel, 232 W. 24th St., #5R, New York, New York 10011
		  51. Jul        Robert Goldman, 200 Old Army Rd., Scarsdale, New York 10583
		  52. Jul        Stephen Pratt, 15 Craneford Close, TWickenham, Middlesex, U.K. TW2 7SD
		  53. Jul 11     Cal White, 1 Turnberry Ave., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M6N 1P6
		  54. Aug        Andy Evans, 36 Brynmill Terrace, Brynmill, Swansea, U.K. SA2 0BA
		  55. Aug        Peter Mearns, 10 Moy Terrace, Inverness, Scotland, U.K.
		  56. Sep        Roy Taylor, 63A St. Nicolas Park Dr., Nuneston, Warks, U.K. CV11 6DZ
		  57. Nov        Larry Dunning, 46 Holmesdale Rd., West Midland 6056, West Australia
		  58. Nov        Paul Simpkins, 104 Combs Hill, Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, U.K. WF12 0LQ
		  59. Dec        Dennis Agosta, 14 Shadyside Ave., Dumont, New Jersey 07628
		  60. Dec        Ron Rayner, 32 Wentworth Ave., West Finchley, London, U.K. N3 1YL
		  
		  1976
		  61. Jan        Drew McGee, 100 Belmont Pl., Apt. 6-J, Staten Island, New York 10301
		  62. Jan        Paul Willey, 31 Burstow Rd., Wimbledon, London, U.K. SW20 8ST
		  63. Feb 7      Robert Sergeant, 3242 Lupine Dr., Indianapolis, Indiana 46224
		  64. Feb 28     John Malay, c/o Chatham Apts., 12 Commerce St., Chatham, New Jersey 07928
		  65. Apr 8      Alan Rowland, 52 8th Ave., Westwood, New Jersey 07675
		  66. Jul 1      Donald Wileman, 98 Sanderling Cres., Lindsay, Ontario, Canada K9V 4N2
		  67. Jul 3      Clifford A. Mann II, 823 Marcy Ave., Apt. 101, Oxon Hill, Maryland 20021
		  68. Aug        Bob Brown, 53 Broadwood Dr., Fulwood, Preston, Lancs, U.K. PR2 4SS
		  69. Aug        Ron Canham, 93 Mortlake Rd., Kew, Richmond, Surrey, U.K. TW9 4AA
		  70. Aug 18     Ken St. Andrew, 3421 E. Yale, Phoenix, Arizona 85008
		  71. Nov        W. Elmer Hinton, Jr., 20 Almont St., Nashua, New Hampshire 03060
		  72. Nov 20     Bob Beardsley, 17 Moryan Rd., Edison, New Jersey 08817
		  
		  1977
		  73. Jan        Daniel Palter, P.O. Box 72, Cedarhurst, New York, 11516
		  74. Feb        Richard Bucknall, 124 Southcliffe Rd., Carlton, Nottingham, U.K. NG4 1ES
		  75. Feb 9      Steve McLendon, Box 57066, Webster, Texas 77598
		  76. Feb 14     Dick Trtek, 2728 S.E. Main, Apt. 1, Portland, Oregon 97214
		  77. Mar        Steve Doublday, 16 Somerton’s Close, Guildford, Surrey, U.K.
		  78. Mar        James Peters, 5004 N. 68th Dr., Glendale, Arizona 85303
		  79. Mar 30     Tony Crouch, 35 Melbourne Ave., West Ealing, London W13, U.K.
		  80. May        Bob Fabry, 8034 N. Ozark, Niles, Illinois 60648
		  81. May        Steve Heinwoski, 1630 W. 28th St., Lorain, Ohio  44052
		  82. Jun        Hartnut Halfmeier, Stapelstrasse 13, D-2000 Hamburg 54, West Germany
		  83. Jun        Robert Markham, 38 Knollwood Dr., Bethel, Connecticut 06801
		  84. Jun        George Parkanyi, 158B McArthur Ave., #1608, Vanier, Ontario, Canada K1L 8C9
		  85. Jun 1      David Bunke, 5512 Julmar Dr., Cincinnati, Ohio 45238
		  86. Jun 22     Andy Cook, 807 Crescent Dr., Alexandria, Virginia 22302
		  87. Jul        Mark Berch, 492 Naylor Pl., Alexandria, Virginia 22304
		  88. Jul        Thomas Gould, 40 W. 775h St., New York, New York 10024
		  89. Aug        Jerry H. Jones, 1854 Wagner St., Pasadena, California 91107
		  90. Sep 14     Iain Forsythe, 6 Ardossan Rd., Saltcoats, Ayrshire, Scotland, U.K.
		  91. Oct        Julian Boggess, Start Route, Box 220-6, Columbus, Mississippi 39701
		  92. Oct 8      John Brennick, 192 Curtis Ave., Stoughton, Massachusetts 02072
		  93. Nov        John Michalski, 913 N.E. 6th St., Moore, Oklahoma 73160
		  94. Nov        Craig A. Reges, 16 W. 761 White Plains Rd., Bensenville, Illinois 60106
		  95. Nov 10     Neil McDonald, Durweston House, Durweston, Blandford Forum, Dorset, U.K.  DT11 0QA
		  96. Dec 1      Henry Kelley, 6721 6th Ave. NW., Seattle, Washington 98117
		  
		  1978
		  97. Jan        Dave Watts, “Rostherne”, 102 Priory Rd., Milford Haven, Dyfed, U.K. SA73 2ED
		  98. Feb 17     Bernie Oaklyn, 13412 Brackley Terrace, Silver Spring, Maryland 20904
		  99. Mar        J. Richard Jarvinen, 330 Madison, Astoria, Oregon 97103
		  100. Mar       Tony Snyder, 1507 S. 1st St., Kirksville, Missouri 63501
		  101. Mar 17    Chris Tringham, 25 Auckland Rd., London, U.K. SE19 2DR
		  102. Apr       Lee Kendter, 4347 Benner St., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19135
		  
		  (1) Apr 65 – Oct 66, Feb 68 – Jan 75, Mar 76 – present
		  (2) Dec 67 – Aug 68, Dec 72 – present
		  (3) Jan 72 – Mar 74, Jul 75 – present
		  (4) Dec 73 – Aug 75, Apr 77 – present
			

DIPCON XI

By Rod Walker

From Diplomacy World #20

(Transcribed by Marvelous Melinda Holley)

While new rules adopted at DipCon X in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, the annual Diplomacy Convention (DipCon) must be rotated through three regions of North America: East, Central and West. The Eleventh DipCon was to be held in the western region, and so wound up being held in conjunction with GLASC-II (Greater Los Angeles Simulations Convention) in the suburb of Northridge.

There is always a problem with Cons in the west in that they are very sparsely attended by people who aren’t local. This year was no exception. We had only two persons from the eastern region, Bob Lipton of New York and Andy Cook of Virginia. We had only two from the central region, Walt Buchanan of Indiana and Jack Powers of Ohio. (Well, Walt’s son Bill was with him, so I guess that makes 3.) There were a few from Arizona, Nevada and northern California. And that was it, gore fans; everybody else was from no further away than San Diego, 125 miles.

Now I’ll admit that some of the blame for this falls on the Con’s administration. There was very little advance publicity, and it was much too late. The information that did get out was quite good — concise and exactly what was needed. But, alas, many people had made other plans long before.

This failing was complicated by things not the management’s fault. The Con’s dates had to be changed; severe flooding in the area caused all events on the campus they used to be moved up a week. Furthermore, Origina/MichiCon in Detroit was only two weeks later, and probably drew off a good many people who might otherwise have come west.

The Convention itself was not bad at all. It seemed well attended and well organized. George Phillies, Russell Fox and others of the staff whom I met were entirely friendly and as helpful as possible. On the other hand, the Diplomacy tournament left much to be desired. The Con was not able to provide personnel to act as Assistant Gamesmasters, nor were they able to obtain timers or Diplomacy sets. Russell Fox had to leave for Chicago Friday night, so — guess who had to run the tournament almost single-handed?

Fortunately, things went pretty smoothly. For one thing, Walt Buchanan and Bob Lipson allowed themselves to be commandeered as assistants, and I can’t thank them enough for their help. Secondly, the players themselves were enormously cooperative and understanding. I want to thank them all: the wonderful 70 people who were in the tournament, who stood around while I got things set up, who lent their Diplomacy sets, who acted as timers and assistant GMs for the various tables. Without their active help, the tournament would have been absolute chaos.

The Tournament operated under the scoring rules I proposed last issue. 49 players showed up for Rounds I and II (although not the same 49 in each round), so we had seven boards. There were three boards in Round III. The final standings after all rounds show the top seven (all home towns in California unless otherwise noted):

		  Place   Points   Name & Home
		  1       68       David Lagerson, Canoga Park
		  2       62       Jim Bumpas, Los Altos
		  3       53.5     Doug Beyerlein, Menlo Park
		  4       51       Michael Foster, Quartz Hill
		  5       42.5     Mike Udell, Granada Hills
		  6       28       Tom Mirti, Los Angeles
		  7(tie)  22       Vic Carpenter, Gilbert AZ
		  7(tie)  22       Davd Kadlecek, Crockett
			

GLASC offered a trophy for first place and prizes for the first three places. In addition, Bob Lipton offered a subscription to his MIXU-MAXU GAZETTE which went to the 4th place player.

Saturday night saw three events. There was a panel and audience discussion on the future of the Diplomacy hobby. The panelists were Doug Beyerlein, Walt Buchanan, Bob Lipson and myself. We ranged over a broad spectrum of topics, including the growth of the hobby, the neglect by the hobby of face-to-face players, the decline in creativity (particularly literary creativity) in the hobby, the role of DIPLOMACY WORLD, and so on. Many excellent ideas and comments came from the panel and from members of the audience.

This was followed by the General Meeting of the International Diplomacy Association. This is the traditional focal point of DipCon. All Diplomacy players at the Con are encouraged to attend this event since it is less an actual business meeting and more a “town meeting”. This time it was ably chaired by IDA President Bob Hartwig. He and other IDA officers provided information on what the IDA is doing and received a good deal of advice and commentary from those present.

At the conclusion of the IDA meeting, all those present voted to convene the DipCon Site Selection Committee, and asked Bob Hartwig to continue as Chairman. The Committee, by its current charter passed in 1977, consists of any Diplomacy player at the current Convention who wishes to attend the meeting. It selects the site for the next DipCon, which under the charter must be in the Eastern Region next year. The Committee voted to hold the next DipCon in conjunction with the Origins convention if possible, and as Origins ’79 has now been set for Philadelphia, that’s where DipCon goes.

On the whole, the DipCon was a success, if it had its rough spots. I for one am looking forward to a particularly good Con next year back east.

THE GAMER’S GUIDE TO DIPLOMACY

by C. F. Von Metzke

From Diplomacy World #20 (Transcribed by Melinda Holley)

Avalon-Hill Game Company have just published and released a new booklet giving us a comprehensive overview of “our” game in as many lights as possible. Written entirely by Rod Walker, it can be obtained by writing the publisher at 4517 Harford Road, Baltimore, MD 21214. Price $3.00. (I believe you are supposed to include postage, in which case I’d suggest adding $0.50.)

I should like to preface my review of THE GAMER’S GUIDE TO DIPLOMACY with a few codicils, to take the sting out of certain points which may creep into my writing. For one thing, I have no illusions about my being able to do it better; there was a point at which I might have obtained Avalon-Hill’s commission for myself, but I’m not stupid. Rod is one of perhaps three hobbyists in the world who could have done this decently. (One of the others is Richard Sharp of London, who is soon to release his own book-form analysis of the game. I look forward to reviewing it too.) For another, some of the gripes I have about the finished product are things I might have corrected before publication; Rod kept me supplied with advance drafts, chapter by chapter, and I must confess that my criticisms were few and minor. Some of those were taken, too. Of course I was never able to see the entire manuscript before it was all put together, and the things I like least about Rod’s work have to do with overall balance and emphasis among the separable parts. Still, if I’d done my critiques properly…

The work excels in four specific overall areas, and in a multitude of smaller ways. The biggest bonuses are: Organization of subject; Comprehensive nature of the product; Smooth and interesting writing style; and Avoidance of information either too technical or too simplistic. It is an effort designed to be useful for novice and expert alike, and – to my conceded surprise – it works.

ORGANIZATION: Rod has created his essay in a superbly logical and sensible progression from basics and generalities to specifics and details. Each part of the whole follows quite naturally from what precedes, and at no time does he ever get ahead of himself. There are a couple of extraneous tangents, but they are comparatively insignificant. Whenever a given section touches on a subject that is more fully treated elsewhere, it is carefully cross-referenced; this is occasionally inconvenient (requiring some mental note-taking to “come back to the point again later”), but there really is no way around it if all subjects are to be adequately considered in sensible order. Perhaps just a little less mention of what I must call “postal technicalities” – Boardman Numbers, ratings, and the like – would have made for fewer of these check-backs.

COMPREHENSIVENESS: If one is going to flaw Rod’s tome on this level, one is going to have to do so on the level of claiming too much. There is not a reasonable topic in the whole field in which Rod has not touched at least slightly, and in most cases deeply. I have a few quibbles about the amount of detail employed in spots, one way or the other; these will be discussed later. There is only one item in the entire 34 pages of text that I would have specifically excluded; one-sixth of a page devoted to selecting countries by preference list. I can think of nothing that is wholly absent that cries for inclusion. This means that, as concerns content, I take exception to one-two hundred and fourth of the effort.

SMOOTH WRITING STYLE: Writing has always been Rod’s forte. It still is. Astonishingly, at no time does he descend into the boring; in only rare instances does he fall into the trap of “writing down” to his potential audience; and he seldom wanders into technicality left unexplained. There is no way to write a work of this type without a few such moments; the wonder is that there are as few as there are. Precisely one sentence (!) glares; the line, “This sort of deception, while rife with spifflitude, can’t be repeated too often,” makes absolutely no sense to anyone who doesn’t know Rod personally. I believe I have just said that, in rewriting for a new edition, Rod ought to change one word. My goodness!

AVOIDANCE OF TECHNICALITY: Already noted to some extent. I suspect that the single greatest danger in putting together this type of work lies in erroneously assuming that the reader knows more than he does, or will memorize technical terms as he reads. In a few oft-repeated phrases (“face-to-face” = “FTF”, “magazine” = “zine”) Rod has defined the abbreviation once and carried on. In less obvious cases (“Boardman Number” = “BN”, “supply center” = “SC”) Rod has wisely avoided the abbreviations altogether, except in specific paragraphs that deal precisely with the abbreviated item. His only real presuppositions for the reader are that they have a Rulebook (and have presumably perused it) and are familiar with the three-letter province abbreviations. On the other hand, this is not a two-way street; too many abbreviations and technical references can confound the novice, but there is no such thing as “too few” for the expert.

So much for the overview. Let us now proceed through THE GAMER’S GUIDE TO DIPLOMACY, touching on the high and low spots as appropriate. However, no attempt is going to be made to be too exhaustive; I guess I learned, back in elementary school, that one of the most repugnant forms of writing is the critical essay that is longer than the piece being critiqued.

Rod begins, after some introductory material, with a discussion of “Objectives in Diplomacy”. He summarizes superbly the varied styles of play, “win-draw” vs. “balance of power” vs. “anything goes”. This is, in my view, one of those major points that seem to most like a minor point, and I’m glad Rod chose to include a comparative discussion as well as some general analysis.

There follows an eight-part section under the heading, “Elements of the Game”. In general I am pleased, but there are gripes. The first segment, “Communication”, is in my view the weakest, and that’s too bad because it ought to be one of the very strongest in the work. Rod acknowledges this when he writes as his third and fourth sentences, “The real game of Diplomacy is played mostly during the negotiation periods. The key to victory is communication.”

True enough – but it’s also a fact, shown by experience, that communication is one of the weakest aspects of the average player’s game. Of course nobody can teach effective human relations, but something more than a third of a page seems mandated for the subject that represents “the real game”. Several issues ago, DIPLOMACY WORLD published a quiz-article by Nicky Palmer, “Are You A Master Diplomatist?”, concerned with effective understanding of the manipulation of the negotiating process. Nicky’s format would not have been suitable for transfer, but the idea inspiring it – understanding communications in relation to tactics and strategy, and learning to analyze the opponent as a person as well as a military force – was superbly stated and very germane. Naturally I do not expect a rehash of Dale Carnegie here, but I would like considerably more depth than just why one should never “stop negotiating with enemies”.

There is a second section of this “Elements” chapter that I am not fond of, though here my distress is smaller. Element Four is titled, “Cheating”. Within the heading Rod discusses a few tricks that are flat illegal or unsportsmanlike (bullying opponents physically, adding Flying Dutchmen – improper extra units snuck into place – to the board) and a few that are perfectly within the purview of the game (sabotage and forgery, spying). I think the former things would have been better left out; my view of this game does not extend to blatant impropriety (nor does Rod’s in the case of violence, but he does suggest that Flying Dutchmen are acceptable), and I really see little point in discussing at all, let alone discussing favorably, aspects that ought flatly to be excluded from play of the game. To state that “(bullying and alliances based on extraneous personal facts) have no place in the game” is approximately like saying “do not break the rules when playing”. Obviously. The items listed in this “Cheating” list that are legal and proper, on the other hand, should be mentioned – but not under “cheating”. There is a miscellaneous category; let them fall there.

Quite possibly the single best moment in the entire booklet comes in the discussion of “Stalemates”. Rod is careful to warn the unsuspecting learner, “…players may be tempted to spend more time on (stalemates) than they are worth. A stalemate is, after all, a sort of last refuge”. Rod is careful to list all of the significant stalemate positions, with their variations and units/conditions needed to achieve them. The novice, merely running step by step through this part, will gain an immense amount of knowledge, some of which is only incidentally related to stalemates. (I’ve always felt that stalemates are primarily important for their ability to lead to deeper understanding of the dynamics of the game, and not for their intrinsic worth.)

Under his analysis of the inherent power of convoys, Rod follows a couple of his examples with an italicized note that says, in relevant part, “These are the rules of the game’s inventor… For reasons which are very technical and not really relevant to a basic understanding of the game, I disagree with Mr. Calhamer.” This is what I meant earlier when I said there were some infrequent examples of Rod “talking down”. If Rod’s converse opinion is too technical to be explained, let it go unmentioned. Particularly since it isn’t relevant…

The largest single section of the work, obviously, is the seven-country strategic and tactical analysis. Rod has done here, in nine pages, what others have taken scores of pages to accomplish. And Rod has done far superior work. It begins with some general points and then proceeds to a prose matrix, country by country and enemy/ally by enemy/ally. It all fits together like one of those mileage charts on road maps; find the meeting point of the horizontal file for Minneapolis and the vertical file for Andover and you’ve got the distance. Find the Italian subsection of the English discussion and you’ve got your basic game patterns. All of this material is thorough, and most of it is top-drawer. There are a couple of weak spots (“Endgame” for England is poor), but they are so few, and the bulk is so thought-provoking, that any minor slips don’t matter – in fact, in a backhanded way it may be an instructional aid in that anyone of any intelligence, working in depth through all of this stuff, will quite likely expand the weaknesses and fill the gaps on his own, by cross-referencing material from one spot where it exists or is implied to the place where it is lacking.

The time is nigh to mention the one big goof in the physical product. Halfway through the section on Austria (beginning “GERMANY”, P. 12, col. 1), the material breaks off and – lo and behold – we’re into a discussion of England. This goes on for a time, to the top of P. 12, col. 3; then, beginning “Midgame” the Austrian material reappears and carries on where it should. Following Austria is England, of course, wherein all of the misplaced material reappears in its proper place. Avalon-Hill have noted the flub and plan corrections. No big deal, as long as you know that nothing is actually missing.

Following the reams of material on the seven Powers, there’s a cute “aside” – photos of the Great Power leaders in 1901 with their proper titles, etc. Nice touch. Better if it had come in a different location – at the very end, for instance – but a nice touch anyway.

I do not feel a compelling need to discuss most of the remainder of the booklet; most of it represents the “extra” stuff, the expansions on the basic information – if you will, the frosting. And it is good stuff, too. I will comment on one more aspect; Rod has included a complete report of an actual postal game, with commentary. He’s picked a good game, one which shows all kinds of worthy moments and situations, and he has carefully explained the terminology and the postal eccentricities (i.e., “NMR”) that creep in. He has not, in my view, given us sufficient analysis of the moves. This is primarily mere description. Inasmuch as there is some analysis, and since much of what happens speaks for itself, the lack is not nearly as serious as I first thought. The analysis is far stronger in the earlier years of the game, which is logical because (a) it shows somewhat more decisive single moves, (b) it shows more single-unit effects (inasmuch as each power has fewer units to use for a given purpose), and (c) it was written first, before Rod lost some of his depth of animation. Of course I haven’t the faintest idea what was written when, but it looks precisely as if Rod started on a high point and gradually allowed the “let’s-get-on-with-this” attitude to crawl out of the woodwork. Do not read too much into this; the worst is not really bad at all, just not as good as it might have been with more effort.

A pleasant touch at the end is a preprinting of the map and rules for Calhamer’s original 1958 version of the game; the map is a little small for actual use (although it might work with plastic sheaths and grease pencils), but it’s fairly easy to redraw in enlarged form.

This has read like a litany of criticism. How typical of negative reviewers! But I have spent the most time on suggesting improvements and identifying holes needing repair; I really ought to emphasize that the entire work is a masterpiece in its field, easily definitive and superior by light-years to its predecessors in the same vein. I consider it a mandatory purchase for any player; in fact, making one more move in any game without first reading it is a serious tactical error!

NEWS FROM THE CLASSICAL BOARD

by Douglas Mills

From Diplomacy World #20 (Transcribed by Marvelous Melinda Holley)

The winds of change continue to blow through the pages of DIPLOMACY WORLD, and this regular feature is no exception. Only into its third installment and our friend Michel Liesnard has already been reluctantly forced to relinquish the column due to conflict of interest, and has finally gone NUTS!, leaving Yours Truly to step into the breach and soldier on.

Yes, Michel is now the big nut in Continental Europe, having been ordered into the Brussels office of Kamlag (a major importer of adult games in Benelux) and told that he was to become the full-time Editor in Chief of a professionally, bilingual (French/Fleming) wargame/hobby publication. Michel has been given a completely free hand in deciding content and organization of the mag, including the choice of a somewhat unusual name: NUTS! He tells me the name is universal for its meaning… anyway, I’m sure you’ll all join me in wishing Michel the best of luck with this new venture, and we will all wait with bated breath for the first issue’s appearance, sometime during September.

Turning to the more ‘fannish’ side of the hobby, some interesting things have been happening on the ‘zine scene. If you’re interested in Diplomacy variants, then Europe’s the place to be. Although just one year old, the Dutch CONFLICT GAZET, published by Paul Meerts on behalf of Ducosim, seems to have earned itself a good reputation and now has a circulation of around 100. CONFLICT GAZET is currently running a regular game and a variant, Dutch Diplomacy, which is having its first game test.

In Germany, STABSANZEIGER (published in German by Hartmut Halfmeier) has also just celebrated its first birthday, and has three Abstration II and a couple of Railway Rivals games in progress, not to mention Germany Politiplomacy. Openings available at the moment include regular and Multiplicity.

GETTYSNEWS, care of Michael Leisnard/Belgium, is also… you guessed it! blowing out the single candle, and pounding on at the incredible frequency of 20 issues per year. Completely dedicated to the publication and playing of variants, GETTYSNEWS has eight openings (including Treachery, Sacred Rhino, and LIMa 5), and is also prepared to consider running other variant games provided there is sufficient demand. Subscribers to GETTYSNEWS also have the added bonus of Michel’s particular brand of humor and excellent GMing capabilities – entertaining reading provided you can understand Brussels French!

The older long-term hobby freaks will be glad to hear that Ake Jonsson of Sweden’s THE POLAR KNIGHT fame is making a comeback of sorts (in fact he never went away, but allowed publication to stand still about a year ago, continuing his games by carbon copy), and has decided to open some new waiting lists, both regular and variant, which will be GMed by him, reports being published in the pages of my own ‘zine AIDE DE CAMP. Hopefully I’ll be able to persuade Ake to donate the odd article in the form of a sort of sub-‘zine.

France’s VORTIGERN plods on steadily to middle-age and its 49th issue (published by Roland Prevot, the Boardman Number custodian for continental Europe). Roland, like the rest of the editors mentioned, is following the trend and has decided to open a variant waiting list, though for which variant he’s still not sure. Of particular merit in VORTIGERN is the excellent cartoon art-work, courtesy of Didier Guiserix.

Belgian-born and British-bred (published in French and English out of Manchester), AIDE DE CAMP has plenty of reason to celebrate – three of them in fact: 1, she’s one year old; 2, she has hit a circulation of 100+; and 3, she has 12 games in progress, of which no fewer than 6 are variants. Currently, four openings are available within ADC’s pages: French and English languages regular, Highly Public Diplomacy, The Pleiades Cluster (a sci-fi game which has nothing to do with Diplomacy), and ‘Amazon’, a regular game reserved only for the fairer sex. Three girls still needed for this last one – anyone interested?

While on the subject of variants, European editors requiring Miller Numbers should contact Douglas Mills, who is the custodian for that neck of the woods.

The ‘zine RASPUTIN, supposedly published in Belgium and mentioned previously in this column, appears to be a hoax, or figment of somebody’s rather vivid imagination.

However, even vivid imagination can be catered for, and I would suggest sufferers attend the European Science-Fiction and Fantasy Convention (EUROCON 4) taking place at the Free University of Brussels, in Belgium, on November 1–5, 1978. This event has been held bi-annually since the first one took place way back in 1972 in Trieste. Many famous writers and fantasy illustrators will be on hand, and there will be numerous film shows.

Another event which will have taken place by the time you read this, but which would probably have been more suited to the murderous tendencies of certain ‘diplomats’ reading this, is PRESTONDIPCON, the major Diplomacy event of the year here in the U.K., kindly organized by Bob Brown, editor of the TINAMOU, and currently the National Games Club face-to-face secretary. Held on the premises of Preston Polytechnic, sleeping accommodations for more than 200 was made available, and most of the British hobby’s major personalities attended. I’ll tell you more about the actual events next time.

The International Conflict-Simulation Group Weekend ’78 Convention, held at the end of June at Waterloo (the real one!) in Belgium was a great success, with people attending from all over Western Europe, and a similar event is planned for next year.

Finally, a couple of new ‘zines have popped up here in Britain. They are: WHISKEY MAC, from Paul Openshaw. Already into its 6th issue, WM runs on a 4-week deadline and has three games in progress already. Openings now for regular, Stab and Bourse. Full of good-natured chat and Paul’s local brand of humor. A good players’ ‘zine. The second newcomer, MEGALOMANIA from Chris Tringham, which is also up to its 6th issue, is a completely different breed of British ‘zine. Despite already having eight games underway, which is impressive by any standards, and a stream of openings which fill up overnight, MEGALOMANIA also contains several pages of pithy comments and news about the British hobby, and mostly that centered around the National Games Club. Although somewhat obscure to hobby-followers living outside the UK, it’s still well worth the 25p per issue ($0.40), especially if you’re looking for honest, off-the-cuff observations about U.K. hobby politics.

FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE ABOVE PUBLICATIONS AND EVENTS CAN BE OBTAINED FROM:

AIDE DE CAMP and THE INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT-SIMULATION GROUP: Douglas Mills, 210 Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire SK7 3AA UK

CONFLICT GAZET and DUCOSIM: Paul Meerts, Badhuisweg 211, 2597 HR, Den Haag, Holland

GETTYSNEWS and NUTS!: Michel Leisnard, 415 Avenue de Tervueren, Woluwe-Saint-Pierre, B-1150 Bruxelles, Belgium

THE POLAR KNIGHT: Ake E.B. Jonsson, Gruvvagen 26 S-98100, Kiruna, Sweden

MEGALOMANIA: Chris Tringham, 25 Auciland Road, London SE19 2DR, UK

VORTIGERN: Roland Prevot, 16 rue Descombes, 75017 Paris, France

STABSANZEIGER: Hartmut Halfmeier, Stapelstr. 13, 2000 Hamburg 54, West Germany

WHISKEY MAC: Paul Openshaw, 4 Beechmont Gdns., Southend-on-Sea, Essex, UK

EUROCON 4: c/o MALPERTUIS, 18 rue des Eperonniers, B-1000 Bruxelles, Belgium

Shep Rose: More Horror Stories

by Mark Berch

From Diplomacy World #39

In the second article in this series, I reported on the person whom I considered to have been the sleaziest player of all time: Shep Rose. His specialty was to involve the GM in some aspect of his negotiations with other players. At this he was an absolute master. I thought at the time I had reported the worst of it, but unfortunately, there's more. Other players came forward with stories about Shep. Finally I went to him and asked a question that I dreaded to ask before, but I knew that, as Hobby Historian, I had to. Was there any stunt he pulled that was so sleazy that even he had some qualms about its ethics?

"Yes, I had my doubts then, and I still have them now, about what I did to the GM in 1987MG, in RUTHLESS. Along with my S01 orders, I enclosed a postcard, addressed and filled out, for him to mail to me. This was to be my assurance that my S01 orders had arrived. When it came I looked at it and was pleased: he signed it, but didn't date his signature. Why would he? The postcard referred to my S01 orders, so there wasn't any ambiguity. I did this for a few more seasons, and at that point (figuring he wasn’t bothering to read the postcard anymore) I left off the season. He signed it the way he always did, with no date. I continued this, and in F04 I hit the jackpot!

"The postcard came back with an incomplete cancellation — the date wasn't there (this sometimes happens with postcards because of their odd size). I could have used one without a postmark, but this was even better. This was my 'naked postcard' — it acknowledged receipt of my orders, but there was no date of signature, no postmark, and no season. None of these 3 elements alone is extraordinary, but to line up all 3 on one postcard is very difficult. In all the times I've tried, I've only gotten 2 such postcards, and one of them I wasn't able to use.

"I immediately sent in a 'change of orders'. They didn't really change anything, but I wanted another postcard to 'cover' that season. On that one I put the F04 season.

"In F05 I had an absolutely critical strategic and tactical decision to make — would my ally stab me or not? It would be the only season he could do it. I prepared 2 sets of orders, but mailed neither. In F05, I was NMRed. I wrote the GM, saying I was very concerned. I enclosed a carbon of the set of orders which, having seen the F05 results, I'd prefer to use (to my surprise, my ally had not stabbed). 'These are the orders I prepared,' I wrote, which was 100% true. I didn't say if I had mailed them. I enclosed a Xerox of my 'naked postcard' without comment. I told him that if he did not accept those orders, I wanted an Ombudsman, as per his HRs, and said that I'd take anyone from the Caruso Ombudsman's Service list except a specific few.

"I hoped he'd be cowed into accepting the orders, but he wasn't. I sent the Ombudsman my orders, and the naked postcard. I also sent my complete postcard file. He could see that there was one for each season, which would draw him away from the idea that this was an earlier postcard. He could also see that sometimes a season label appeared on the postcard, sometimes not, and thus the fact that the one I was using didn't have a date would be unremarkable.

"I had seriously considered adding the F05 to the naked postcard. Would showing this doctored postcard to the GM constitute 'deception of the GM'? I wasn't really sure, but it seemed to me that a very strong case could be made that it was. So I didn't.

"However, the lack of any date on the naked postcard was its strength, and also its greatest weakness, and I felt sure the GM would try to discredit it on that basis. So I added an extra dirty trick: a forged letter from another player. I don't think I have the letter anymore, but it went something like this:

'Dear Mr. Ombudsman:

I have heard about the protest in this game. I’ve had a very hard time deciding what to say. The GM is a friend of mine, and I feel very dirty about ratting on him. It's the lesser of two very bad evils. He did in fact tell me — note the enclosed letter [which I forged as well] — that he was irritated by some stuff Shep had done, and that Shep was going to NMR. Read it for yourself. All this is OFF THE RECORD. You cannot make any public or private mention of this to anyone, especially not to the GM. I don't want you even contacting me about this. The whole business has made me sick and I'm not even sure I'm going to mail this letter — the first draft I tore up halfway through. I realize that because this is strictly off the record, you may feel that you cannot use it at all. If you feel that way, I would understand. I'm not going to tell you how to do your job. Don't bother trying to talk me out of this OTR label, because there's no chance I’ll reconsider. None.'

"You get the idea. I didn't want the Ombudsman to check back with the player, because he of course would know nothing of it. I have no idea whether the forged letter had any role in his decision. It may not have. After all, I did have the postcard, and if he accepted it, that would be all I needed. The Ombudsman ruled that the GM was either to accept my orders or to replay the season (he chose the former).

"The ethical question here is, can you deceive the Ombudsman? I was careful not to lie to the GM. But I lied to the Ombudsman about my orders, lied about the postcard, and forged 2 letters as well. It's an interesting question, don't you think?

"I did feel bad about framing the GM (but not about winning the game). It was really rotten; but then, isn't being rotten what this game is all about… at least the way I play? Yup, no holds barred Dippy is the ONLY way to go. I did try to show the GM that there were no hard feelings on my part. I even signed up for his next opening, but he turned me down. It's too bad — I had a real dilly of a sequel all mapped out."

So that's Shep's story. I don't even want to hear about the sequel he had planned. I believe this is probably the worst case I've uncovered yet in my investigation of Shep Rose, the sleaziest player of all time.

Ask the Hobby Historian: #8, The Dexter Numbers

by Mark Berch

We are all familiar with the two main numbering systems in use in the hobby: the Boardman Numbers for standard games, and the Miller Numbers for variant games. But there have been two other numbering systems put into use for short periods of time. One of these was the Dexter Numbers, and therein lies a tale.

We begin with issue #1 (December, 1991) of Gordon Dexter's I HATE DRAWS. To give the full flavor of this, I'll quote from the first page of that issue:

"I hate draws.

"I hate draws. It's the name of the zine, it's the opening phrase of my very first issue, and it's how I feel. And I'm going to do something about it. One of the attractions of this hobby is that if you've got your own zine, you can do things the way you want (so long as you can get your players to go along with it). All sorts of idiosyncratic people have been attracted to publishing, and I'm one of them. So without further ado, let me introduce Special House Rule Number One:

'The postal game will end under one of these two conditions:

1. A player achieves a rulebook victory, or is voted a victory.

2. The players vote to end the game, or the gamesmaster determines that the game is in fact stalemated.

In the event number two occurs, the player with the highest number of supply centers is declared the winner. If two or more players are tied, the supply center totals for just those players are compared for the previous winter. If a tie still remains, the supply center totals for just those countries is compared for the previous year, and so forth, all the way back to 1901 if necessary. For the purpose of this calculation, one supply center is subtracted from Russia's 1901 holding. If a tie still occurs, then the two countries will be granted the draw. End of Rule.

At the start up of the game, or better still, at sign up time, each player must state explicitly that he understands House Rule Number One. This way there will be no misunderstandings.

I think this will produce a more exciting game. All too often, players start with the strategy of planning for a draw, and looking for a win if opportunities develop. With two or more players looking for draws, opportunities for wins to develop are few and far between. The only way this game can be drawn is if two countries are lockstep for the entire game. This will be very difficult to do, since other countries can easily derail such a plan. Thus, people will play for the win, which I think is the whole point of the game."

Although he was a new publisher, Gordon had no trouble finding other win-only type players, and issue #2 announced two gamestarts (a little write-up in the Diplomacy World Monthly News gave him extra publicity). He sent off to the Boardman Number Custodian for game numbers. He also included a copy of I HATE DRAWS #1, saying "it would be an honor – and great publicity – if the BNC were to sign up for one of my games."

The BNC wrote him back, suggesting a couple of people who might like the game. But he declined to give him a Boardman Number: "To me your game seems to be a variant. This is a sort of king-of-the-mountain variation on Diplomacy. You've drastically destabilized the two-way alliance. Most importantly, by changing the victory criterion, and no longer requiring 18 supply centers (or a concession, which says that the others are in effect willing to let him have 18) for a win, you've created a slightly different game. So go ahead and get a Miller Number. Best of luck."

Gordon was astonished. He had never given any thought to the question of whether or not this was a variant. But it didn't bother him. He was elated at the enthusiastic notes he had gotten from people signing up, and by the time the BNC had written back, his third game was filled. So he dashed off a note to the Miller Number Custodian (MNC) with the appropriate information, adding, "Apparently, these are variants."

"No, they aren't," she said. "I'm returning the gamestart information for your three games. These are not variants. They are standard, albeit irregular, games. You haven't changed the board or the rules or adjudication of the pieces. A change to how the game ends doesn't necessarily make it a variant. For example, permitting conceded draws (non-Draws Include All Survivors games) is certainly a change in the rulebook. It can certainly affect alliance votes, since cooperation from a minor power might be obtained at the price of his survival, even though the major powers don't want their draw diluted with him. Such a deal is not possible in a Rulebook (Draws Include All Survivors) game. Moreover, your rule puts into effect something the players would themselves do – they could agree that if the game is stalemated, that most centers win. Incidentally, tournament games are sometimes run on this basis. I don't see a problem for Raters. The 'irregular' label will flag them to your special rule. At that point, they can either decide not to rate the game, rate it exactly as the game ends, or convert the game back to a draw if that's what it 'ordinarily' would have been. Sorry I can't help."

Gordon was flabbergasted, and more than a little annoyed. He had gone to this effort of contacting the Custodians, and had zilch to show for it. In I HATE DRAWS #3 he announced that "If no one will have me; then I will have myself." He announced that these games would carry "Dexter Numbers" and crowned himself the Dexter Number Custodian.

As you can imagine, there was general embarrassment in the hobby. The MNC sniped that Gordon should have mentioned that the BNC had already turned him down. Gordon retorted that if she felt that the BNC's views were relevant, she should have asked the BNC, and that he simply assumed that she could do her job with just the game description. The BNC allowed as perhaps he had been a bit hasty, and perhaps these games would be standard, but irregular, and that he should resubmit his request, and the BNC would open the pages of EVERYTHING for discussion.

"Great," Dexter said in I HATE DRAWS #4, "First both say 'Get Lost Kid,' and now both express an interest; without, of course, actually committing themselves. With luck, they'll both decide to change their minds, and I'll be no better off." With that defiant stance, he refused to resubmit the games to either Custodian. Very shortly thereafter, the Boardman Number Custodianship changed hands (for unrelated reasons). It’s a longstanding tradition that BNCs do not reverse decisions made by their predecessors, even ones that their predecessors might have had second thoughts about. And since there was no clamor to give the games either a Miller or a Boardman Number, that's where things stood.

Two more games were run under a guest gamesmaster in I HATE DRAWS, and both got Dexter Numbers. In England, Richard Sharp decided to run one of these. He gave it a DOLCHSTOSS Number (as he does for all of his games) and a Dexter Number. He asked the British Associate BNC for a Boardman Number and the guy, unaware of the previous brouhaha, gave him one. So far as I know, those six games were the only ones run. I recently asked the BNC what he would do if someone were to run such a game today. He said he was willing to consider whether he should open the pages of EVERYTHING to a discussion of whether the BNC should answer hypothetical questions.

What Ten Years Have Wrought

by Eric Brosius

From Diplomacy World #57

As we near the end of the decade, it's appropriate to look back at where we've been. What has changed in the postal hobby in the past ten years? What has stayed the same? I've read a lot of old zines lately, and I'll try to answer these questions.

To be honest, when I was asked to write an article for Diplomacy World describing the "ten big events in the hobby in the 1980s", I scratched my head in amazement. Doesn't Larry know I only joined the hobby in 1987? Maybe he solicited articles from a number of sources, and wanted an uninformed commentator so he could cover all the angles!

A historian's most difficult job may be to decide how important the various events of an era were. When you're working from documentary evidence, as I am, it's hard to know just how things felt to the average person. I found it easier to focus on conditions in the hobby at the beginning and end of the decade, and I made two lists: things that have changed and things that have stayed the same. Let's start with things that have stayed the same.

Four hobby facts that have not changed during the past ten years:

Drop outs. Ten years ago the hobby was plagued by players who signed up for games and disappeared without a trace. Publishers started zines and folded after a few issues, leaving games and players hanging. This is a problem today; it will be with us forever. Some people jump in head first without checking to see whether there's water in the pool!

Feuding. You may think feuding was invented in 1984, but it's just not so! Ten years ago the hobby was racked by bitter feuding not only between individuals, but between rival organizations. In fact, the last few years have been the most peaceful of the decade; we still have disagreements, but at least we're keeping them in perspective.

You won't get rich. If you joined this hobby to make money, you're in for a big surprise. Anyone who tried to make money in Diplomacy during the eighties came out wiser but poorer. Players periodically complain that publishers' fees are too high, but it's a rare publisher who so much as breaks even. Look at it this way: it's cheaper than golf!

Differing goals. People have never agreed about the goals of the game. Of course it's best to win but what if you can't? Should you try to draw, come in second, or just have a good time? Differences of opinion can be a blessing; it would be harder to satisfy everyone if they all wanted the same thing. The Indians traded Manhattan for twenty-four dollars worth of beads; the Dutch thought it was a steal (but what if the twenty-four dollars had been put into a bank for three hundred years to collect interest?)

In 1980 people worried about "ratings players" who wanted to climb to the top of the rating lists then popular. Ratings players, like hypocrites, are often complained about, but no one admits to being one! Ratings lists have fallen out of fashion (I've seen none since the Calhamer Point Count list in Diplomacy World two years ago), but the problem remains: it can be infuriating when other players in your game have goals which are incomprehensible to you. Just view it as a challenge: identify these people and give them what they want (while you go after what's really important.)

Speaking of ratings, e-mail/postal crossover hobbyists have been debating them furiously recently. Instead of complaining about a nonexistent problem, why don't you folks get together and produce a list? If no one takes it too seriously, it might be fun!

---

We've seen some things which did not change during the past decade. What things have changed during that time? Would a time-traveler from the hobby of 1980 notice any differences? Perhaps a few… here are some things which are definitely different, whether for better or worse.

Six hobby facts that have changed during the past ten years

Slower mail. Many of us still remember the sixties—bygone days in which most letters arrived within two days, even if they were going from coast to coast! Games with one-week deadlines were possible, and two-week games were common. This was no longer true in 1980 — publishers complained that some letters took up to four days to arrive! Still, ten years ago a game with four-week deadlines was considered slow. Today it's as fast as you can go. Mail service continues to worsen; my copy of Rebel rarely arrives within four days of the date of the postmark — and it’s only going from West Virginia to Massachusetts. Oddly enough they raise the price for this "service" every year or two!

The graying of the hobby. In 1980 most hobby members were in their teens or early twenties. Many were still in school. When John Leeder tried to run an old-timers game in Runestone, he had a terrible time filling it — to be an "old-timer" you had to be at least twenty-five years old, and such graybeards were hard to find! Today many hobbyists are in their thirties, and since there are fewer teenagers alive today than ten years ago, the trend will only continue. Diplomacy isn't just a young person's game — anyone can play, regardless of age, sex, or physical ability. We must expand our horizons!

Computers and photocopying. Ten years ago publishers used ditto or, if they were well off, mimeograph. The few who used offset or photocopy were viewed with suspicion, like Rolls Royce drivers! Their folds, predicted in hushed tones, were considered inevitable. During the eighties the real price of photocopies plunged. I get my zine copied for three cents a page (in 1989 dollars!) No one starts ditto or mimeo zines today; those still around began that way years ago and have never switched.

Not only are most new zines photocopied, more and more are produced by computer. A computer won't necessarily make your zine look better, but it sure makes it easier to produce, especially when a last minute order change comes in. They say the home computer hasn't caught on with the average American family yet, but publishers seem to be the type of people who buy them. If computers keep a few more zines alive by reducing the work of publishing, they'll have done the hobby a service.

Other games. Variants have been around since the start of the hobby, but ten years ago most games played were regular Diplomacy games. Some zines ran hex games, but usually as a sidelight. This has all changed; now regular games form less than half of the total.

Sports and railroad games are increasing in popularity, but the biggest change is the explosion in Gunboat gamestarts. The most popular way to start a new zine today is to open a Gunboat game. A Gunboat game requires far less commitment than a regular game (you don't have to write all those bothersome letters!) and people are more willing to take a chance on a new zine by signing up for one. This development is not all for the bad; people have been playing Gunboat for decades in regular Diplomacy games! Better you should join a Gunboat game if you have no time to write.

Electronic mail. Though you may not realize it, "e-mail" is being used more and more — and not just in the hobby. I've heard that the Postal Service wants to slow down first-class mail service; it's [choke] too fast! By the year 2000 there will be one mail delivery a year, for Christmas cards. Everything else will arrive by e-mail.

More seriously, one third of the gamestarts in Everything #81 were e-mail games, and there's no reason to think this will stop. Ironically, e-mail games run on one or two-week deadlines, just like the postal games of twenty years ago. E-mail has disadvantages as well as advantages. Wouldn't it be great if your mail were delivered within hours — even in the middle of the night? On the other hand, what if a letter needed not only an address, but also a list of all the post offices it was to pass through on the way? What if your mail delivery stopped whenever your letter carrier went on vacation? What if... well, you get the idea! E-mail Diplomacy has challenges all its own, but we'll see more of it as time goes on.

The decline of organizations. Ten years ago people thought the solution to the hobby's problems was a better organization. The TDA had been displaced by the IDA, which itself was starting to fall apart. Everyone had an opinion; letter columns swelled. There's nothing like an organization for creating controversy. Today there's nothing remotely resembling a hobby-wide organization, at least not in the United States. Most services are now provided by individual custodians under what Paul Milewski has described as the "Old Testament prophet" system — people "hear the call", take on jobs, and appoint successors when it's time to step down. Their sole authority comes from the confidence other hobbyists place in them. Amazingly enough, this system works quite well — even in an organization it's usually a few individuals who do most of the work!

What will the next ten years bring? How should I know? Just make sure you add to the enjoyment of others. If you publish, publish something people will enjoy reading. If you play, do it in such a way that your GM and fellow players are glad to have you. After all, it's a game. Go out and enjoy yourself!

The Road Not Taken

by Mark Berch

From Diplomacy World #63

This story has never been made public. It concerns a proposal that had the potential to radically change the tenor of the hobby in the mid-1980s and to catapult DW to heights never before seen.

After publication of DW #39 in Spring 1985, Editor Rod Walker was exhausted. He turned over the zine to Larry Peery, the energetic publisher of Xenogogic. DW was in a perilous condition. It had very little in the way of financial resources (but plenty of outstanding sub commitments). The staff was in somewhat of a fractious state. General Editor Kathy Byrne (now Kathy Caruso) was on very poor terms with two staff members, Fred Davis and myself. DW itself was in some amount of controversy due to the blackout of anything associated with Bruce Linsey in #39. (Bruce and Kathy were the major antagonists in the feuding of the period.)

Even worse was the hobby climate Larry had to operate in. Starting in the summer of 1984 over charges of misconduct by Bruce Linsey in his personal and hobby activities, Diplomacy hobbyists had rapidly polarized over a variety of issues. It is difficult to describe what the hobby was like in those days. Tremendous amounts of energy were poured, not into game negotiations or hobby projects, but instead into rebuttals and fresh charges of foul play. Feud letter columns pushed aside less inflammatory fare, new zines appeared devoted to feud topics, feud-related mass mailings were sent out, activities were boycotted, mail was refused, etc. There were many people caught in the middle, and many who quit the hobby in disgust.

There seemed no way out. The sides could not agree to terms for ceasefire, mediation, or arbitration. Even unrelated discussions of ideas in the hobby were colored by the Feud. Little was immune, including DW.

In the summer of 1985, Larry determined that DW's financial situation was hopeless, and made one of the gutsiest calls ever: he cancelled all DW subs, and asked people to start all over again. As you can imagine, that stirred up all sorts of controversy. It was not clear whether DW would make it at all.

In September 1985, I wrote Larry an extraordinary proposal, one that I felt could deal effectively with both the Great Feud and DW's current problems.

The proposal? In brief, Kathy and her team would put out the even-numbered issues of the zine while Bruce and his team would do the odd-numbered ones. Larry would handle the money, provide continuity, etc. The tremendous energies devoted to the feud would be largely diverted into the task of topping the last issue put out by the other team. The hobby would thus gain twice – from the loss of feud energy and the gain of DW energy.

Bruce and Kathy were both prolific writers, and each had impressive writers in their corners. Kathy had Bob Olsen, Steve Langley, Ed Wrobel and Robert Sacks, among others. Bruce could count on Fred Davis, Steve Hutton, Ron Brown (the Canadian one) and I, to name a few. Moreover, there were some writers who would write for both sides to establish their neutrality. Since each team would have six months between issues, there would be no need for rush jobs. The talent and motivation were clearly there, and competition would drive each side to excellence. Larry would be freed to concentrate on his own writing and long-range planning.

I discussed this idea with Bruce. He was intrigued by the plan, but pessimistic that Kathy would go for it. I am not sure whether the proposal was actually discussed with Kathy. Ken Peel (part of the DW management team at the time) felt Kathy would not go for it since her resentment towards Bruce was stronger than her commitment to DW. I'll never know whether that was a correct assessment. Rod Walker was opposed to the plan because he did not trust Bruce. Larry was also opposed, perhaps because he did not want to mediate the conflicts that would arise. There may also have been the feeling that Kathy could do the General Editor job herself, though at the time she was raising three kids, publishing very large issues of Kathy's Korner every month, etc.

I pressed the proposal during October 1985, but basically got nowhere.

The outcome? The Feud intensified in late 1985 and early 1986. A mere seven months after my proposal, DW #42 carried the news of Kathy's resignation as General Editor. Larry's hopes for Kathy's continuing role in rebuilding DW were dashed. Although I have had many ups and downs over my fourteen-year association with DW, the rejection of this idea was my biggest disappointment. There's no easy way to determine whether this would have worked, but I do think the hobby was and is the worse for the road not taken.

A History of the Hobby Awards

by Fred Davis

From Diplomacy World #66

This article relates a brief history of the Hobby Awards program, which began with a single award back in 1983. The Awards program was chaired by Larry Peery from 1983 through 1989, and by Ron Cameron since then. I have served as Treasurer for this entire time and have retained some, but not all, records of the nominations and winners over the years. I also have some photocopies of the Perpetual and Individual plaques that have been awarded.

The Don Miller Award differs from the others in that no one may be nominated who has won the award in the previous two years. Thus, no one can win this award more than once every three years. There are no limits on nominations for the other awards, except that the Chairman cannot be nominated for or win any category, and committee members cannot nominate other members of the committee. The Miller Award was the first one established, and is considered the highest award which can be granted by the North American Postal Hobby.

Each year, a representative committee has been formed to review the nominations for the various awards. Wherever more than five people have been nominated for an award, the committee does a preliminary screening to narrow the list to just five names. An attempt is made to have committee members from all parts of North America. The membership is usually between seven and nine hobbyists every year.

In the listing below, quotations taken directly from the ballots have been used in some instances to identify the winners. Where used, they are enclosed in quotation marks. In some cases, copies of the ballots are no longer available, and in some cases there was no need for such elaboration. In such case, I have used a simple expository statement.

Don Miller Memorial Award

Established by Larry Peery in 1983 as a tribute to the memory of the late Don Miller. As it states on the Perpetual Plaque, "Presented annually for Meritorious Service to the Postal Diplomacy Hobby, in memory of Don Miller (1933–1982), preeminent hobby pioneer."

1983 – Rod Walker, for multiple services as MNC, BNC, the IDA, and various aspects of editing and publishing over the period 1968–1982. (For this first year, a person's entire contribution to the Postal Hobby was considered. Thereafter, consideration was limited to what a nominee had done in the preceding year.)

1984 – Lee Kendter, Sr., "For taking over the Miller No. Custodianship in late 1982, at a time when there had been no official publication of the MNC journal for nearly a year. He published the first issue of the new MNC journal, Alpha and Omega, in May 1983. By the time the next issue came out, he had caught up on the backlog of games to report, and all known games in North America had been issued Miller Numbers."

1985 – Bob Olsen, for his services as Boardman No. Custodian in 1983 and 1984.

1986 – Bill Quinn, for his services as Boardman No. Custodian in 1985.

1987 – Bruce Linsey, for services in running the Runestone Poll, and for publication of the report of the same in the book, The Cream Shall Rise.

1988 – Simon Billenness and John Caruso, awarded jointly for their services in running the Peoples Diplomacy Organization Relief Auction (POORA), which raises funds for the support of several hobby services.

1989 – Doug Acheson, for his work in running the Canadian Diplomacy Organization.

1990 – Fred Davis, for his work as North American Variant Bank custodian, heading up the Mensa Diplomacy SIG, and for eighteen years of publishing the leading variant zine Bushwacker.

1991 – David Hood, for editing and publishing Diplomacy World since 1990, and for hosting the 1990 DipCon and World DipCon II in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Rod Walker Literary Award

Established by the Avalon Hill Game Company in 1983 in Rod's name, to mark the 25th anniversary of the commercial sale of the game Diplomacy. Inspired by the success of the Miller Award, Avalon Hill purchased a large Perpetual Plaque, and presented it to Larry Peery for coordination of the voting along with the Miller Award each year. This was done in Rod's name since he was one of the leading lights in the Diplomacy literary field at that time. He authored a book, A Gamer's Guide to Diplomacy, which Avalon Hill publishes and sells. At the bottom of the plaque, it states: "Celebrating Diplomacy's 25th Anniversary, 1958–1983." This award was set up some time after the results of the 1983 Miller Award had been announced, so the first year there could be any voting for the Walker Award was 1984.

1984 – Mark Berch, for the fictional piece "The Sleaziest Player of All Time: Shep Rose", in Diplomacy World, Spring 1983.

1985 – Bruce Linsey, "For five years of publication of Voice of Doom, including the most active letter column in the hobby's history," and producing and distributing the novice publication, Supernova.

1986 – Daf Langley, for a factual piece she wrote for Diplomacy World #39, "The Making of a Major Con."

1987 – J.R. Baker, for the various cartoons he drew for Diplomacy World over the years.

1988 – Mark Berch, for an article in Diplomacy World, and Fred Davis, for production of The North American Variant Bank Catalog, 1987–88.

1989 – Rex Martin et al., for producing a Diplomacy-featured special issue of The General, Vol. 24 No. 3 (1988).

1990 – Larry Botimer for "Playing Italy" in Kathy's Korner #155, and Francois Cuerrier for "Lowballing" in Passchendaele #97.

1991 – Mark Berch, for "The Power & the Glory", in The General, Vol. 25 No. 4.

John Koning Best Player Award

Following the success of the Miller and Walker Awards in gaining the acceptance of the hobby, Larry Peery felt that it was time to include an award for the best player of the year. It was left open whether this was to be for postal, electronic mail, or tournament play. A person could be nominated for play in a single game, or a series of games, or for winning a tournament. Peery announced the establishment of this category in the fall of 1985, with the first nominations and voting taking place in 1986. John Koning was one of the outstanding Diplomacy players of the 1960s and early 1970s, and was also the founder of DipCon, hosting the first two such Cons at his home in Youngstown, Ohio. He also published sTab, one of the best of the pioneer dipzines. He passed away at a young age in 1974, so this is also a memorial award.

1986 – Dan Stafford, for leading the Dragonstooth Rating System throughout 1985. (This was a rating system for all Postal Diplomacy players, last seen in Diplomacy World #60.)

1987 – Randolph Smyth, for a career of excellent postal play. (I believe Randolph is one of the few people to have won a postal game with every country.)

1988 – David McCrumb, won the 1987 DixieCon, and was top-ranked in the Dragonstooth Rating System.

1989 – Marc Peters, for winning the 1988 CanCon and a third place finish at the 1988 DipCon.

1990 – Gary Behnen, for his overall postal play in the previous year.

1991 – Gary Behnen, for his overall postal play during the year 1990. (This was awarded before he won the 1991 DipCon!)

Melinda Holley Award

Ron Cameron presented this idea at the 1989 DipCon, held in San Diego, California. It was originally to be presented to the lady member of the hobby who had done the most for Diplomacy in the preceding year. However, before the first voting was held in 1990, the standards were revised to make it an award for "Quantity Participation" in the hobby. It was named for Melinda Ann Holley, who was the leading lady publisher and player in the hobby at that time. Cameron originally received a very large trophy donated by Jack Jewart of Spokane, Washington, which was to be presented to each year's winner. However, this trophy was too large to ship by mail, and had no room on it upon which to engrave the winner's names. Accordingly, in 1991 a Perpetual Plaque, similar in design to the Walker and Koning Award Perpetual Plaques, was bought for presentation to the winners.

1990 – Melinda Holley, for the publication of the zine Rebel, which carried more games than any other current North American zine; and for her personal participation in so many Diplomacy games.

1991 – Melinda Holley, same as cited above for 1990.

A Review of Deluxe Diplomacy

by David Hood

From Diplomacy World #69

Perhaps the most important news on the novice front in years is the just-released new version of Diplomacy here in the United States, called Deluxe Diplomacy. We cannot attract more novices to the game if the game is not available for purchase, so the impact of producing and selling a new Dip game cannot be overemphasized.

The initial reviews from certain members of our hobby have been largely negative of the new product. Let's examine the new game in detail, concentrating on those aspects that are different from the version of Diplomacy sold by Avalon Hill for the last ten years or so.

The Pieces: One of the changes that is most welcomed by most hobbyists is the move back to wooden pieces, in lieu of the plastic stars and anchors used previously. The wooden pieces harken back to earlier versions of the game, with which many hobbyists first learned the game. My own view about the pieces is well known (I believe I'm the only person publicly preferring the plastic ones), but I'm willing to bow to the hobby majority here and count this as a plus.

One change about the pieces I am not enthusiastic about is the inclusion of stickers to affix to the pieces. These take the form of little flags of each country, and come in two sizes to fit both the shorter armies and longer fleets. This is not a bad idea in principle, but at least my set has stickers that don't stick. Well, not very well, anyway. My guess is that established hobbyists will throw these things away while perhaps some new players will fall in love with them.

The Map: The changes to the map are subtle, but important. One problem with the old map was all the topographic features and upside-down province names made the thing hard to read and, really, unattractive. These problems have been totally solved in the new version, which has almost a completely uniform color and all the names are right-side-up. The province borders themselves have also been redrawn, and done much more precisely. I'm not positive, but I think some of the smaller provinces in England and Italy have been enlarged, or at least that is the illusion.

Of course, Avalon Hill had to mess up an otherwise favorable change by misspelling a province name, badly. Burgundy has become "Burgandy" on the new board! Rex Martin has acknowledged this mistake, and promises a new board once the current production run is sold. Some copy editor or some such person at AH should be executed.

The Rulebook: This is possibly the biggest change from the old Dip set. While there have been a few minor changes in the rules themselves, they hardly warrant mention. The big change is that large parts of the old Gamer's Guide by Rod Walker have been incorporated into the rulebook itself. This gives first-time hobbyists some needed strategic/tactical guidance about how to play the game, and partially justifies the price increase (more about this later). I believe this is a great idea. In addition, the rulebook itself has been designed much more attractively from a production standpoint.

The inclusion of the Rod Walker material also opened up the possibility of a new Gamer's Guide, which is indeed in the works. Cal White, Gary Behnen and I are responsible for hobby input on this thing, so it is likely to include much about the Diplomacy hobby that was not in the old one. This is another very positive development. Along the same vein, a revamped flyer has been placed on the back page of the rulebook, with the names of five contacts in the Diplomacy hobby for interested buyers of the game to write (Cal, Gary, me, Don Del Grande and John Caruso). The flyer was handsomely produced by Cal, and should prove to be a major benefit to the hobby.

The Extras: The new set has greatly improved conference maps, and a lot of them. The box is longer, and much more striking in appearance. There is a counter tray included with a plastic lid, which should be of some benefit as well. Is the set worth the $55 price tag? Well... probably not. But, contrary to some opinions I have seen, the new set is worth something very close to that. There are a great many additional features over the old set, as well as improvements in the preexisting product. If it doesn't sell at that price I am sure Avalon Hill can be talked into lowering it.

The First Decade

by Stephen Agar

Little of what is in this article is original, I have merely tried to draw together information from the various sources I have to hand (which are listed at the end of the article), while the zine statistics in the boxes are culled from information compiled by Richard Walkerdine in June 1986. I think there is a value in periodically revisiting our roots, the turnover of players is sufficiently high that some of this material will be new to many. Although I have described this article as a commentary on the first decade of postal Diplomacy in the UK, to understand what follows it is necessary to go back to Brooklyn, New York in May 1963.

Although Conrad von Metzke attempted to start a postal Diplomacy game in 1962, he never got beyond mailing out a gamestart, so the accepted founder of the postal Diplomacy hobby was Dr. John Boardman. John's interests were primarily science fiction but in March 1963 in his sf fanzine Knowable he announced a willingness to start a game of Diplomacy. The game got underway in May (with only five players!) and Graustark, the first ever postal Diplomacy zine, was born. The hobby initially spread through SF fandom in the US, but was slow in the beginning with only nine more zines being started in the following two years, and with only 12 games between them (the usual practice being to have one game to each zine). Things took off in the US around 1966 when wargamers discovered postal Diplomacy and consequently 32 zines started in the 1966–67 period. The US hobby then received an even bigger boost when Games Research Inc. started to include a flyer in the Diplomacy box in 1970 (162 zines were launched in the US during 1971–73!). Meanwhile, things were stirring in England too...

The first postal Diplomacy game in the UK was started by Don Turnbull in his zine Albion in August 1969. Don was a wargamer by background, who never really took part in the mainstream postal Diplomacy hobby as it matured, though he did continue to run games in Courier for many years. Independently, SF fans in the UK started War Bulletin and it was not long before these two zines found each other and established the UK hobby. Diplomacy variants were first played by post in the UK in 1971 when Courier began a game of Abstraction and War Bulletin started a game of Diadochi. As 1971 ended, there were only a mere 3 Diplomacy zines in the UK.

1972 was the classic year for the founding of the postal Diplomacy hobby in the UK, much of the stimulus for this activity arising one way or another from the efforts of Graeme Levin who founded both the BDC (British Diplomacy Club) and the professional magazine Games & Puzzles in May 1972.

In January 1972 Colin Hemming started XL while John Piggott founded the historic zine Ethil the Frog, which were both closely followed by Will Haven's Bellicus in March. Meanwhile the BDC initially ran games using Don Turnbull as GM, but later branched out by getting other new editors to run zines under its wing. One such zine was Dolchstoß, which Richard Sharp (who had been introduced to the hobby via Games & Puzzles in June) began in October 1972 to run BDC games once Don Turnbull felt he was running enough.

Of course in the very early days zines were very skimpy things indeed – Mad Policy did not reach the dizzy heights of 12 pages until issue 16, and 12 pages was quite long by the standards of the early 70s. In terms of numbers it was Dolchstoß which really took off in a big way thanks to the influx of people through the BDC who entered the hobby as a result of the flyer. After only five issues Dolchstoß was running 8 games (though only 4 pages long), whereas Mad Policy could only manage five games after 10 issues. Even at this early stage there was a degree of friction growing between the BDC zines and the "independents" (e.g. Mad Policy and Ethil the Frog) who regarded the BDC and later the NGC as far too insular (Levin even told Sharp off for just daring to mention Ethil the Frog in issue 5 of Dolchstoß). Many years later Richard Sharp was to admit that the criticisms of the Independents were "largely justified" and that Dolchstoß would not have survived six years if it had been independent.

Arguably BritDipCon which was held at Hartley Patterson's house in September 1972 and attended by every UK publisher at the time apart from Don Turnbull was the first real Diplomacy con, although it had originally been planned as the annual meeting of the Tolkien Society. By the end of 1972 Graeme Levin had metamorphosed the BDC into the NGC (National Games Club) which took over the former's postal games by February 1973. During 1972 active Diplomacy zines had grown from 3 to 12.

The growth of the BDC/NGC was not entirely to everyone's satisfaction – Graeme Levin had managed to arrange for BDC flyers to be inserted in the Philmar Diplomacy sets, so the BDC/NGC (as opposed to the rest of the hobby) were receiving an enormous number of enquiries. Richard Sharp took over the running of the postal section of the NGC and founded the NGC Bulletin as the club's official house journal, but the non-NGC zines, or Independents, remained a distinct and separate part of the postal hobby. March 1973 saw the first ever fold of a Diplomacy zine, Colin Hemming's XL which ceased publication after 14 issues. Mid-1973 also saw the foundation of the forerunner of the UKVB by Colin Bennett, with a mere dozen or so variants in stock. Another hobby institution was launched in November 1973 when Richard Walkerdine announced the Walkerdine Zine Poll, won by John Piggott's Ethil the Frog on a turnout of 14 votes! 1973 ended with 23 zines, 110 Diplomacy games in progress and 73 variants.

[...additional paragraphs continue exactly as above until conclusion...]

Acknowledgements: Mad Policy No. 100, Dolchstoß Nos. 70 & 100, Greatest Hits No. 115, various issues of Pigmy, Here We Go Again No. 1.

If it Was Good Enough For Mr. ABC, it's Good Enough For You

by Larry Peery

In a hobby where generations are measured in terms of three years — which traditionally was how long it took to play a PBM Diplomacy game — celebrating one's 30th anniversary in the world of Diplomacy is no small feat. To celebrate that event I am writing a series of occasional articles for various hobby publications. Here's my latest effort — this time focusing on some of the elements that have made each hobby generation different. Keep in mind, however, that after thirty years my peerispective may be a bit different than yours, unless you happen to be Edi Birsan, John Smythe, or Mr. ABC himself!

Back in the earliest days of the game and hobby (e.g. c. 1964–1968) the fad was to write or rewrite The Rules of the Game. This was necessary because there were so many errors of one kind or another in the original Rules published in Calhamer's first version of Diplomacy; and in the first GRI edition. Every player and GM of any importance, and a lot who only thought they were important, had a Rule named after him. Zine houserules were often far longer and more complex than Calhamer's original Rules. Fortunately, a group of hobby rules experts (by their own admission and proclamation) got together and rewrote the official Rules of the game for a new edition. Since then things have been pretty quiet on the Rules front, until somebody comes along and thinks they've found a new "paradox" or a new "loophole."

Another big thing back in The First Golden Age (as distinguished from that Dutch Golden Age that came much later) of Diplomacy (c. 1966–1968) were variants. There were a few right from the beginning of the hobby. Some of them, for short periods of time, were almost as popular as Calhamer's own game. In time there were to be hundreds of variants covering every period of time and every conceivable place on the globe, and some beyond. Bob Cline's Nine Man variant solved the problem of what to do about the unequal situation in the Mediterranean. He added two Mediterranean powers, one in the west and one in the east. Rod Walker designed a whole series of variants, called the IMPERIALISM series, and some of them were very fine. The Youngstown Variant was another popular variant during this period. People still design variants, of course, but most of them are just reinventing the wheel, or rediscovering the supply centers of thirty years ago.

The first real brouhaha came with Avalon Hill's switch to plastic pieces and a three-piece mapboard. The hobby's sense of aesthetics ran right into Avalon Hill's bottom line, and guess who won? There was talk for a while of alternate sources for the game's wooden pieces, and foreign editions of the game, which still had the single-piece board and wooden pieces, became all the rage. Still, Avalon Hill had learned something, and when it came time to produce another edition of the game they did a "collector's edition" with, surprise, a sort of single-piece board, and wooden pieces; and a price seven times higher than Calhamer's original edition!

One thing that did change, although I'm not sure exactly when, was the manner in which pieces (referring to the old wooden block ones) were used to indicate move and support orders. Originally fleets were laid on their skinny side to indicate support. Then suddenly it became fashionable to stand them on their short end. This never seemed too smart to me, but Californians tend to worry about those kinds of things more than other hobbyists. I always called this kind of physical abuse of the pieces Richter Scale Diplomacy. And, amazing as it is to tell, I can remember for a while when the players in FTF games would change the way pieces were placed on the board as soon as someone had placed them in one position or the other, usually while the other side was raiding the refrigerator! Flying Dutchmen were also a popular element of this period of the hobby.

One element that has had a major effect on Diplomacy play, particularly with the increase in the number of players travelling to play in foreign countries, is the different colors used in different editions of the game. You never knew from country to country, hobby to hobby, or gameboard to gameboard; which colors on the map were which, let alone which color pieces were whose. I remember this had a major effect on my play in Britain back in 1988 and 1989. It usually took until 1903 or so for me to remember which color pieces went with which colors on the map, and which Great Power.

Another element that has changed over the generations is the way the mapboard is set up. The original edition was a large board that folded in the middle. Then Avalon Hill came up with a three-piece board, each part of which also folded in the middle. Then there was the one-piece board that folded in half, and each half folded in half. At least I think I've got that right. However, other people have done other things to the board. One of the smallest boards I have ever seen was a conference map done on a small metal tray with magnetic pieces. Eric Brosius was doing those for a while. Perhaps he still is. Eric's wife, Claire, did a needlepoint board for me that is a real work of art, and on a per square inch basis equal in value to most real estate on the Ginza. The biggest Diplomacy board I ever saw was at Spielefest in Vienna in 1989. Wolfgang Alber, I think it was, created a mapboard using a CAD or some kind of drafting printer that covered a wall and was used to display the results of the Austrian championship game. Another work of art gameboard that I haven't heard of lately showed up at Fredericksburg, VA for a DIPCON. It consisted of two four-foot by eight-foot panels with a painted gameboard on it.

The pieces were actual silhouettes of real battleships for the various fleets. I hope it has survived! It would be a priceless asset to any hobby Archives!

Perhaps the ultimate combination of board and game was an annual event during the 1980s that may still be going on for all I know up in the northern California area. This game combined with real life was held over an entire weekend at a fancy resort hotel. Each country was played by a team consisting of members of both sexes dressed in appropriate costume. Generals and admirals wore military regalia. Diplomats wore tails or bowlers. Wives and courtesans dressed appropriately. And spies wore dark capes and... well, you get the idea. The game dragged out over the weekend and included various meals, a banquet, a ball, and plenty of in-the-corner or in-the-bedroom negotiating. Sounds like great fun!

Today, of course, the hobby has become too sophisticated for such frivolity. Now the emphasis is on accuracy and realism, at least when it can work to one's advantage. Most PBM, PBEM, and FTF or Con Tournament gamemasters publish a wide variety of houserules on how their games are going to be run, and then proceed to ignore their own Rules when it becomes necessary or convenient, usually in an effort to keep the games moving along in a reasonable manner, but sometimes for more sinister reasons. It is a common practice at tournaments to have orders read by the players in the game in some kind of rotating order. The person reading the orders does his or her own first, and then reads the other players, usually in some kind of random order. The writer of the orders is usually given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to interpreting writing (by some unnatural law 99.99524% of all Diplomacy players are functionally illiterate), spelling, use of abbreviations, etc. And so it goes. Occasionally things do get a bit touchy.

I remember my first game at WDC IV in Birmingham. Iain Bowen, the blackguard, had thought it cute to put me and Xavier Blanchot at the same table in the first round. Things went about as you would expect for the first two game years, pretty much as I have described. It then was Xavier's turn to read the orders on a fall turn. The Tournament Rules, which neither I nor most of those playing had seen, let alone read, stated that the players had to specify the country of foreign units being supported; but then gave us neither enough space on the forms nor time on the clock for such nonsense. Certainly it wasn't done that way at home! Well, naturally Xavier seized on this as an excuse to disallow one of my orders which, as I recall, perhaps in error, would have cost him or one of his allies a center. I was furious. The tournament director was called in, but that didn't help matters. Xavier only smirked the more and I grew increasingly ballistic. If you know me, or have ever seen me, can you imagine what that was like? Imagine a Killer Tomato Exploding! Well, I was so mad I quit the game in protest. Xavier eventually got his. The other players ganged up on him. The point is, of course, check your orders carefully and follow the Rules of the event.

I am currently involved in yet another generational dispute in the WWPDC event that I am running. The element involved here is the combining of seasons in order to speed up the games. As usual and not at all surprising, the Americans do it one way, the Europeans do it another. I face the interesting situation of an American living in Europe trying to get me to explain the rationale of the American system to the Europeans.

Another element of contention is the use of a "stand" vs. "hold" distinction in dealing with units that were not ordered. This has also caused considerable debate, although it was spelled out in the Rules of the event and in various discussions. I can see the player's point, but that is no reason for me, as the person running the event, to change my Rules. My philosophical basis for my position is simple. When I have gone to great lengths to design an event system that gives the players every chance to avoid NMRing, I see no reason to have to give them a second chance to salvage a unit that they have NMRed!

Finally, and stay tuned for developments, I think I read somewhere in the tournament Rules for this year's WDC that they are going to allow five minutes to write orders. That might be enough time in 1901, but can you imagine trying to write orders for 17 units in 1914 in five minutes? This is nonsense. The players, I hope, will ignore such a Rule. If not, then shoot the tournament director! Well, no, don't do that; I might be standing behind him, and you might miss!!

So, these are some of the elements that have helped make this a most interesting thirty years. As you can see for yourself: if I know which edition of the game you prefer; which edition of Diplomacy the person who taught you how to play had; whether you learned to play by reading the Rules, from a single friend, or as part of a group; or whether you are a PBM, PBEM, FTF, Con, or Tournament player; I can easily put you in your place among the hobby's generations. As for me, there is no question — I'm a true black-dotted, red-blooded, white-haired, yellow-bellied hobby old fart! And proud of it!!

{Larry Peery is a former Diplomacy World publisher, among other accomplishments.}

The Pulp is Past or How I Came to Be the Custodian of the Hoosier Archives and What I Found There

by Jamie McQuinn

We stepped out of the rented assault vehicle. A quick scan of the compound, through the glare of the morning sun, showed us that there was only one guard on duty. He barked a few epithets, his breath a fine mist in the crisp, cold air. We took him out. The path was clear. The 1st Ohio Volunteer Brigade* stormed the aluminum-clad fortress.

We were the self-appointed specialists. Brian "Plastic Pellets" Alden, and me, Jamie "Books" McQuinn. Our mission was clear. A lightning assault and we had liberated an icon of Diplomacy history; the Hoosier Archives. We made a run for the border. After evasive maneuvers, we shook off all pursuit. By the end of the day, we had all eight cabinets stowed in a secret chamber, safely hidden beneath an unassuming suburban colonial facade. Little did anyone in the neighborhood know the secrets buried so near…

In the Beginning

Walt Buchanan entered the hobby in 1970 and began publishing his first zine, The Hoosier Archives, in 1971. One of his purposes was to begin an archive of hobby publications. Walt was also the first publisher of Diplomacy World.

Prior to discovering PBM Diplomacy, Walt had experienced the postal chess hobby and he hoped to bring some of the same organization to Dipdom. He imagined the archives standing as the foundation of a national, and perhaps international Diplomacy association. Well, history has since shown that most attempts at hobby "organization" have failed, but he had a dream.

Inspired by the early archival efforts of Rod Walker, Walt attempted to pick up where he had left off. By publishing and trading, he was able to collect virtually every North American zine being available at that time. With the help of Walker and others, Walt was able to add many pre-1970 zines. By the time personal and scholastic pressures led Walt to gaffiate, the archives contained nearly everything, complete to May of 1978. The cabinets remained in the basement of his home near Indianapolis, gathering cobwebs. Eventually, his academic pursuits (now a college professor) led him away from Indiana and ultimately to Middle Tennessee State University. He had reliable tenants in his old Indiana home, and the archives were safe, but Walt wanted to sell the house and he was not interested in dragging nearly a dozen cabinets and cases to Tennessee. It became clear that it was time to find a new home for the archives.

An Idea is Born

Longtime Dipsters, Buz Eddy and Conrad von Metzke, were aware of the problem. They contacted Pete Gaughan, thinking he would be a reliable person with whom to entrust the files. Pete, a hobbyist since 1979 and publisher of Perelandra since 1982 until its recent fold in 1996 at Issue number 134, was also publisher of Zine Register at the time and therefore a de facto archivist. On hearing of the dilemma, Pete volunteered to house the files at his home in California — as soon as he could afford to buy one. It was estimated that shipping them all the way to the West Coast would cost over one thousand dollars so Pete began soliciting donations for a fund to subsidize the move. Response was mixed but many people thought that saving the archives was a great idea. Some even sent money. Soon Pete had collected over two hundred dollars, but it was clearly not enough. Perhaps those who questioned whether saving the archives was worth the hobby’s time and money were right. That’s when the 1st Ohio Volunteer Brigade* got involved.

Buckeyes for Hoosiers

Brian Alden read of Pete's plea in Diplomacy World. He offered his Midwest home as temporary shelter for the archives in case they needed to be moved quickly. Brian, a resident of Mason, a suburb of Cincinnati which is not far from Indianapolis, had been in the hobby on and off since he first played the game in 1969. In the Seventies he played postal Diplomacy in Steve Heinowski's Ter-ran. Most recently he has resurfaced as one of the primary coordinators of Diplomacy in the America Online computer network service. Over Labor Day Weekend, 1995, Walt was at his Indiana house and invited Brian to scout the archives. Walt had never systematically collected United Kingdom zines, but several had come into his possession. Brian's first task was to separate out those zines and ship them to Stephen Agar for including in the U.K. archives as they would be better utilized in their home country.

Eureka!

It was about this time that I became aware of these efforts. I was living in Michigan, but my wife (who has this tendency to drag me to different parts of the Midwest every two to four years) and I were making plans to move to Dayton, Ohio. When I saw Pete's plea in Diplomacy World I thought, "Why send all these cabinets to the west coast when I could take care of them right here, less than two hours away from Indianapolis?" I made a tentative offer to Pete to house the archives. Tentative, because we hadn’t purchased a house in Dayton yet so I couldn’t know if I would have the space (or my wife’s blessing).

In the summer of 1995, we started our new jobs. Halina at Grandview Hospital, training Family Practice Residents, and me at the University of Dayton as a reference librarian. Later, after four months of temporary lodgings, and eighteen months of trying to sell our house in Michigan, we bought a home in Oakwood, a suburb of Dayton. This spacious colonial style home had a nice big, dry basement; room for all our junk, and some extra file cabinets. I got the OK from Halina, and I was able to send a green light to Pete, Walt, Brian and the others involved in the discussion. Pete agreed that Dayton would be a better location, and all were pleased to see that a professional librarian was taking an interest in the project.

The Mission

In a bright yellow, Ryder, rental truck, Brian and I set out to bring the files to their new home. We reckoned we'd be done by two in the afternoon, but the whole project took longer than expected. The drive was easy, but we had underestimated how heavy eight filing cabinets full of mimeographed paper can be. Lots of sweat, back strain, and hours later, the last cabinet was safely stowed in my basement. Fortunately, there are no disaster stories about cabinets falling out of the truck and blowing fifteen years of hobby history across Interstate Highway 70. Despite all the work (and none of the glory), Brian and I enjoyed our rescue mission.

Now What?

Since the move I've only had brief opportunities to explore, but what treasures I have found:

• Issue number one of such classic, and long-running zines, as John Boardman's Graustark, and Conrad von Metzke's Costaguana.
• More than a drawer-full devoted to publications and proposals by Larry Peery.
• Not only the back issues, but camera-ready copy for issues of Diplomacy World.
• Back issues of Avalon Hill’s war game magazine, The General.
• Files containing Walt’s correspondence relating to games he played in, games he GM’d, and to the hobby controversies of his day.
• A letter from Bruce Linsey soliciting articles for his publishers handbook.
• One file full of conference maps outlining stalemate lines.
• Cartoon artwork by Mark Verheiden for use as Hoosier Archive covers.
• Pontevedria #1 from Rod Walker.
• An entire drawer devoted to Dungeons and Dragons zines.
• And, after a lengthy search, the game reports for my first PBM game in Burt LaBelle’s Pellucidar – 1974. (I am embarrassed to be reminded that I NMR’d out of that game).

I have rejected the suggestion that they be renamed the "Buckeye Archives." After all, I went to the University of Michigan. So, "Hoosier Archives" they remain. Beyond that, I have no solid plans for the future of the files, other than keeping them dry and safe. I have made small inquiries into the possibility that some University archive might be interested in housing this collection, but that idea is still in its infancy. In the meantime I imagine that many people would be interested in reading reprinted articles both here in Diplomacy World and in my own zine Crossing the Rubicon. Certainly a complete catalog of its contents is in order. Fortunately, that job has been made easier by the publication of Jim Meinel’s Encyclopedia of Postal Diplomacy Zines (1992). If anyone has any ideas or suggestions feel free to send them my way. If anyone is looking for photocopies of old issues of a specific zine I will try to accommodate them. Meanwhile, those who share an interest in preserving a piece of hobby history can rest assured that the Hoosier Archives will be preserved.

Diplomacy World Interview

Jim Burgess Discusses Hobby History with Edi Birsan

From Diplomacy World #85

This is the first interview in a series that we expect will appear in each issue of the new Diplomacy World. I decided to begin with Edi Birsan for a number of reasons: (1) He is one of a few people fully active in the hobby from its beginnings in the mid 1960’s to date; (2) He also is active not just in the postal world, but more importantly the wider Web based hobby of today; and (3) He has been actively involved with Hasbro in its takeover of the copyright for the game. He also is one of the hobby’s very best Diplomacy players, but as Edi says himself, he has written extensively on tactics before, especially in Diplomacy World. Thus, we will only lightly touch on the play of the Game in this interview itself, though we will catalog Edi’s achievements in the background. Others who would like to be interviewed in future issues should contact me at burgess@world.std.com and I will be attempting to alternate interviewing US hobby figures and non-US people.

Background: Edi Birsan's first period of fame in the Diplomacy hobby was as a player in the mid sixties when he was considered the first juvenile delinquent in the hobby and then increased his skill and reputation throughout the sixties by becoming the first person to win postal games with all 7 countries. With his victory in the first champions game --71BC in Diplomacy World's precursor, Hoosier Archives --he was recognized as the postal hobby's first world champion. He would eventually be a perennial invitee into Diplomacy World's invitational games, finally winning the first and only Diplomacy World Trophy for his second win. He also has a string of draws in the invitational games as well as a few eliminations. The Diplomacy World archives of all back issues will soon be part of the Diplomacy World web page we are putting together, so these historic demo games can be studied by everyone.

As a player he is probably best known for the Lepanto Opening, the most widely known of the named openings which were published in the early 70's, but Edi first used it in FTF play in NY in 1966. He was also the author of several other opening articles including the more current revival of the Sea Lion opening for France and Germany against England. He pioneered writing up articles on the play of the Game and popularized tactical discussions in a hobby that in the sixties was mostly involved in press releases and story development.

Through the early 1970's he ran two major zines (Arena for 60 issues and Dune for 83 issues from 1972 to 1975) and was heavily involved in the IDA (International Diplomacy Association) as its first and most successful President --leading the charge in the publishing of the 1975 IDA Handbooks for Players and GMs. He also was on the organizing committee for the 1976 DipCon IX in Baltimore, running that tournament with Mike Rocamora. To this day it is the largest tournament ever held in North America with 29 boards played on the first round. Edi writes more about this and early DipCon’s in another article elsewhere in this issue. At the time living near New York City, he also was a major organizer of local FTF events. Not only that, but he also was the inventor of the International Subscription Exchange with Dave Johnson in the UK and the first USA representative (a position I now hold) from 1974 to 1976.

After moving to Europe in the late 1970's, Edi went into semi-retirement. The IDA faded away under subsequent leaders. He concentrated his play in the yearly DipCon tournaments after returning to the States in 1980 and being hounded by Larry Peery to get back to the hobby in some form. He still played in a few postal games here and there, but recently, after I invited him to play in the Demo Game Ghodstoo, his postal/email Diplomacy hobby involvement has grown tremendously and he was a major liaison with Hasbro (the current holder of the Diplomacy game copyright) and organized the Diplomatic Corps which is currently one of the hobby's major international organizations with a comprehensive web site www.DiplomaticCorps.org.

JB: I’d like ask you about your many transitions in hobby involvements, as well as your view of the future. But first, I don't want to dwell too long on the past, yet a few questions about the 1970's may be helpful as background. Much of this is before my active involvement in the hobby too. First, tell us about your two major zines, Arena and Dune. What were they like?

EB: First they are zines. Where this 's' came from I have no idea.

JB: I suspect I might continually throw people off with my peculiar spelling, so I don’t get asked this every time, we’ll call them zines. OK, what about your zines?

EB: The Arena was a zine which had the bulk of the zine devoted to articles on play of the game and my own egotistical blah. The Dune was a subszine of sorts where I used to run abandoned games from others and to move games from The Arena to it once the decision was made to close The Arena down. The zine was run on ditto paper and had a circulation of 100 which was quite large back then. Amongst the other things I did in The Arena was to keep a detailed running breakdown of the cost of the zine so that new publishers would know what they were getting into. These were the days before spell checkers and the like so that the written quality was not up to the editorial quality of today's zines but, the content was pretty good. Currently an entire set of The Arena is in the Swedish Archives of Fandom, having been requested by Leif Bergman.

JB: If you were young today (the same age as you were when you ran Arena and Dune), do you think you would still try to run something in a similar way, what changes would there be?

EB: No way would I run a hobby magazine with GM gaming. I was trying to fill a need in myself and the hobby at the time for a regular tri-weekly zine which discussed the hobby and the game. Now I would be a regular writer and contributor to one of the web sites and be a much better writer for it.

JB: People reading this interview probably have wildly varying degrees of knowledge about the IDA. As someone at the periphery of the hobby at that time and having heard all of the "stories", what I would like to ask you is to reflect on the lessons of the IDA for the hobby today. The Diplomacy Hobby is more "international" now than it has ever been and we would like to make Diplomacy World truly an international flagship zine for the hobby. What is your current view of the future of international hobby organizations, illuminated by your IDA experience?

EB: In 1972 there was an effort to form a hobby group called The Diplomacy Association. The effort was spearheaded by John Boardman, John Beshara and myself. Shortly after starting, a major feud broke out and there were unacceptable policies in the TDA in the formation level. I then joined with Larry Peery, Len Lakofka, Doug Beyerlein, John Boyer and others to form the IDA and this was one of the major political issues of DipCon V in Chicago, 1972. I was very much then, and am now, an Internationalist when it comes to the hobby. I see it as one hobby with different regions and supporting cultures.

JB: I completely agree with you, and this is a major factor in the way we are planning to approach the new Diplomacy World. We also plan to avoid feuding at all costs.

EB: I saw a reason to be for the organization and put a lot of energy into getting it going. For the last several years I have been making the rounds of the International events in Europe and North America and with Hasbro going for a revival of Diplomacy I decided to make another mass effort last summer to see if I could get the Europeans on board. This was accomplished and the Diplomatic Corps was launched last August to create a hobby wide organization to provide services as needed throughout the hobby. One of the failings of the old IDA was that it became too wedded to the politics and the egos of the time, including my own. When I pulled back my activities because of a combination of burnout and moving to Europe, the remaining leaders were not able to keep it going. What I hope to be leading in the Diplomatic Corps now is to get through the minefield of egos and feuds to create a world wide leadership composed of regional organizations and supported by a membership with a focus on doing things that matter in a non exclusive, non-competitive manner. In this regard I am very happy with the acceptance and the direction of the Diplomatic Corps and its support from organizations in Australia, Europe and North America.

JB: The new Diplomacy World fits right into this vision of non-competitive non-exclusivity on a worldwide scale. At some point after you drifted to the sidelines in the Diplomacy hobby, you became heavily involved in the professional gaming which has evolved into your current position at Midnight Games. Would you compare and contrast Diplomacy as a game with the professional games you also work on? Historically there has been a great deal of cross fertilization between the two hobbies.

EB: I have always been a gamer. As such paying for a good game was never an obstacle either emotionally and luckily financially. As my father always said: concentrate your vices. I fooled around with Star Web and Moebius in the 80’s and then through another player found out about Legends, a fantasy game system run by Midnight Games out of Oregon. I started to play and loved it. I designed a module for the company and invested in the company. Due to a string of bizarre and rather costly financial decisions I wound up owning Midnight Games and have developed the game system substantially along with new modules since 1992...

EB: Diplomacy has always had a semi 'free' support from Gamesmasters. I say semi free because the postal hobby was built on paying customers... a shocking concept to nearly all Email players these days. However, in the golden age of the postal hobby people paid a subscription or a game fee to play in the games. This money was used to offset the cost of paper and production as well as postage, the most expensive item for a publisher. Email play started and players on the various Nets got used to playing for free. Because of the total lack of financial support the hobby has remained an amateur effort. One of the problems the hobby has is the financial support of itself. It operates in an economic model that does not inspire investment and advancement from an outside source. For example, I doubt that more than 15% of the email players will buy the Hasbro FTF or computer set partly because they see no reason for it. Yet, if Hasbro has bad sales, the likelihood of a second variant production is nil.

JB: This may be editorial hubris (and please correct me if it is), but my perception has been that inviting you to play in the ghodstoo game with the likes of Mark Fassio, Hohn Cho, Jamie Dreier, Cal White, John Barkdull, and Pitt Crandlemire played a major role in bringing you back into the Diplomacy hobby. Would you comment on that transition?

EB: My re-entry into the hobby is really to the credit or fault of Larry Peery who constantly kept sending me stuff when I moved to California in 1980-81. It was Larry who convinced me to go to the DipCon's again and Larry who convinced me to go to the first World DipCon in Europe that I hit (1997). The Ghodstoo game was more of a revival of playing postally or by email. It is also the only time I have used a judge and I must say I am not a judge fan. Of the players in the game, Hohn Cho, Cal and Pitt I had played against numerous times face to face in the DipCons in the years before. One of the things that Ghodstoo did bring out in me was the love of a well played game. Even though my results in the game were poor, it was one of the better played games that I have played. Then again you will generally always find that experienced players talk of their best or most fun games as those that they did not win.

JB: You have evolved into a central role for the relationship of the hobby to Hasbro's new products. Not wanting to put you in a difficult position, but also asking the hard question, it appears that Hasbro Interactive didn't put the "A Team" on the efforts to design the Computer Diplomacy game. The worst part is the AI computer player, which is laughably incompetent at even making basic moves. Now, my belief is that designing an AI for Diplomacy is incredibly difficult, so I would have tried to put some "canned openings" into the package. At least then it would be playable at a basic level, if a bit predictable. Would you comment on Hasbro Interactive's future with the Diplomacy product in general and the likelihood of a revised AI program?

EB: I contacted Hasbro and made myself available to help on rules, variants, and openings. In the beginning things were rather awkward and I was rather forward. However, I was able to contribute to correcting some substantial errors in the board game version before it was finalized. As for the computer version: Diplomacy is a difficult game for a computer to play. They asked me to develop several openings for each country and to script them. I provided about 10 different openings for each country with extensive 'trees' that is the sort of thing that says: you are in the English Channel, Russia has an Army in St. Petersburg, Germany has a Fleet in Denmark with the Black Sea unoccupied, then do this... It was quite a lot of work. After all the work, it appears that they did something basically very wrong with the A/I since it plays so grossly that it is silly. Clearly they never made use of the openings. There was also a lot of frustration between the board game division and the computer division whose interactions with each other could have been greatly improved. Which is one reason that the Unwanted Convoy is in the Computer version but not the board game. There have been a lot of changes in Hasbro since the project started and I have backed off from a lot of the contacts.

JB: You, with assistance from Mike Barno and others, have done an excellent job in making the Diplomatic Corps web site an easily navigable information source for the Diplomacy hobby. Do you have any exciting future plans for the development of this site?

EB: The Diplomatic Corps is not just a web site it is an international organization that is trying to help the hobby. What we are planning is to establish a leadership function such that the organization rotates around with local and regional organizations. We want it to be the focus for hobby wide services and try to avoid duplications of efforts by bringing people who provide the services together.

JB: Lastly, I still consider you one of the hobby's greatest pure players of the game, so I would be remiss if I did not ask you a few questions about the play of The Game. You were renown in the postal days for your adept use of the telephone to seal deals, raise the level of communication, and to assess the honesty of your opponents by listening to their voices. In these days of E-Mail, which is a wonderful tool for conducting Diplomacy communications, do you still see a strong role for telephone calls and voice communication (which also is increasingly possible via the web)? Tell us a little about this from both a practical/technical view and a psychological/personal one.

EB: I was probably one of the first big time phone players. I found very early that if you talked to someone you can find out a lot more about what is going on in a shorter period of time. Further, being in the 60's, it was well before spell check and the like so mail was more like so much more English homework. In the Ghodstoo game I came up against email players and was somewhat shocked. I called John Barkdull (I believe) and he had played the game for 3 years by email. He had NEVER talked to a single human being about the game ever. This blew me away. I also played in another email game in which there was a giant debate over whether phone calls would be allowed! How silly. E-Mail players often are too reluctant to talk on the phone. Diplomacy is at its best as a social game of interaction with people. This can be accomplished best by face to face or by phone. Email players seem to be much more hesitant on the phone and clearly not used to the instant on your feet thinking and talking that comes with years of face to face play. Therefore, you can often tell when someone is lying to you on the phone especially when you have a player who is not used to verbal cues. I like to talk to players on the phone in each of my games. If players say that they do not want to talk on the phone, then I know that they probably will not build up interpersonal relations with other players, and if there is a critical stage in the game they will lose out on the quick back and forth that is such a beautiful part of the game. On the other hand, email games have done wonders for my speed typing. Email players have to come out of their shells and play more face to face to remember that the purpose of the game is to have fun and make it fun for others. It is a social game, pick up the phone and touch someone.

JB: Clearly, Diplomacy as a hobby is growing by leaps and bounds on a worldwide basis. This is a very exciting time to be part of it. But all of this growth has made it even harder to some degree for players to hone their skills to prepare for top competition. What advice do you have to younger and less experienced players to assist them in mastering The Game?

EB: There is a pretty large gap in tactical skills for the newcomer and the old hands. I learned the game tactically by first inventing and then playing one on one Escalation. This is a variant where you start with the board blank and each of you place a certain number of pieces down one at time, typically 12 each in one on one games, then you play the game from that position declaring 3 centers as your home at the end of 1901. This is the best 2 player variant of the game and the best way to learn what relationships are out there as the game develops and is played. However, the most important pieces in the game are the 7 pieces around the board. Learning how to play those players is something of an art. However, first you have to learn how to play your 'self'. By this I mean try to look at yourself as a player.

The most common faults of new players are: (1) silly stupid lies; (2) lack of a plan; (3) lack of follow through; (4) failing to make and keep contacts in the game; (5) giving up.

The hardest things to learn are: (1) how to read the board; (2) how to read people; (3) to know what you really want; (4) to explain to someone else that there is a mutual benefit to a course of action; (5) to discipline yourself to avoid trashing your own image and reliability.

I can, and actually have, written a lot on all these areas so I will not get into it further here.

JB: No problem, Edi, thank you very much for helping us to start the new Diplomacy World off with such a wide ranging interview. I hope everyone enjoys reading it as much as I enjoyed asking the questions. As I said at the top, volunteers or suggestions for future interview subjects are more than welcome.

Diplomacy Convention (DIPCON) XXXVII Report

By Tim Haffey

From Diplomacy World #90

For those of you who do not know, although I don’t know what readers of Diplomacy World would not know, the DIPCON XXXVII was held on April 23-25 in Portland, Oregon at the Double Tree Hotel in Lloyd Center. The Tournament was put on by the Piggy Back Society for Northwest Diplomacy. The Tournament was very well organized and managed. My compliments to Matt Shields, Kevin Kacmarynski, and their Piggy Back Crew, they did a magnificent job.

I don’t fly if I can help it, so I took the train to Portland from Oakland, California. We left an hour late and arrived two hours late. But, Matt was there to pick me up and delivered me right to the lobby desk of the Double Tree Hotel. They even had my reservation on file. Will wonders never cease?

I arrived on Thursday, April 22 just to make sure I arrived in time. Buz Eddy held a poker game that started around 8 o’clock in the evening so I joined in that and had a good time. Lost eight bucks but I enjoyed myself anyway. Andy Bartalone, Mike Noble and some others who came and went including several Canadians, played in the game. All good Poker players. We played Texas Hold ‘em and the game came to an end at around midnight as I remember.

The next day I was up bright but, not so early. I got up about 9:00 AM. Showered and shaved and everything and went down and had breakfast in the hotel restaurant. Just had eggs, potatoes and toast with a glass of milk. $10.00 with tip. Well, everything was cooked just right. That’s worth it right there.

I had forgotten my tape recorder which I use to take notes since I can not see well enough to take written notes. So, I had to buy a new one. I got a cab that was sitting by the hotel and asked him if he knew where a Radio Shack was in the area. He said he did and he took me there. He was an extremely nice guy named Hans. I told him my problem and he took me to the nearest Radio Shack, went into the store with me and explained what I needed to the clerk and they put batteries in it and a tape and got it all set for me to use. I paid about $40.00 for it including the tape and batteries. Then, Hans took me back to the hotel. Talk about a great guy. They should have such cab drivers in Oakland. I gave him a $5.00 tip.

The Tournament started at 5:30 PM. I believe a total of 52 people actually showed up. Tables and countries were assigned. I was on table seven and played Austria. Yeah, won’t you know? Well, I talked to Italy, played by Andy (Buffalo) Bartalone, and convinced him that an Austrian/Italian alliance was necessary because it appeared that the Turk and the Russia were allied. But, he stabbed me in Fall 01. So, I spent the rest of the game helping Turkey take out Italy while Russia ate me up from the rear. But, Italy and Austria both were eliminated on the same turn. Andy admitted he made a mistake. Justice served again.

Before we started the second round of games, Piggyback Society had a meeting to determine where the next DipCon would be held. There were two proposals. Someone from PrezCon, (I did not get his name) made a presentation to have DipCon XXXVIII at PrezCon in Virginia. Larry Peery made a presentation to hold the DipCon on a Carnival Sea Cruise out of Galveston, Texas. The Sea Cruise won. Hey, I voted for PrezCon.

The second round I played England and thought I might have a good chance of getting somewhere. However, I allied, tried to ally I should say, with Germany who promptly stabbed me. What is this with everyone stabbing me straight away? I spent the rest of the time trying to ally with France but he just kept ignoring anything I said and kept on attacking me, so I did my best to keep Germany from growing. Eventually, Austria and Turkey gained a lead in the east and France, Germany and England forced a five way draw. There were several four or five way draws because of the scoring system. The system was supposed to encourage you to win, but, in fact, encouraged people to get the high center count up around 8 or 9 and then negotiate a draw.

In game three later on Saturday, I was Russia. I attempted to ally with Turkey, (Missie Bird) but she stabbed. And, then when I tried to ally with Italy (JT Fest) he stabbed me too. Italy got the lead in units and immediately asked for a draw. I refused to vote for the draw so he and Missie eliminated me. And then they took their draw.

On Sunday, they had the top board. The other players could play another game while the top board was playing, if they wanted a chance to improve their scores. I did not play. I wanted to observe the top game. The top board had the following lineup.

• Austria - Edi Birsan
• England - Doug Moore
• France - Chris Martin
• Germany - JT Fest
• Italy - Adam Silverman
• Russia - Nick Benedict
• Turkey - Ken LeMere

Before the spring 01 moves were announced, I had a little interview with Larry Peery from San Diego.

LP: I have known Edi for some 40 years. I have played with Ken LeMere, he is good.

TH: Silverman is good too.

LP: Yeah, they are all good.

TH: Or, they wouldn’t be on the top board.

LP: Well, sometimes you can sneak on there.

LP: Let’s see, three locals, four outsiders, two Californians. So, I don’t think it’s a slam dunk for anybody. It depends on how seriously Edi plays.

TH: I don’t know if Austria is a serious country or what…probably not.

LP: I’ll go out on a limb and say I think Turkey is going to win.

TH: Well, I’ll tell you what, that JT Fest guy is an intense player.

LP: Oh yes, yes.

TH: You know what he did in the game last night.

LP: Yeah, yeah. He wanted to be on this one.

TH: Yeah, well he made it. I don’t know about Germany, we will see what happens here. Thank you.

Well, in Spring 1901 it looks like England and France bounced over the English Channel and Turkey and Russia bounced over the Black Sea. Galicia is open, neither Russia nor Austria moved there. Austria’s moves are pretty normal, Italy’s moves pretty normal. Nothing really outstanding. France did support itself into Bur which is always an interesting move to see. Russia does seem to be concentrating on the Southern front. We will just have to wait and see what happens.

Well. I thought I had recorded the moves for Fall 01 and up to the Fall of 1903 but they were not on my recorder. Interestingly enough it picks up with another review by Larry Peery and myself. I believe this was after the Fall 1903 moves were completed. This is that review.

TH: Well, Larry Peery, what is going on here?

LP: Well, I don’t know.

TR: Obviously there is no alliance between Russia and Turkey.

LP: Yeah, that kind of went up in smoke didn’t it?

TH: Yeah, well, they haven’t given Austria the boot yet but I expect they will.

LP: Well, he still has one. As long as he has one, he can be a pain to someone, and he will be.

TH: Oh yeah, yeah.

LP: Russia is up to seven, he’s doing good.

TH: He’s got someone in Sev, unless he can kick him out of there.

LP: Well, he has three armies and a fleet.

At this point JT Fest who was playing Germany walked up to the table and I asked him

TH: So, how is Germany doing over there?

JT: Well, you know, it’s not bad. I’ve got to deal with France and …

TH: It looks like he is going to be a player.

TH to LP: Well, it looks like he (Germany) is going to be a player. France too, for that matter. England…

LP: Well, England has a problem now, he’s got a Fleet in the North and a Fleet in Belgium surrounded by all the Germans, probably not going to be long for the world.

TH: Yeah, and I can tell you for one thing, Germany is not going to let him stay there.

LP: Yeah.

LP: For the first two years they moved, you know, they came out. Yeah, especially in the Balkans there.

LP: I haven’t seen anything that I consider a really bad mistake.

TH: Nope. Except, drawing Austria, that may have been a mistake.

LP: Well, they don’t draw them, I don’t know how they…

TH: Random, it’s random. A random assignment. But still, this thing of two or three ganging up on …

LP: Well, yeah, but they are fighting back.

TH: It does happen a lot with Austria though. I have played Austria and got ganged up on by three, all three of them.

LP: Well, it may have happened to me too. So…

TH: Yeah.

LP: It’s an easy way to go.

TH: I would rather go out quick like that instead of just fooling around with one or two players, you know what I mean.

Unknown player: (Not really unknown, but I forgot who it was): For my money, the most fun I ever had was fooling around with one or two units. You can affect the draw and maybe get up to three.

TH: Yeah, you can irate somebody. And, you can get a lot of offers for support here and there.

I had to leave at this time so I did not get the rest of the game but I got the results.

The winner of the TOP Board and DipCon XXXVII Champion – Ken LeMere. Now, what was that prediction of Larry Peery’s at the very beginning of the game?

LP: I’ll go out on a limb and say I think Turkey is going to win.

Yep, that is what he said before the first move was even made. Very good predictions, Larry.

DipCon XXXVII Team Champions – Team “She Ain’t Gonna Understand This Scoring System” - Nathan Barnes - JT Fest - Jake Mannix. Teams? There were teams, I didn’t even know that.

Best Stab – Missie Bird - Editor’s Note: I can believe that.

• Best Austria – Nick Benedict
• Best England – Adam Silverman
• Best France – Jon Saul
• Best Germany – Riaz Virani
• Best Italy – Don Williams
• Best Russia – Doug Moore
• Best Turkey – Missie Bird

Interview: Jim Burgess (JB) interviews World DipCon Champion

YANN CLOUET (YC)

From Diplomacy World #91

JB: I wanted to jump right in and interview Yann fresh off of his victory this past July in Birmingham at ManorCon that crowned him reigning World DipCon Champion! Let’s start off with a brief biography.

YC: I’m sorry, but brief is not a word in my vocabulary ;-). I'm 33 years old. I'm French and I live in Paris. I am an engineer in Telecommunications and work as a consultant in Networks and Security for various French or international companies / administrations. I've been playing Diplomacy since 1993...

JB: OK, and when did you really cement yourself as an international hobby figure?

YC: So we move now to 2001, which was a key year for me. A change of job put me in an extremely favorable condition to travel, since I was working in Luxembourg, and therefore my plane tickets were paid by my company twice a month. So first, that year WDC came back to Paris. The state of the Hobby in France was pretty catastrophic at the time, so I offered a hand to the organization by doing the international marketing of the event and being the contact point for inquiries... Thanks to Xavier Blanchot’s fantastic offer to host all players for free in his hotel, we had 80 foreigners who came for (only!) 40 French players. Very disappointing for us.

JB: But not for us, Xavier Blanchot’s hospitality was incredible and we all had SUCH a wonderful time, but go on.

YC: Thank you. So after WDC I made one step further in the World of organization and decided to start running tournaments on a regular basis, including the French NDC in order to revive the Hobby... I also reached the EDC Top Board in Dublin that year and that Top Board game remains, in my opinion, the best and more interesting game I ever played... The last important fact about 2001 is that after I founded a mailing list for the French Hobby... some players from that list created the Website www.18centres.com, which has been the key element of the rebirth of the French Hobby.

JB: Yes, I want to come back to that in a minute, but why don’t you complete a description of the last three years and your extraordinary tournament success?

YC: 2002 saw my explosion in terms of results. I was still nicknamed Poulidor for my second place finishes, but now I could also win tournaments... I came in second at Euro DipCon (EDC) in Sweden, beaten on the Top Board only on a Tie Breaker by Frank Johansen... But my worst disappointment of that year was WDC in Australia... I ended that game only on 6, and finished 3rd in WDC... I was also voted "Player of the Year" in terms of game performance on the Hobby Awards Ballot.

JB: Indeed, that was a momentous year for you, but I’ll bet that Edi Birsan had something to do with those “bad tactics” in that last round game...

YC: You might be right... The Australian scoring system... really gives a strong emphasis on an alliance rolling the board... So both Edi and I should have gotten a better result in that game.

YC: Anyway in 2003 I got even higher. I think the most noticeable fact about that year is that I've been 4 times "European Champion" the same year :-)... I won EDC on the Top Board in San Marino, the Grand Prix (GP) final ranking by being the only player to win 2 tournaments (EDC + Brussels Cup), and I also won both competitions’ Team Events... Now I had changed status: I was regarded as "deadly when played against" and "completely unacademic and unpredictable"... I finished something like 80th out of 126, a severe jump backward... but I still ended "Best Diplomat". Ray Setzer told me that they wanted to rename the Trophy as "The most Dangerous Man in the World with 2 SC".

JB: And what could be better? You paved the way for your countryman Vincent Carry to walk away with the World DipCon title…. Let’s bring ourselves to the present now.

YC: I didn't imagine I could have a better year. Well, 2004 is hardly half finished, and I already did! That World DipCon title... was just the 4th of a series of 4 tournaments in a row getting "top scores"... With 1 more win after WDC in the first Austrian tournament in 13 years, the defense of the GP is already pretty much secured... But despite all those trophies, what pleases me the most and makes me proud is to see the French Hobby slowly but surely coming back to the Golden Age... I want to concentrate my involvement in the Hobby into dragging more and more players into this fantastic community...

JB: Wow, even more than I had hoped in asking for this interview... How did you get started back in that French Hobby Golden Age year of 1993?

YC: So back in 1993, I started during a period which is still known among the players who were already playing at the time as the Golden Age of the French Hobby. In those years, there was something like 30 tournaments a year in France, the largest of which had almost 200 players... My first tournament was a mere "French Cup", but it had more than 100 players... But I got hooked immediately, met a few people that would later become some friends, and I registered with the fanzine (la Lettre du Diplomate)...

JB: Yes, an inauspicious beginning, but it seemed you learned a lot from that year in the UK, organizing a small group of players. What was it like when you came back to France?

YC: So in 1995, I came back to France, but the situation was very different from 2 years earlier... So among the 4000 phone calls they did, one of them was my number and I learned that there were tournaments again... My status changed at the time from beginner to "regular tournament player who never wins". I became very regular on the podium, second, third ... but never a win... WDC 1995 was another tournament like that, together with my first international convention.

JB: Yes, but you must have a secret for tournament play, how you made the jump, that’s what our readers want to know…. ;-)

YC: In 1996, suddenly I understood something and changed my style. Before, struck by the classic beginner complex, I was always jumping on the strongest player on the board... I changed that and decided that after all, why should I be scared? I would perfectly play WITH that player and still beat him in the race... As a result, I got my first win in a tournament game. And actually I didn’t win only one: I won 5 games out of the next 7 and came second in the other 2 games... that’s where I won my nickname: Poulidor (based on the bicycle rider who came 7 times in second place at the Tour de France but never won it).

Back to the point, my status had changed again: I was now regarded as "very dangerous ... kill him before he moves". So in the following games I started to learn the defense, facing strong opposition in every game... There I discovered that the game was even more fun when you play it with foreigners... Especially the other 2 big hobbies at the time in Europe: those Stabby Swedes & those Lying Brits...

JB: Yes, I know just what you mean, I really do wish more Americans would make these trips and see how much fun they really are...

YC: 1999 saw 2 events that made me change status again. The first one was WDC 1999... I played 4 very good games... I finished best tactician overall at WDC (out of 115 players)... This helped me in breaking the mental barrier I had built for myself... The second event is that this year, the French Hobby experienced another decline... So I had to look somewhere else for my regular dose of Diplomacy...

JB: Ah, ha, we had you and here is where I started to see you on the Internet, isn’t it?

YC: That’s right, so I started playing nopress on the judges (mostly FROG, plus a couple of games on USIN and DEDO) and 1 game with negotiation in the WorldMasters... On the judges, I learned to play "draws" & the unlimited style of game. Believe it or not, but despite playing for 6 years, I had no idea before what a stalemate was. But I learned, and quickly... I achieved a more than 50% ratio of SOLOs on the judge with pretty much every country... In all this time, I gained 2 things: a hugely increased understanding of the game (by playing different scoring systems and different kinds of players), and knowledge of players everywhere (in Diplomacy, information is power).

JB: I just have a few more questions. First, I always take the opportunity of these interviews to nail people down for specific thoughts on the tournament scoring systems. As you say above, you spent a long formative period entirely operating with C-Diplo, but now have been exposed to many others. I assume that you still favor C-Diplo for those dynamics (don’t have time to lock up stalemate lines) and simplicity for beginners and casual players (3.5 hours per round for C-Diplo games!) But could you say a bit more?

YC: Sure. I like this subject! I wrote an article in French about it (here include link: http://www.18centres.com/SPIP3/article.php3?id_article=3). Most people tend to be very dogmatic about scoring systems... A given scoring system will be either “good” (if it fits with the way they have always played) or “bad” (if it doesn’t)...

When thinking scoring systems, two things must be understood. First, scoring systems are all variants of the “pure game” placed as a set-up to allow competition and ranking. The “pure game” says only one thing: there are two results. SOLO, or … non SOLO. So (here I start holding my banner higher) anyone claiming that HIS scoring system is THE pure game is false. And you know I’m saying that especially for draws! This idea that a smaller number of survivors means you are closer to the solo is absurd...

The second key idea... is that a system is a philosophy: it is built around some principles and means to reward a certain style of play... The decision influences the way players will play a lot... like for instance me in WDC 2000 where I was playing C-Diplo style in a draw-oriented game.

JB: Yes, but how do YOU feel??

YC: Now as for personal taste, I don’t like draws because they are based on false principles and, a lot more important, they are NOT beginner friendly... I still tend to prefer the European style scoring systems. But (it might come as a surprise) I think I like squares as much as I like C-Diplo... The good thing about the former is that it rewards more than one style of player!

...As for C-Diplo, it just forces you to really talk a lot with everyone and control what happens everywhere. Underground Diplomacy is the way we call it... Actually it is an art to prepare yourself for that and actually to be in position to do it when the time comes.

JB: I’d also like you to say more about www.18centres.com, especially for the non-French diplomacy hobby. I speak just un peu Francais enough to navigate around the site and see what a wonderful resource it is: 478 active games at the moment (these are all E-Mail games, right?) and articles translated into French from luminaries like Manus Hand and David Cohen. This is an important tool in rebuilding the French hobby, isn’t it?

YC: 478? Well it’s probably because it’s summer and things are getting quiet at the moment 😊. OK, I’m happy you noticed the fantastic job of the Webmasters of this site because what they do is impressive, and their success boils down to 3 things:

• 1) Close contact with the community and a very responsive team, including suggestions of the players and fixing the bugs very quickly
• 2) A very simple interface, ergonomic and nice. I’m pretty sure you don’t need to speak French to use it... Contrary to the other communities you don’t need all those volunteers who would have to volunteer to master a game for the others.
• 3) C-Diplo. They are the only entirely automatic Website to offer C-Diplo kind of games.

...This Website includes its own e-zine in French which I edit: La Gazette (http://www.18centres.com/SPIP3). Rather than publishing “issues” every 1, 2 or 3 months including lots of articles all at once, I have chosen to publish 1 single article, but once per week, all year long, always the same day (Wednesday)...

We currently have around 150 different articles, I’m already pretty happy with my little Library 😊.

JB: And lastly, can you say a little about your first round World DipCon game, which seemed to be the one that set you on your way (results elsewhere in this issue) to the World Championship crown? I note that the dangerous Toby Harris (Germany) also was in that game to your Russia. And you had reigning World Champion Vincent Carry as Austria. So in many ways, this game was the beginning of passing the crown from one Frenchman to another.

YC: Well spotted! Yes, that game not only brought me more than 50% of my points at the end of the day, but it gave me the little “pinch” of (over-?)confidence I needed to do well the rest of the weekend... I had all the cards in hand from the start, all I needed was to play them in the correct order.

...We agreed to quickly deal with Turkey while Toby and Graham jumped on England. I took my share of the English center, and kept good relations with the rest. Then we had a full round of “musical chairs” between Vincent, Toby and me... I managed to catch Toby by surprise... We entered Boh, Tyr, Bal, Sil, Pru... destroying Toby’s chances.

Eventually, I convoyed to England, and made a big stab on Vincent for 3 dots to his complete amazement... and got 52 points instead of 30 or so. Maybe he thought I wouldn’t dare lead the tournament so early.

JB: Toby would have abused him of that idea, given the chance. That’s the Tobymeister’s strategy—take ALL you can now and worry about tomorrow tomorrow. Thanks for being such an EASY interview!!! Are there any last comments you have for the Diplomacy hobby?

YC: My place is open for anyone visiting Paris. Xavier Blanchot’s hotel offers a 50% discount to Diplomacy hobbyists. And to all I’ve stabbed: see, this was not in vain—your center was part of it, a step on the way. 😉

JB: Thanks, Yann!!! This might be my best interview yet, all thanks to you. Would anyone like to volunteer to be interviewed next?? I’m always looking for interesting subjects. E-Mail me at burgess@theworld.com if you’re interested!!!