Rebuttal to the Illyrian Opening

by Edi Birsan

from Diplomacy World #1

In November 1971, Hoosier Archives published the Lepanto Opening which started a mad craze to name and create new valuable openings for the various countries. Following in that tradition, we have had the Baltic Opening, the Ionian Gauntlet, the Churchill Opening and a host of the more popular and classical opening moves. Each one outlines in careful steps the various ways to go about a specific national or personal objective in the best style given a certain set of diplomatic relations.

With the appearance of the Illyrian Opening, we see the craze going past its usefulness and disintegrating to a naming fest.

The diplomatic relations for this opening rested on the early Italian-Austrian alliance in 1901-02 with the agreement that Italy was to use the convoy to Syria or the Lepanto Opening to take doom the Turks. The Italians are convinced that they must stab the Austrian in 1902 (spring) for whatever reason he holds dear to his heart.

The proposed moves were then, Spring 1902: Italy -- F Nap-Ion, F Ion-Adr, A Tun H and A Ven-Tri. It is assumed that Venice will sail unopposed into Trieste.

I hold that this is a less than optimum stab and that the "correct" or maxi-stab would be to substitute: A Tun-Alb, F Ion C A Tun-Alb, A Ven-Tri, F Nap-Apu. This leaves the Italian player in a much stronger tactical position than the suggested moves by Lipton and gives the Italian player an offensive position from which he has the option to make supported attacks against either Serbia or Greece.

These attacks, or potential attacks, on Serbia and Greece give the Italian player greater flexibility in dealing with both Turkey and Russia, a diplomatic position one does not have in the more defensive stance brought on by the move to the Adriatic.

One of the critical things to remember in all stabs, and one can see this in the above example, is that a stab is an offensive move and you must not take a defensive position on the initial thrust if it is to be an effective demoralizing blow. The stab, to be ideal, must hit initially and then continue to threaten and take further centers in the next move to keep the enemy reeling from the blows and forcing him to use a defensive stand rather than a counterattack. This will gain you diplomatic leverage and the elimination of your target. And that’s what a stab is all about anyway.

The Pastiche Opening

By John Torrey

From Diplomacy World #9

Let's say you are Turkey in a brand-new Diplomacy game. Naturally, you've started exchanging letters with Austria, Russia and Italy, but as usual. It is hard to know what to believe. You don't want to commit yourself by attacking Russia on the first move (A Smy-Arm, F Ank-Bla), but you don't think you can trust him either (by moving F Ank-Con). Italy could surprise you with a Lepanto opening, but then again he might have a war with France. You'll probably go for the “normal" opening: A Con-Bul, A Smy-Con, F Ank-Bla.

The idea is to keep your options open and prevent an early disaster from Russia taking the Black Sea. This opening, however, reduces your options by locking that Ankara fleet out of the Aegean and Mediterranean. It is a big reason for the success of the Lepanto, because that fleet just has no access to the weak points Italy will hit first.

The Pastiche opening is designed to repair the flaws in the normal Turkish opening. Your first moves are: A Con-Bul, A Smy H (!), F Ank-Bla. Because that army in Smyrna has not moved, neither Russia nor Austria is directly threatened. Your fall Diplomacy can be conducted in an atmosphere free of stress. In the fall, you can order: A Bul H (or -Rum), F Ank (Bla)-Con, A Smy-Ank (or -Arm). Telling Russia that you'll order the A Bul-Rum (assuming you had bounced in the Black Sea) forces him to support his move to Rumania, thereby leaving the Black Sea vacant. The army in Smyrna moves to Armenia unless Russia is definitely friendly.

Now you have some real options. After the fall moves are published you should have seen enough to know whether to build your fleet in Smyrna -- for a southern campaign or defense-- or in Ankara – for an offensive in Russia. Either way, you'll have two fleets working together, something never possible with the "normal" opening.

The risk -- that Russia and Austria will get together against your unsupported army in Bulgaria--is insignificant, at least in 1901. If Russia is in Rumania, then you are in the Black Sea, if not, then they have no supported attack. After 1901, you should have enough diplomatic bearings to hold your own. Of course, no opening in itself can save you if you have no allies and your neighbors launch a determined attack.

Few powers in Diplomacy have the possibility of choosing a major direction after 1901 while retaining relative freedom from attack. With the Pastiche opening, Turkey can have both.

Breaking Stalemate Lines

By Eric Verheiden

From Diplomacy World #11

While a great deal has been written on the topic of creating and maintaining stalemate lines, relatively little has been published about breaking them, though of course this is of importance for those of us who find ourselves on the winning side once in a while.

Diplomatically, the most important thing is to sow dissension among the ranks. It has been said that when a group of Democrats wants to form a firing squad, the first thing they do is to form a circle. The same is often the case of a group of players trying to form a stalemate line. There is always someone dissatisfied with his position in the scheme of things, someone worried (perhaps justifiably so) about the vulnerability of his position, some budding Napoleon who simply cannot resist the temptation of all those lightly defended supply centers, someone who suddenly decides that now is the time to settle his grudge with player X over 1971DI. These people are asking to be exploited and you should not hesitate to oblige them. Promise them the moon (or, at any rate, a two-way draw) – but don’t move your fleets too far away from the Ionian.

Now to be fair, it is not always that easy to break down the opposition. Smaller alliances make for more stable lines and if the alliance ever gets down to an alliance of one, well then, your work is cut out for you, isn’t it? The thing to do is find the weak link and then to work on that link. The less-experienced player is usually your best bet; he may not yet have acquired the necessary cynicism and incredulity which come only after having been shafted a few times. Better yet, he may still have some quaint ideas about loyalty and honoring agreements and may be amenable to “revenging” himself on an ex-enemy who had the audacity to attack him earlier in the game.

Tactically speaking, the task is simpler. Once the break comes, the first objective should be to make sure that Humpty Dumpty will never be put together again. Taking specific supply centers should, in the early stages, be a means to an end, not an end in itself. For instance, in a typical eastern stalemate running through Italy, the critical space is the Ionian; once it falls, the rest will usually follow. The corresponding space for a western stalemate through Iberia is the Mid-Atlantic. Consequently, if say you have a choice between dislodging a weak enemy army in Rome or crashing your way into the Ionian, in most cases you should choose the latter. This does not mean of course that you should follow up your move into the Ionian with a single fleet attack against a triply-supported Army Smyrna; the idea is to make solid growth for the most part, so that yours will be the last conquest of those areas you do take, not merely one of a continuing series.

Once the line is broken for once and for all (and sometimes even before), the idea is to put the pressure on and keep it on. Casually waiting for your units to be in optimum position before moving is not the way to win Diplomacy games. Rather keep pushing and wait for something to break. Sometimes players become defeatist prematurely; be prepared to take full advantage of that NMR. An indifferent defense will often crumble in the face of a determined attack. Lack of coordination among your opponents can provide unexpected opportunities (I thought you were going to support it).

Finally, just keep in mind your objective; you are not after a gentleman’s draw – sheer greed propels you into demanding and taking it all for yourself. Be prepared to act accordingly.

The Significance of Tactical Competence

By Gary Behnan

From Diplomacy World #13

Throughout the hobby it is a common concept that the prominent emphasis should be bestowed upon your diplomatic endeavors. Admittedly, this is correct. However, competent tactical execution is irrefutably expedient to a “winner’s” strategies.

Numerous articles on play have frequently exemplified the eminence of diplomacy over tactics in singular significance. Inadvertently, these articles have exaggerated the premise that participants in Diplomacy condone the deterioration of competent tactical performance.

Logically, once a player secures his colleagues' trust and cooperation, he desires to transpose their strategy into a tangible tactical form. Obviously, they fancy the most accelerated means to their ends.

The maximum utilization of the minimum force is the dogma of every efficient tactician. This theory is easily applicable to Diplomacy. Invariably, players commandeer their forces inconsequentially, thereby eradicating even the most brilliant diplomatic exhibition. When these tactics are employed by an indigent tactician, the justification is repeatedly cautious play.

The foremost folly of cautious play must be the "hold" order. For the infinitesimal quantity of competent use, it is vastly exercised. There are numerous applications that are all markedly superior.

Should a unit be holding for lack of application, it may be employed to cut a support. For example, the Germans have armies in Holland and Munich, the French an army in Ruhr, and the English a fleet in Belgium. If the Germans attack Ruhr and use Holland as support, it may be cut by ordering F Bel-Hol, thereby permitting French Army Ruhr to retain its position. My examples will be gross simplifications as they adequately convey my intent.

You may decide to attempt a stupendous tactical ploy, the intentional stand-off. I refer to the preceding example; however, Army Holland is now positioned in Kiel. Should you order F Bel to Hol in conjunction with A Kie-Hol, the result amounts to retaining all economic centers as the army in Ruhr cannot slip in behind you nor can he conquer Holland for lack of force. Additionally, it permits you to maintain your present position instead of forcing you into a less advantageous location.

Even if you are beset with isolation, you can still interfere with your opposition's appropriation. By striking out into a province, you may suppress an attempt to attain this province and consequently detain your aggressor.

If indeed your unit must retain its present province, then instead of sitting idly, you can use it for supporting actions. For example, if we had a French army in Belgium and a fleet in the North Sea opposing a German army in Kiel, you may support F Nth-Hol, thereby allowing you to conquer Holland where otherwise you would have been stood-off.

Another application would be to promote goodwill through support. Again, I allude to the Belgian sector; however, the nationality of the fleet is altered to that of the English. By ordering A Bel S GA Kiel-Hol you would not only obtain German appreciation, but you may lay a foundation for diplomatic negotiations that were previously refused or neglected.

Finally, you can employ your unit to disrupt or interfere with a stand-off. I again allude to the Belgian sector, example two. Should the enemy order F Nth-Hol in unison with A Kie-Hol by supporting one or the other, you will open one of the provinces and/or alter economic center ownership, thereby forcing a disbandment.

Another aspect of cautious play is its totally inefficient manipulation of forces, best exemplified by the massive support of one assault, where an efficiently executed thrust would have obtained strategical instead of tactical success.

Usually cautious play is associated with the idea that diplomatic prowess overcomes tactical incompetence. This ideology frequently results in a stab and the player becomes angered. Actually, the fallible play rests on the stabbed party however, armed with his warped ideology so that he is blind to his own fault.

There are those who advocate that cautious play and its associated ideology can surmount all tactical obstacles. If anyone is contemplating this self-deception, you should realize that it repeatedly results in stab and/or stalemate positions.

In this article, I aspired to enlighten players to the significance of competent tactical execution. Habitually, the emphasis is so disproportionately allocated that the necessity of diplomatic and tactical coordination are either neglected or ignored.

ITALY & AUSTRIA

by Robert Sacks

From Diplomacy World #20

I have recently read in DW (Issue 19) how Italy will attack Austria because attacking France is hopeless. If it is so difficult for Italy to fight France when Italy wants to, how much more difficult is it for Italy to defend against France (or England, or whoever takes France out) when the fleets come barreling down from Gibraltar? Clearly an Italy engaged in plundering Austria and fighting Russia and Turkey (or perhaps only one of them) is in a poor position to defend itself from the west.

I also read how the veteran Italy would casually negotiate with everyone. Perhaps this is true, but the most effective Italy I remember from a face-to-face game sat in the corner and cried. It was a game organized at a summer mini-con: Italy knew no one, Austria and France were married and immediately went off to negotiate, and the other four were members of the host organization. So when the orders were all ready Russia suggested that Austria read first, and after Austria, Italy and France had read, made the mysterious (to them) remark that Italy would survive. It seems that France and Austria had neglected to do any other negotiating, so Russia had agreed with Turkey to take out Austria, and agreed not to attack Germany or England to allow them to take out France. When the game was called, Italy, England, Russia and Turkey were the surviving players. (I remember that game fondly – I was Russia.)

Another platitude invoked was how Italy couldn’t help Austria in the east, and so failing an attack on France had to attack Austria. This of course contradicts the experience of the Italo-Austrian alliance against Turkey, which has proven successful in various games. It is my personal experience that Italian armies can be quite effective moving through Tyrolia, Bohemia, Silesia and Galacia to fight Germany or Russia or both. Assuming that France has been neutralized by a short-term truce or treaty, after the obligatory conquest of Tunis or Greece, the use of three or four Italian units as Austrian auxiliaries will introduce an unexpected shift in the traditional balance of power in the east.

Robert Sacks is a long-time player of face-to-face Diplomacy and other diplomatic games who has served as Diplomacy Tournament Manager at the first three M.I.T WinterCons and has most recently concentrated his efforts as a gamesmaster in five different magazines.

How to Lie Diplomatically

by Dave White

From Diplomacy World #21

I'm sure that everyone who reads DIPLOMACY WORLD knows how to lie (a very significant statement about the readership!), so what is the point of this article? Remember when you were little and you used to do bad things, things that you knew you were going to get punished for? Remember how you used to lie and blame those things on your brother, sister, or dog? Don’t lie, now! Remember the story about the little boy who cried, "Wolf!" The point of this article is to explain how to be a discriminating liar.

What makes Diplomacy the game that it is is the section in the rules about diplomacy. "The rules do not bind a player to anything he says....” Quite a number of people I have played, both face-to-face and postally, take this to mean that you are supposed to lie at every available opportunity. While technically this is true, it's not too smart. Usually, this tactic of lying all the time is successful on a limited basis the first time that it's used, but, alas, the end result is the same as for the little boy who cried "Wolf!" This is disastrous in Diplomacy because opponents will either listen to you and then ignore everything you have said as they write their moves, or they will simply ignore you altogether rather than risk believing the line of crap they know you're going to dish out. I guarantee that once you acquire a reputation as a liar, it will take you ten times as long to get rid of it than it did to gain it.

How do you get rid of a reputation as a liar? Well, first you try not to acquire one in the first place! Failing that, you must go against the grain of your very fiber and (God forbid!) TELL THE TRUTH! I know that it will be tough, but believe me (yes, I know this article deals with lying, therefore you should NOT believe me), it will be worth it. I recall a face-to-face game where I was playing Austria. A fellow whom I introduced to the game several months earlier, and whom I'd stabbed on numerous occasions, was playing Russia. He took off for Turkey, while I discouraged Italy enough that he left early, giving me the simple task of restoring order to that poor country with my troops. Russia and I then entered into an agreement to divide the Balkans evenly while he headed for Scandinavia and I headed for Germany and France.

For three interminable years I kept every agreement I made with him, even when he didn't. Even though we had a non-aggression pact, I still had units lined up along the border as he eventually got further and further strung out. Patiently, I bided my time, and struck like a coiled rattlesnake when he was most vulnerable, breaking all of our agreements in one move. Even then, he said he wasn't mad at me; he said that he would have done the same thing in my position. Before all of this happened, though, I suffered through about five games where no one talked to me. In fact, they headed straight for me on the very first move, stabbing me before I had the chance to stab. I am still healing from some of those stab wounds.

Just as there's more than one way to "skin a cat," there is more than one way to lie. Of course, there is out-and-out fabrication, but I have found this to be the least effective method for two reasons: One, you have to make sure that your lie is plausible, which is sometimes difficult; and Two, all future statements have to coincide with your original fabrication to avoid its detection. So what other options are available?

One of my favorites is simply to withhold information that would be detrimental to me if revealed to another player, or which would help another player. For example, you are Austria. It is Spring 1901. You get a letter from Germany that says he plans to move F Kie-Den and then bump Russia in Sweden in the Fall. Russia and Austria agree to non-aggression, but you don’t trust Russia. Russia asks you point-blank, "What is Germany going to do?" You know, or think you know, what Germany is up to, but you simply sidestep the issue and say that all you discussed with him was non-aggression, saying nothing about F Kie-Den. Too many times, though, I have seen novices pass along everything verbatim to everybody, only to ponder too late about lack of security.

Another favorite ploy is the "misdirection," the principle here being to direct an opponent's attention elsewhere to either set up a stab or free you to pursue other activities. For example, you are France in Spring 1901. You have negotiated non-aggression with Germany. Even so, you know that he is greedy as hell and has his eyes on Belgium. Here, you tell him that you have indications that Italy might head into Tyrolia to go for Trieste and simply point out that an open Munich would be tempting.

This is not really a lying technique, but it is a deceptive and effective one. The only way you can get someone to do something for you is because he wants to. Make him an offer he can’t refuse! Use logic to explain why your proposal is in his best interest, because of gaining a supply center or an advantageous position. Offer your services for free; then, later on, you’ll be able to ask for his help, and he will remember gratefully how you helped him earlier.

One last tactic for deceiving opponents: TELL THE TRUTH! Did he say what I thought he said? Yes, you heard right. Oftentimes, truth is indeed stranger than fiction. Why lie if "the truth” is so bizarre that no one will believe it anyway? Besides, the more you tell your colleagues the truth, the more they will expect it out of you. It’s just like rocking a baby to sleep. They’ll think, “he has told the truth so far, he’ll most likely tell the truth again."

And then… GOTCHA!

Whatever you do, use your deception sparingly; it will be much more effective. When you lie, do it with conviction; put enthusiasm into it until you believe it yourself. Cover your tracks by being nebulous about your sources. That way, you can blame someone else for any misunderstandings that may arise.

This is by no means a complete list of deceptive practices that you can employ, but only a few of my personal favorites. Try them; they may add a new dimension to your game. Trust me! Have I ever lied to you?

The Livonian Lunacy: F StP(sc)-Lvn

By Mark Berch

Originally appearing in Diplomacy World #27

That’s right, I said F StP(sc)-Lvn. Madness you say? Perhaps, perhaps not.

The situation here is that you are virtually certain that Germany will stand you out of Sweden. Ideally, you also think that Germany will not do A Ber-Kie (perhaps A Ber-Sil), though this is not essential.

In the usual situation, F Bot and F Den eye each other nervously after Spring 1901. You can do one of two things. You can go for Sweden anyway, hoping for the best. But if he does F Den-Swe, you’ve allowed Germany double use of his fleet – for taking Denmark and standing you out of Sweden. Or you could do F Bot-Bal. That’s terrible for Germany, but unless Germany has serious problems elsewhere (unlikely if Germany is both a good player and, as above, virtually certain to go to Sweden) it probably won’t get you a supply center. The usual course is to threaten to go to Bal, either in Fall 1901 if firm promises are not tendered, or Spring 1902 if the standoff does occur. The problem is that the Spring 1902 move is easily blocked if a new fleet is raised, and credible. The move is rarely done. From Germany’s point of view it’s not realistic to do F Den-Baltic. F Bot-Swe is too tempting a choice for most Russians to pass up, he says to himself. And if F Den-Bal succeeds, I lose Den and Russia gets Sweden. So the odds are high that Germany will ignore the Fall 1901 Baltic threat, and will be prepared for it in Spring 1902.

But Livonia changes all of that. If you tell Germany that you will move F Lvn-Bal, he will pretty much have to believe you. What else could you have had in mind? Unlike F Bot, there is no other tempting choice. If your move is blocked, then again Sweden is open. If it isn’t blocked, then you are in Bal, much the same as the F Bot-Bal situation. The fun begins if he moves to the Baltic and you don’t. Then he’s not gained Denmark and if you went back to Bot, German F Bal may be out of the picture Sweden-wise, as he still needs to take Denmark. This move is particularly effective if you can couple it with A Mos-Stp-Fin in 1901. Anyway, the point is that if you want to use the Fall 1901 Baltic threat to keep Germany out of Sweden, then F Lvn-Bal is much more believable than F Bot-Bal.

Alternatively, you can do it to be the first to do it (or at least say you are the first to do it). You’ll certainly make the GM’s headline a lot easier to write!

Guest Editorial: Before You Lower the Boom

By Mark L. Berch

From Diplomacy World #31

Conflict and controversy have been an integral part of the Postal Diplomacy Hobby almost from the very start. By and large, this has contributed a great deal to the hobby. The changes made in the 1971 Rulebook were largely a product of extensive debates in the mid and late 60s over flaws in the 1961 Rulebook. Arguments have raged over how strict a GM should be; the relative merits of Florida, California, Texas, and Wisconsin oranges; scoring systems for Tournaments; the Vietnam War; “Strong Second" versus "Win Only" playing styles; and dozens of other topics. These have added a vital liveliness to dipzines, and have created interactions between people beyond just playing games.

But all too often, these discussions have taken a nasty turn. Criticism becomes destructive, language becomes vituperative, and such bad feelings are generated that people have quit the hobby in disgust. This seems to happen much more often in the hobby than in the “real" world. Why? I have some perspective on this, both as a dispensor and a recipient of criticism. On occasion I have tried to mediate, to undo some of the damage that occurs when arguments have turned very sour. And in reading through hundreds of old 'zines in my archives, I've observed many arguments flare up, some constructive, some destructive. I've come to the conclusion that there are certain dynamics which are responsible for a great deal of unnecessary hard feelings.

1. The Unspoken Difference

We are all familiar with the give and take of spoken criticism in the “real world". Frequently, people assume that this process works pretty much the same in the printed world of the hobby. There are, however, important differences, and when people ignore them, or are unaware of them, they usually run into trouble.

The first is the repetition factor. If you say something once, it hangs in the air for a fraction of a second, and then it's gone. It lasts only in memory. But if you say it in print, it just sits there staring at everyone. Each time the target picks up your comments, he sees those same words aimed at him again. And again. And again.

Written sentences are often more ambiguous than spoken ones. In speech, the tone of voice, which words are emphasized, and facial and body gestures all can turn something intrinsically ambiguous into something fairly clear. But in writing, we have only punctuation and underscoring … a much more limited type of vocabulary and often ambiguous in its own right.

Third is the size of the audience. Most spoken criticism occurs when the speaker is one-on-one with the target, or in a small group. Criticism in a 'zine is akin to standing in front of a room or auditorium full of people. And that room may contain "reporters" (other 'zine pubbers) to spread the word further. In conversation, the target is likely to know most or all of those hearing the criticism, and can address them directly if need be. But criticism in a 'zine reaches a lot of "strangers".

Perhaps most important of all is the ability to react immediately to feedback. Suppose you say something, and you see the target is, perhaps unexpectedly, taking it very poorly. You have a number of options you can deploy immediately. You can take it back right away, before he has a chance to get really mad. You can defend it, explaining what you mean. You can claim you misspoke. You can modify it. You can make a joke out of it. You can belittle it (e.g., "Yes, and not only are you a fool, but I'm a bigger fool!") You can rephrase it. In short, in speech, you have a variety of ways of immediately reshaping what you've just said to take into consideration how the target has reacted, if you so desire. Not so with print. Once it's out, it's immutable: Any action from you is a month or so off, far too long to modify what you’ve said effectively, in most cases.

There are other differences, but these are the ones which, as far as I can see, get people into the most trouble when they assume that spoken and written criticisms operate the same. The bottom line here is that written criticism requires much more care in how it is worded.

2. All Rules Are Off!

We all know how we want to be criticized. We naturally want to receive a copy promptly, so we know what is being said about us, regardless of whether we want to respond. We want the accuser to avoid abusive language. And we want the right to reply in that 'zine. Yet, all too often, when a attacks B, A gets so mad at B, or decides that B’s behavior is so despicable, that he decides that B is not entitled to the protection of some or all of these rules. Time and time again, I have seen publishers say that certain people are not entitled to copies of an attack (because “it won’t do any good” or some such rationalization), or use the kind of language that they would resent being used against them.

3. Penchant for Paraphrase

In my opinion, (which I'll admit is not universally shared) the best way to begin a criticism of someone’s position is to quote exactly what it is they have said on the topic. Yet, more often than not, people resort to paraphrase. The great majority of paraphrasings I've seen involve significant changes. I'm sure in most cases the changes are not deliberate. But it is all too easy to read into what was written something beyond what was really said: the implication that you think is obvious, but he didn’t actually say; the premise that he surely must have “assumed”. If you want to point out the implications, or the hidden premises of what was said, fine, but label them as such – don’t paraphrase things so as to make it sound as if he actually said those things. Other times, people paraphrase things to simplify what was said. But such a simplification often erases a distinction which was very important – even though it may, in your opinion, but [sic. “be” – Ed.] a distinction without a difference. And people, when they paraphrase, often add an edge, a sharpness, to the comment. They turn a criticism of a person's ideas into a criticism of the person himself. Although paraphrasing is quite common, the dangers in doing this should not be minimized. I can say that personally, nothing irritates me more than opening a Dipzine and finding attributed to myself a position I've never taken.

4. The Private Contact

If a dispute is not public, the decision to “go public” is not one to be made lightly. In most cases, a vigorous attempt should be made to resolve the issue privately. Public discussion tends to harden one’s positions, as few want to be seen publicly backing down. This is a particular problem for publishers themselves. They are in a sense cursed by their easy access to the public. They can dash off an angry editorial and – whammo – 50 or 100 people hear about it in 3 days. The distinction between a private letter and one's 'zine tends to blur for Pubbers, since the 'zine is often used in place of personal letters. But if you are actually trying to change someone’s mind about something (as opposed to making a public defense of something you've done, or as opposed to trying to expose somebody's malfeasance), the private letter has a much better chance than a public one.

5. Write Not in Anger

There is an old Chinese proverb: "Never write a letter when you are angry." Many people do not believe this, and believe that the white heat of anger is the best time to write. In this way, the recipient will get their "true" feelings. This is usually true. But it ignores the fact that for most people, when the blood is pounding, they just aren't going to be as cogent. In this condition, you are going to overstate the case, or use language so harsh as to be counterproductive, and the only “solution” you are likely to present is one where the other guy capitulates completely. In such a state you are unlikely to be able to leaven your arguments with any humor (except the most sardonic or bitter). What you say is going to reflect more how you reacted to what he said than what he actually did say. So before you respond, wait a few hours or even days. This point is also applicable to game correspondence. There are of course hard feelings that arise inadvertently, when you were just trying to be funny but somebody didn’t see it that way … but that’s another topic.

I must emphasize that most arguments do not fall into any of the above traps, but far too many do. No one (myself included) is immune. And if one of these problems does occur, it is likely the argument will turn much less productive, or hard feelings will result.

Finally, the above is strictly my own opinion. There are those who feel that differences should never be aired in Dipzines, and those who feel that a bloody scrap is just fine. But for the rest of you there are things to remember before you lower the boom.

Gestalt Diplomacy

by Elkin C. O'G. Darrow

Originally appearing in the “Diplomacy World After 40” Issue

This article concerns a major barrier to the best diplomacy in Diplomacy. Most players (if not nearly all of them) seem to develop a sort of tunnel vision. They narrow their concerns to the portions of the board nearest them. Articles on the game in Diplomacy World and elsewhere tend to encourage this narrow viewpoint by concentrating on military-tactical considerations, such as openings. These are entirely useful things, but we need to consider more thoroughly how our diplomacy early in the game will influence our own later progress.

Diplomacy is, or should be, a gestalt game. Every portion of the board is equally important to each player at all times. Most players ignore that fact; or they may even feel the statement is not really true. Even players who recognize may not be able to act on it. When Diplomacy is played in-person, time constraints mitigate against elaborate or sophisticated planning and negotiations. The tunnel vision is forced, and a player must see first to his own immediate survival and growth. In fact, long-range planning may be a dangerous boomerang in over-the-board play. For instance, if France is seen negotiating with Russia, that will fan the flames of suspicion in England and Germany, even if France's objective is only to get Russia to attack Turkey (in the hope of eliminating a major Mediterranean rival in the mid-game situation).

By-mail games are not so subject to the disadvantages of limited time and misinterpretations based on who's talking with whom. It is toward these games that my remarks are primarily directed.

I begin by discussing the general proposition already stated: that every portion of the board is equally important to every player. The initial strategy of a player necessarily implies a choice of follow-on strategies. Let's say, for instance, that England’s first objective is to eliminate France in alliance with Germany. The implied choice of follow-on strategies would revolve around Germany, then. One---continued alliance; support of Germany against Russia and a major thrust beyond France into the Mediterranean. Two---an attack on Germany, probably in alliance with Russia.

I will agree with anyone who says that setting a future plan in cement is foolish. One needs to be flexible and change even overall strategy to fit the flux and tide of a game situation. However, that is not to say one shouldn't have any future plans at all. In the circumstance of England as described above, the player should have a good idea what his choice is likely to be...and should act on that probable choice.

Let's say the choice is continuing the alliance with Germany. What should England think about right off? That Mediterranean thrust, of course! The history of postal games suggests that England's most deadly competitor in that area is likely to be Turkey. In terms of this tentative strategic plan, therefore, it is important to weaken Turkey; which in turn means convincing Russia (most of all), Austria, and/or Italy to attack Turkey. Immediately, right at the beginning of the game, England's attention is (or should be) drawn to the exact opposite corner of the board, as far away from the home islands as it can get. It is precisely this far-away corner that is inevitably vital to English diplomacy. If England needs a strong Russia to create an easy mid-game target, then Turkey is again an important consideration. From England's point of view, there is really no evading the question of Turkey; and if that is true of England, how much more must it be true of the other Great Powers, none of whom is any further away? Conversely, if Turkey is that crucial, how much more crucial must be all the other Powers, each of which is closer to England than Turkey is.

This is the gestalt of Diplomacy. All the Great Powers' actions are important to the deep plans of each player. Contacts and understandings with even the most distant other Powers are vital as the game progresses; and success in the end-game may very well depend on one's words and deeds in the beginning.

Now, gentle (ha!) reader, you are no doubt saying to yourself (or ought to be), "That's all very well, but what do I say?" Aye, there's the rub. You probably can't use that ultimate bar bon mot, "Do you come here often?" (Well, it might work at a convention...). Many gambits and devices will no doubt occur to the fertile imagination, the devious mind. I can suggest a few, anyway, to get the creative juices flowing.

1. Getting to Know You

Even if you can conceive of nothing specifically related to the game itself to discuss, there is nothing wrong with a friendly, chatty correspondence. An atmosphere of camaraderie may net some important diplomatic concessions later on. Assumed friendship can cloud many an astute diplomatic mind, not to mention a lot of rather foolish ones; check out Woodrow Wilson some time.

2. Do You Hear What I Hear?

Asking a given player about other players often elicits some very interesting responses. You might ask about a move that player made: "Italy's move to Tyrolia really surprised me. What do you suppose he's up to?" Or you might make a statement about something you know: "Have you heard from Russia? I've written him twice but no reply." (This need not be true, of course; it's probably better if it isn't). Or, "Has France been bugging you about Russia? He's really egging me to go after St. Petersburg." (This too is better off untrue; the last thing you want to give Turkey is any information that is really useful.) If you can get a dialogue going with Turkey, trading chitchat and tidbits about the game, this makes you his confidant. He might ultimately volunteer some really important information...or in the end he may let you gain diplomatic advantage. That is, unless he is playing you for a sucker, too.

3. Help!

Asking for advice is another good way to build camaraderie and also to learn things to your advantage. England could, for instance, write to Turkey to ask advice as to whether he should ally. He'd need some excuse; oh, like, "He's made a very attractive offer, but I keep getting this feeling I shouldn't trust him. What do you think?!" If Turkey's advice falls in with the plans England has already made, so much the better. In a while, Turkey might even get the impression England is his puppet…which will make England, in the end, all the more dangerous. If Turkey's advice is not what England proposes to do, he can always praise Turkey and peg his actual actions on something Turkey said which put the problem in a while new perspective. England will have to be damn creative but, heck, isn’t that what's Diplomacy all about? If every player in the game thinks you are hanging on every word of their sage advice, they will be that much more reluctant to attack you. Ego-massaging is great diplomacy!

4. Shall We Dance?

Offering a distant player a long-term late-in-the-game alliance is always a ploy to consider. This is a far more committing stance. The others above are relatively neutral, although emotionally binding diplomatic ploys, but if you make specific proposals you will be under some constraint to live up to them (especially if your bluff is called too early in the game). Your best bet, if possible, is to suggest an alliance without going into specifics; reach an understanding without definite commitment.

Exactly how you deal with distant players will depend on your assessment of them, and on your creative imagination. But it is vital that you must deal with them, the sooner the better. The diplomacy of Diplomacy should never be purely a local matter.

The Out-Come Oriented Approach, or

"If I had known you had wanted to win, we could have done something about it!"

by Tom Hurst

From Diplomacy World #42

In my last article, I indicated that players approach the game of Diplomacy from three different directions, outcome-oriented, process-oriented, and other-oriented. In this article, I will examine the first of these approaches, the outcome-oriented.

The outcome-oriented approach is the realm of those players who are most concerned with the ultimate outcome of the game. They concern themselves little with how they got there, or why they played in the first place. Members of this group can be divided into four sub-groups:

The Emperor

The Emperor is the player who, like Napoleon, goes all out to conquer the world. To him, there can be no substitute for first place, as anything other than this is considered losing. In order to win, a player of this type will stop at nothing.

An Emperor’s playing style is characterized by the offer of one-sided deals benefitting himself most. Alliances are dropped just as soon as they can no longer benefit the Emperor, usually for an alliance that allows him to rip off his former partner. A true Machiavellian, the Emperor doesn't care who he's with or what he does, just as long as he comes out on top.

Surprisingly, the Emperor rarely has need to lie to anyone, as his "What's in it for me?" attitude puts everyone on notice that everyone is his friend for just as long as they help him toward his win, and not one second longer! Unfortunately, he is disappointed often, and usually ends up surly and a burnout before too long.

The Henchman

The Henchman is the second sub-type of the outcome-oriented approach. This is the type of player that believes that Diplomacy is a team sport. If he finds another Henchman on his side of the board, watch out! They will form an immediate alliance which they will stick to through thick and thin, and use the combined forces of their countries like a single superpower in an attempt to sweep the board! Never will there be even the remotest possibility of a Henchman stabbing his ally. The Henchman's ultimate goal is a draw with his ally.

A Henchman's playing style is characterized by a game-long plan for domination of the board with his ally. Any and all offers from other than his primary ally will be accepted for only so long as they fit into that master plan. A Henchman rarely writes to anyone other than his primary ally, unless it is to convince others of something that would benefit the alliance. The Henchman can and will lie often, except to his partner in crime.

An interesting sidelight is what happens if a Henchman forms an alliance with what he thinks is another of the same ilk, but is actually a closet Emperor. When the Emperor finally stabs him and takes the win all by himself, the Henchman’s screams can be heard throughout the hobby. Often, the Henchman then plots revenge by stabbing his partner back in any other game they might be in together (a process known as cross-gaming), and blackening his partner's name by telling everyone he has contact with about how "untrustworthy" he was. Be very careful when allying with a Henchman. They are very clannish. Once you stab one, rest assured you will never ally with one again!

The Survivalist

The Survivalist is the type of person that never walks out of a basketball game before the end, even if the home team is losing by 70 points! "By God, I've paid for the ticket, and I'm going to get my money's worth!" That's his philosophy. He believes that the yardstick of good play in Diplomacy is not whether one wins or draws, but whether he can keep from losing, losing being defined as being wiped out. To this end he will use any tactic.

The Survivalist never actually starts a game believing that he won't win or draw. However, his dread of being wiped out leads him to make friends with everybody, stifling his growth because he won't attack anybody. He thus usually never grows much beyond his original strength, save for a neutral or two snagged in 1901. When his weak sister status is taken advantage of later on by the remaining powers, the Survivalist will go to any lengths to avoid being wiped out. Whining, groveling, and boot-licking then becomes a way of life for this character. This is the type of player the word "toady" was coined to describe.

If the Survivalist manages to convince his attackers to let him live on until the end of the game, even with only one center, he will feel that he has accomplished a great feat of negotiation. No matter that he had no influence on the game from the first turn. He will then bore the socks off anyone who cares to listen, telling them just how well he played.

The Scavenger

The Scavenger is the person that would have you believe that second place is good enough. After all, doesn't that mean that you were better than five other players? At heart, the Scavenger is an Emperor that doesn't like to make an enemy, or at least make an enemy that can fight back.

A Scavenger doesn’t actually begin the game working for second place. He is perfectly willing to take a win if it is presented to him on a silver platter! Failing in this, however, he starts the game much like a Survivalist, keeping his head down and not becoming a target. Unlike the Survivalist, though, he will grab a center here and there, usually from the backsides of the targets of other alliances, most times under the guise of "helping prevent them from sweeping the board." At the same time, the Scavenger is negotiating with that same alliance, "helping" them take this guy out so that they can go on to bigger and better things. After all, it does not pay to make an enemy that can hurt you!

The end of the game usually takes a Scavenger by surprise, as a player who doesn't mind making an enemy takes his last one out for the win, leaving the Scavenger a center or two from winning himself. The Scavenger then tries to convince everybody that second place was what he was after all along, If this happens often enough, he may even start to believe it himself!

In Closing

The outcome-oriented approach is the realm of those players who are primarily interested in how the game turns out. However, this is not the only way to approach a game of Diplomacy. Some players are more concerned with how the game is played than with its outcome. These players will be the subject of the next article in this series.

Until then, Ciao!

Unorthodox Openings #9: The Syrian Sidestep

by Mark Berch

From Diplomacy World #47

In the game of Diplomacy, we often speak of openings that lead to good positions, but we rarely hear much about "sidesteps" – moves that go against the typical play, yet can be surprisingly effective if done at the right time and with the right tactical support. The Syrian Sidestep is one such opening. It’s an unconventional and often unexpected strategy for Italy, and while it may seem risky, it offers some interesting opportunities if you know how to execute it well.

The basic concept behind the Syrian Sidestep is to delay Italy's natural expansion into the Balkans or Austria, and instead focus on helping Turkey against Russia. This is a departure from the traditional Italian opening, which often includes early engagements with France or Austria, or a quick move against Turkey. By sidestepping into Syria and aiding Turkey, Italy can create a situation where Russia is left fighting on multiple fronts, and Italy can remain relatively unscathed, at least for the early part of the game.

The Opening Moves

In Spring 1901, you would begin with:

• F Naples to Ionian Sea (This is standard, setting up the fleet for later Mediterranean operations.)
• A Venice to Tyrolia (Moves to support later offensives against Austria or Germany.)
• A Rome to Tunis (A typical Italian opening move to secure a strong foothold in North Africa.)

Now here’s where the Sidestep comes in:

• F Naples to Ionian Sea (again, moving to the Mediterranean, but not pushing for Greece or Turkey yet.)
• A Rome to Syria (This is the crucial move. Instead of an immediate attack on Austria, or moving towards Turkey directly, you move your army to Syria.)

Why This Works

At first glance, this opening may look counterintuitive. After all, Italy’s position on the board traditionally encourages an early move into either the Balkans or Turkey. But by making the unexpected move into Syria, Italy offers its diplomatic services to Turkey. This throws Russia off balance as it will expect a standard Italy, but instead finds Italy complicating things in the East.

In a typical game, Russia might not be prepared for this type of Italian move. At best, this will divert Russia's attention from Italy’s position, and at worst, it will force Russia to focus more heavily on a Turkish front, thereby giving Italy the breathing room needed to maneuver in the Mediterranean or strike against Austria. The end goal is to be positioned such that you are part of a robust alliance system in the East, allowing you to grow without immediate threats from both the West and East.

Long-Term Strategy

The Syrian Sidestep works best if you have a long-term strategy in place. It’s not just about making one good move – it’s about creating an environment in which your future moves have more flexibility. You need to secure a strong diplomatic position, ideally with Turkey as a potential ally, but also with France and Austria, who will now be a bit confused by your lack of early engagement in the West.

By the time you’ve secured Tunisia and are positioned in Syria, you will have some solid footholds from which you can challenge Austria or move into the Mediterranean. Depending on the state of the board, you can pivot to support Turkey in the East, or even take advantage of a weakened France if your diplomacy has been successful. This flexibility allows you to choose the most advantageous path as the game progresses.

Risks of the Sidestep

Of course, this strategy comes with risks. The first risk is that you might anger Austria or France by appearing to be non-committal or even untrustworthy. Secondly, you might fail to secure Turkey’s trust, which could leave you exposed to a counter-attack. If Russia sees this as an opportunity to gain influence in the Mediterranean and pushes for Greece or Bulgaria, you could be caught in a two-front war. Finally, if your moves are perceived as "out of sync," your other neighbors might turn on you, sensing that you’re too unpredictable to form a stable alliance.

Thus, you must be careful with your diplomacy. Your opening moves will tell your opponents how you intend to play, so make sure your actions match your intentions. The Syrian Sidestep works best when you use it to surprise and outmaneuver your opponents, rather than just for the sake of playing differently.

Conclusion

While the Syrian Sidestep isn’t the most common opening strategy for Italy, it can certainly catch your opponents off guard if used in the right context. By delaying your direct engagement with Austria or Turkey and focusing on Syria, you can carve out a more flexible position that will allow you to adjust as the game unfolds. As with all unconventional strategies, the key to success lies in your ability to adapt and react to the shifting diplomatic landscape. If you can do that, the Syrian Sidestep may just be the opening you need to secure a strong position in the game.

Kathy’s Kountry

by General John McCausland

From Diplomacy World #51

Italy is the least understood of all the Great Powers in Diplomacy. There are several reasons for this. The greatest is that Italy is neither in the eastern nor the western part of the map, but some place in between. It looks like she should be a sea power since its land mass extends out into the Mediterranean, but Italy still starts with only one fleet and two armies. Historically, Italy has always been a weak sister in Europe, and people tend to forget that this is not history.

While there are many reasons for Italy being ranked only sixth in the Dragons Tooth Rating System (only above lowly Austria), there are several players that manage to do well with Italy every time that they play it. The most well known of these is Kathy Byrne Caruso, who has such a good reputation as Italy that a variant called “The Five Italies" is subtitled "Kathy’s Variant." While Kathy gets most of the hype, there are other players who have a lot of success with Italy. The major reason for their success is that they tend to be "go-getters,” rather than “wait-and-see" players. They have also realized that Italy has more options available to them than any other country on the board.

The major psychological factor that holds back most people when they play Italy is the historical record. However, it must be realized that history is not repeated in this game. Italy has full control of the Mediterranean at the beginning of the game. All the British fleets are gone (and will not appear for a long time, if ever), the French are only in the Atlantic, and Austria, Russia, and Turkey are locked in backwater areas. Italy has free reign to move her sea power wherever she wishes.

The location of Italy bothers many players. Should they be concerned with what happens in the east or the west? Who should they attack? While this does present a perplexing problem, it is also a blessing. Italy is the only country on the board that can attack every other power. How is this possible? Let me show you.

Attack Strategies

An Italian attack on Austria is the most obvious first opponent. However, this is usually the worst thing that Italy could do. Austria serves as a wonderful buffer between Russia and usually draws most of Turkey’s attention as well. If Russia and Turkey are concentrating on Austria, they have usually forgotten about Italy. This allows more freedom of movement, plus Austria is usually willing to give support when faced with a Russian/Turkish alliance. The only hope to prevent this is to arrange with Russia for a combined attack on Turkey once Austria has been eliminated.

France is a good target in the early part of the game. She can be attacked by both land and sea. There are two good potential allies in England and Germany, neither of which can threaten you very much. The major problem is that France should pick up at least two new centers in the first year, and so she may be difficult to defeat, and impossible if none of the proposed alliances materialize. An advantage to this scenario is that it gives Italy an entrance into the Atlantic.

Turkey is probably the best target for the Italians in the first year. There are many reasons for this. First, they are your major threat to supremacy in the Mediterranean. Only Turkey can build two Mediterranean fleets in one season. Secondly, you can attack their vulnerable southern areas by sea; while the Russians and Austrians take the more difficult land and Black Sea approaches. Thirdly, you can bottle up the Russian fleets in the Black Sea and start to surround Austria for a mid-game stab. An attack on Turkey also means that once you finish that campaign, your new builds are close to the new front; whether that is in Austria or France; while the units in Turkey can finish mopping up or hit Austria from the other side.

England is not an obvious opponent, but it has been done with great success. The goal here is not so much to defeat England, but rather to treat this as a side show to pick up a few extra centers while your main campaign occurs in the eastern area as was described above. This can only be performed with French help, but if they agree, Italy usually gets more than they put into it. It also has the added advantage that when the time is right (about the time the eastern campaign is finishing up), you are now positioned on two sides of France.

Germany is a popular enemy for novices when they play Italy. It does not look like an obvious enemy, but yet Munich is only two moves away and can therefore be captured in the first year. Novices tend to think that a move to Tyrolia looks like an attack on Austria and that the Germans will ignore that unit. Usually they do, Italy moves more units north to help retain and expand their holdings, leaving very little at home. Austria and France then close in, and an army in Berlin may be the last Italian center. A second, though less popular scenario, is a 1901 capture of Munich and then a three-pronged attack on France (from the sea, and from the land via Piedmont and Munich). These attacks must be carried out with care, else too many units end up too far away from home to help out in case of a stab.

Russia is the most difficult country for the Italian player to attack. It can only be attempted with a very trustworthy and reliable Austrian ally. Since it takes such a long time for Italian armies to reach Russian soil, and fleets are useless, there must be a second opponent. This is usually Turkey, since Austria may be convinced to join in. An attack on France would be suicidal since your armies are heading north and not in position to thwart French land attacks. If the campaign is successful, Russia and Turkey should be eliminated while you are now positioned on three sides of Austria.

Conclusion

As you can see, there are many options for an adventurous Italian player. All of the campaigns I have described are viable and will give gains that can be protected and used to great advantage in the mid-game. The major point the Italian must remember is that to win, they must be aggressive. There is only one free center for them to collect, everything else must be earned. With good solid play, and effective diplomacy, a victory or at least a draw is always possible.

Diplomacy Convoys: As Good As They Look?

By Jeff Breidenstein

Originally appearing in Diplomacy World #56

One of the more popular moves in Diplomacy is the convoy, which uses a fleet to transport an army across one or more sea/ocean spaces. The convoy's main advantage is that the army can move more than one space in a season. Although it is a far-reaching move, there are a number of disadvantages associated with it. Keep in mind that this applies only to the regular Diplomacy convoy and not to the Piggy-Back Convoy (which is also known as the Abstraction Convoy) that is used in a number of Diplomacy variants.

In his book The Gamers Guide To Diplomacy (which he wrote for The Avalon Hill Game Company in 1978), Rod Walker has this to say about the convoy:

"The convoy is the most powerful move in DIPLOMACY. Even the threat of it is likely to send an enemy into fits. Depending on circumstances, the convoyed attack's power is derived from one or more of four factors: (1) it provides rapid reinforcement, (2) it is flexible, (3) it may be unexpected, and (4) it is more secure."

He then goes on to describe each of these four factors in greater detail.

However, in his review of The Gamers Guide To Diplomacy in his magazine Diplomacy Digest (issue 15/16, 1980), Mark Berch has this to say about Rod's view of the convoy:

"Unfortunately, Rod's bias has gotten the better of him again. As he considers it the most powerful move in Diplomacy, he certainly isn't going to tell you any of the drawbacks, is he? He won't, but I will:

• The convoy ties up extra units. Even an unsupported convoy uses two pieces at the very least. A long convoy that fails is a grievous waste of resources. Even if it succeeds, movement to the front of the fleets is delayed.
• For multi-fleet convoys, the move previous to the convoyed move can be harmed. During the move in which the last fleets are positioned, the others will often be restricted in what they can do, for fear of stepping out of position.
• Security can actually be less. A fleet that is convoying might be supporting another fleet instead.

I happen to agree with Mark Berch: the convoy is not as powerful as it would seem. However, let us look at some examples of the convoy first:

EXAMPLE 1: England

A Edi – Nwy, F Nwg C A Edi -- Nwy

This, of course, is the use of a convoy to move an army from one land area to another via the seas. The convoy is vital to both England (who cannot truly invade the continent without it) and Italy (who cannot obtain Tun without either a convoy or the garrisoning of a fleet there).

EXAMPLE 2: France

A Mar – Smy, F Lyo C A Mar – Smy, F Tyr C A Mar – Smy, F Ion C A Mar -- Smy

France is at war with Russia and has occupied Turkey. This is an example of using the convoy to move newly-built armies to the front. If the army moved overland (via Italy and Austria), this move would take 3-4 years (or more if actively opposed), as opposed to a single season with the convoy.

EXAMPLE 3: France

A Spa – Bre, F Mid C A Spa -- Bre

Germany: F Eng – Mid, A Bur -- Pic

In this example, Germany has tried to cover both bases. If French F Mid moves to Bre (the obvious move), then German F Eng takes Mid (and supports A Pic into Bre the next season). If French F Mid holds to keep German F Eng in place, then German A Bur -- Pic means that Bre will more than likely fall the next season. But, by using the convoy, an army is placed into Bre that otherwise would have had to be built there, and the German moves fail to operate as planned.

Situations Where the Convoy Is Vital

As I see it, these are the only 3 situations where the use of a convoy is vital:

• The "Continent-to-Continent" Convoy: Used to convoy armies from England or North Africa. This is the only way for armies to get there.
• The "Distant-Front" Convoy: Used where the active front is distant from the homeland, and a convoy is necessary to bring these new armies up to the front more quickly than an overland route.
• The "Protection" Convoy: Used to bring up an army quickly to defend a certain province where one cannot be built and otherwise none would be available in time.

Other Useful Convoy Situations

• The "Accidental" Convoy: Used when your fleets are in just the right position for a convoy where one was not originally planned. If the enemy does not notice, great surprise can be achieved.
• The "Keep-Em-Guessing" Convoy: Used simply as a lark to keep the enemy (and possibly your allies, as well) from guessing your true intentions. If done often enough, opponents may come to expect a convoy, and you may be able to get around their defenses. However, overuse of this can cause you more trouble than you cause others.

Rod vs. Mark

Both Rod Walker and Mark Berch make some interesting comments about the convoy. Let's take Rod's views first:

• It provides rapid reinforcement: No arguments here, as the army can (theoretically) move from one end of the board to the other in one season. But unless you can get your fleets into position this doesn't mean a thing.
• It is flexible: Yes, but only to a degree. Since you must usually plan ahead in order to have fleets in position for a convoy, it is not something you can just go ahead and do.
• It may be unexpected: True, but after being burned by unexpected convoys in past games I now usually keep an eye out for these.
• It is more secure: False. A fleet that is convoying cannot support, and this is the heart of the matter: a fleet can convoy OR support but NOT both.

Now, let's look at Mark Berch's views:

• The convoy ties up extra units: True, and since each fleet involved can only convoy or hold until the move is completed, their impact on the board can be negligible until the convoy is completed.
• For multi-fleet convoys, the move previous to the convoyed move can be harmed: The awful specter of the convoy, in that after all your work setting up the necessary fleets one is dislodged by the enemy.
• Security can actually be less: True. This not only refers to the fact that a fleet can only do one thing (move, convoy, or support) at a time, but that: a) the enemy may take advantage of the convoy to either dislodge your convoying fleet or move around it; or b) by moving or supporting the fleet instead of convoying you might achieve the same goal just as quickly, (or with an acceptable delay) and with less chance of something going wrong.

The Rights and Wrongs of Convoys

Too many people attempt to use a convoy at the wrong time for the wrong reason. There are several "nevers" that should be kept in mind when you are attempting to convoy:

• Never convoy if another equally good alternative is available (unless, of course, you believe in the "Keep-Em-Guessing" Convoy).
• Never convoy if the enemy is in a position to disrupt the convoy by the dislodgement of one or more of your fleets.
• Never use more than one or (at most) two fleets in a convoy unless absolutely necessary.
• Never keep trying season after season to get one or more fleets into position for a long convoy. Fleets that keep making the same unsuccessful move over and over tend to tip your hand, especially if any other of your other fleets in the area simply remain in position.

Alternatively (for the defense), keep an eye out for any possible convoy by the enemy, especially if there are one or more of the following:

• Any fleet adjacent to a coast, especially where a convoy to this area can be useful.
• Two or more fleets together anywhere on the board, and especially when near or next to a coast.
• A fleet next to an army where that army can be convoyed without leaving the vacant space open to an immediate attack.
• A fleet next to one of its' coastal home Build Centers (especially in Fall, setting up for a Spring convoy).

A multinational convoy is always possible in a game, especially where one of the nations convoying is an "ally" setting you up for a stab. There is little one can do about this except for keeping your eye open to treachery.

I hope that this article helps you to accurately weigh the pros and cons of convoying, and hopefully you’ll never again fall prey to the "surprise" convoy!

Repeating What You Never Heard

by Mark Berch

from Diplomacy World #64

Usually, when you lie in a Diplomacy game, you speak for yourself. You discuss moves you have no intention of making. You give explanations that have nothing at all to do with why you actually did what you did. But these have severe limitations. These explanations are generally not verifiable. And anything we say of ourselves is treated as self-serving and hence very suspect. But a lie about someone else can get around these problems, and therefore be much more believable.

I had the opportunity to do this in a postal game, 84HW in Fol Si Fie. I was France, corresponding actively with England and Germany at gamestart. Neither seemed to be interested in a western triple (EFG). So I wanted to poison any and all EG relationships. But how?

Germany had, early on, written me a very specific and very aggressive proposal for an FG attack on England, starting right in Spring 1901. I knew him to be an active and thorough diplomat, so it occurred to me that he had probably written a very analogous letter to England. I figured that he had probably proposed an immediate F Lon-Eng, A Mun-Bur plan for Spring 1901.

So I wrote Germany, and casually mentioned to him that England had told me of the F Lon-Eng and A Mun-Bur proposal. I fleshed it out a bit to add plausibility. I did this for two reasons. First, I needed an explanation for why I had moved A Par-Pic, A Mar-Bur that first Spring. I said I wanted to take some precautions against this plan without doing something as drastic as F Bre-Eng. Second, I did this to sow EG discord.

Of course, the truth was that England never told me of any such plan!

The German player did believe this fabrication about England. He confirmed my guess by pointing out that there was nothing wrong with him having made such a proposal to England early in the game. And during the crucial pre-Winter 1901 negotiations, he expressed distinct annoyance that England had done this. My plan basically worked.

Germany could have asked me for his original letter to England, but that would not have exposed my fib since I had never said that England passed me a copy of that letter. The German could also have asked for a copy of England's letter to me, though, in which case I would have fallen back on a general policy against letter-passing.

But Germany didn't ask me for anything, and I wouldn't expect him to. The point here is, if a lie appears on its face to be plausible, then suspicions are never aroused as to its authenticity. Since my guess about the German letter was correct, it probably never occurred to him that the "England told me" part wasn't correct.

Opportunities to pull this particular type of deception on someone aren't going to come very often, obviously. But you should be alert to the possibility of passing along non-existent gossip that the recipient would have had good reason to believe. And, as a more general rule, if one aspect of what you are saying is true, it's a lot easier to slip in another aspect of it which is far from the truth. This is the case particularly when what is ostensibly the most important part of the message is true. That was the case here, and it will be the case other times as well. Pay attention, and capitalize.

Letter Passing: Cause for Hanging?

by Mark Fassio

For those of you who have been circling some distant planet since the advent of postal Diplomacy (or for those who live in California - same thing) "letter passing" is the art (?) of sending one person's letter, meant for your eyes, to someone else. (Usually the other person is the one mentioned in the letter to you.) The tactic of letter passing invokes heady debates on both sides of the fence as to its ethical employment in actual game situations.

If we can make a relatively safe assumption, most Dip players don't like to think of themselves as a schizophrenic bunch. They look on letter-passers as the pariahs of the hobby; nothing more than greedy opportunists who compromise a trust between two correspondents. This attitude conjures up the old "gentlemen don't read other gentlemen's mail" theme that was prevalent around the turn of the century. However, the people who condemn the intrigues of letter-passing are the same piranhas who love the game for all its attendant lying, scheming, backstabbing, and other such similar rot! You figure the math... On the opposite side, casual (or hardcore) letter-passers shrug off such monickers, saying that the tactic is merely one extra weapon in the arsenal of a good play-by-mail Dip player.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a tactic? The obvious advantage is in gaining the trust of the person you send the letter to. Let's say Turkey sends a Winter 1900 letter to Russia which contains a letter from England. The Englishman mentions how nice it would be for Turkey to join him in a quick carve-up of Russia! Well... it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure who Russia is going to look favorably upon (especially if the Spring 1901 move is correctly predicted!).

This has enormous potential in our Turkish example. Having gained the trust of the Czar, he can string him along, feeding him both truths and fibs (i.e., the name of the game) and chop him at the knees at an opportune time. This chop will be easier than if there had been mistrust from Russia in the beginning. For gaining an immense psychological advantage with a neighbor, a passed letter ranks near the top for best-used tactics.

Another advantage of letter-passing is that you can "play" someone along, especially if you suspect (or know) him/her to be a letter-passer. What better way to convey false information as near-truth than if someone else (the passer) blabs something "personal" to your intended target? I usually send some identical tidbit to two players in opposite alliances on the board. One of those players (or someone they pass the info along to) helps perpetuate the (false) info, making the hit much more effective when it does occur - usually not when they both repeat and/or pass along my data.

Now, to the main disadvantage of letter passing. As I stated earlier, a lot of players see letter-passers as "lower than whale feces" on the Scale of Evolution. Using the schizophrenic association mentioned above, they see nothing wrong with doing every other trick except unleashing a Pandora's Box of letter-passings per game. I cede them this point; after all, the game would rapidly degenerate into a silly exercise if everyone began passing letters for "effect," and then, later, for "payback" to the original letter-passer. No communication would be sacrosanct, and it would create a veritable psychotic's black press/gunboat environment... Blah, the quantity squared.

What is the optimum style for letter-passing, then? For some, there will never be a good reason to pass along a letter. For others, it's so common that they don't give the matter a second thought. Both viewpoints, in my opinion, are misguided and should be rethought. A letter-passing episode, done at the right moment, for the right reason, can be a game-deciding action.

Let's consider you and another person are in a semi-friendly "alliance of convenience" and are rolling up the board. If you two haven't made some blood-brother vow of alliance in 1900 for the duration, you can imagine the tense paranoia that arises as you both approach 11, 12, 13 centers. Is the guy gonna stab me? Then, bingo - player X sends you this guy's proposal to ditch you like a bad blind date so that he can go solo. You decide to show your "partner" the error of his treachery. The rest of the board now has a reprieve; new alliances can possibly be undertaken; and people can make quite a few new moves secure in the knowledge that you, the recipient of the passed letter, have your "trust meter" regarding your former ally now set at "zero." One passed letter, at the right time, is all it takes. The true wizened Diplomacy sage knows from experience just when the right time is.

The other side of the coin is that perpetual letter-passing is Bad Karma. In such a small hobby as ours, even a secret letter-pass may be revealed during the course of a game, or in future meetings. If a person gets a reputation as a "letter-passer," many people will forever equate the guy with "check forger", "wife beater" or even (shudder) "Democrat"! And despite the avowed goal of all of us to play each game new, with no cross-game ties to previous matches and people, we all know that personalities drive our negotiations to a very great extent.

If you don't appreciate letter-passing, what's the first thought you'll have if you're adjacent to a known, perpetual letter-passer and it's Winter 1901? I rest my case. It will be Ostracism City for that player, and I say "bully" for it.

By now you should know that I, unlike others, admit to being schizophrenic when it comes to letter-passing. I frown on it when it's done routinely, because it cheapens the game and brings bad reputations on both the passer and original author in most cases. However, comma, when done judiciously and with just the right sense of timing, I accept the tactic as a normal game action. I admit to passing about 5 or 6 letters myself since 1976, and I am considered neither a Dip Hall of Famer nor a candidate for effigy or Mafia assassination.

Did the passed letters impact the games in any way? In one match, absolutely; in the remaining games, not a whit. But that's true of all the tactics you have available as a master gamesman. Like Kenny Rogers sang in "The Gambler": you got to know when to hold 'em, and know when to fold 'em. Don't reject any tactic until you've tried it (except blatantly illegal or unethical ones, naturally.)

Next article: Forgery - The Overlooked Art. (Nab, just kidding!)

Mark Fassio is an Air Force Detachment Commander in Berlin, Germany, and has been playing Diplomacy since 1976, mostly in the zines Terran and Europa Express.

A Hun Having Fun in the Sun

by Stan Johnson

Germany may easily be the most fun Power to play on the board. It surely can be the most challenging and rewarding to the enterprising Dip player. Being a successful Hun requires not only good tactics and diplomacy, but careful management of your own psyche.

By this, I mean that you must keep your emotions in check. Things may go so well for the Hun initially. However, he is also liable to start a war prematurely, or get big eyes and go for too much too soon, bringing the wrath of a vengeful world down on his head.

In the beginning, in a game with good writers, you seem to be friends with everyone. Perhaps it would be better said that you are hearing from everyone (or most everyone). How close chums (not chumps) you become depends on your ability to be pleasant and charming. You must point out the many benefits of being your ally.

One way of doing this is to promise things you do not have. Belgium is the best to start with. England is always hot for it, to get his second center, while France often covets it as well. Belgium can be the catalyst to get a real catfight going between England and France, which is the key to any successful German adventure. Your opening letters to both Powers should contain the offer of Belgium with a hint of possible support. If, on the other hand, you grab Belgium for yourself and get three builds it often unites England and France against you.

You also decide whether Russia can have Sweden in 1901, which gives you lots of leverage in the east if you tie this in with the promise of Norway you can often receive a lot in return.

A problem may arise, however, if you wind up as friends with everyone. You have agreed to help France to attack England, England to attack France, and Russia to attack England. There comes a time when you must say yes to one and no to another. If you sit on the fence too long, you may feel like you are stuck on a post when everyone attacks you.

When you do decide which neighbor to attack, remember to be pleasant. Imply you were forced into the attack by circumstances beyond your control (read: you would be willing to move later against the co-conspirators if you can.) You can never know when you might need a friend. This type of fluidity is crucial to German success. You must be in close relations with three nations, and secondary relations with the other three - through alliance, one hopes.

There is no best strategy for Germany. Your relationship with each Power should be based partly on the personalities of the players and partly on your best guess of their ability.

The following are some general tips to guide this process, although it should be remembered that Germany should not deal with absolutes.

France should be written ASAP. Attempt to get a demilitarized zone for Burgundy. If he's reluctant to agree, offer him Belgium. Also, suggest an alliance against England without saying so directly. You must watch what you say because letter-passers are particularly dangerous to the Hun, who deals with so many potential enemies. Learn to imply rather than to say. Your diplomacy should have its finest hour.

While it's important to have France attacking someone else, it is often even better to have someone else attacking France since you will often want to do the same thing. You can ally with either England or Italy, but the EG has the benefit of also protecting you from the awesome British navy. You must get someone on your side, though, since otherwise Germany and France can knock heads for years with no headway, barring major screw-ups.

Unless you like pre-arranged draws, there is no real long-term advantage to the German for an FG alliance. You must constantly worry about a knife in the back no matter what he tells you.

In review, be nice to France first, then get some help or turn his back towards you, then stab him to death, completely. A small France left alive can come back to haunt you with a vengeance later.

Next there is England. You and he can often reach an amicable agreement wherein you build only armies and he builds only fleets. This arrangement can work well, and, if you want to settle for a draw, can go the whole way. If you want a win, you must position yourself so as to be able to get the jump on the isolated English coastal centers and increase your fleet strength at his expense.

A hostile England can cause you even more problems than France. If he attacks France, you ought to join in and finish France ASAP. Then, if you have been living right and playing right, Russia should be causing trouble for Mr. E. This gives your alliance a target and eliminates another potential enemy.

If England hits Russia first, you should hang back (except to grab Sweden). This is because the sight of an exposed German rear drives Frenchmen wild. You'll look pretty foolish in the siege lines around Warsaw or Moscow when the frog leaps into Munich, and is marching on Kiel. Wait until France moves against England or into the Med before you ever head east.

The way to an Englishman's heart is Belgium. It is the quickest and easiest way to get France and England fighting. Historically, the German invasion of Belgium brought England into the war on France's side. So you shouldn't try to grab it, as that will unite them against you. If you can get Mr. E and Mr. F fighting, you can get Belgium in the end, anyway.

If you and England are allied from the start, the question is whether to land his army in Belgium or Norway. The wise German will push for Norway. This is because it will focus Russian attention on England rather than you and put a lot of water between that army and you. If the army lands in Belgium, you must be prepared to deal with a possible EF attack. Since England needs your support to Belgium, you should dictate which unit goes in. Of course, if England gets into the Channel, that English army could go to Brest or Picardy instead.

When it comes to the Russian Bear, you have one great advantage: Sweden. You can use this stick to tame the bear and make him dance to your tune. Russia may be looking to Sweden for his only build, if there is trouble in the south. Of course, you should try to make sure there is by passing on information to Austria and Turkey.

As to the price for Sweden, you should begin with DMZing your border areas. Once that is settled, you could make A Moscow - St Pete the key to Sweden. That should raise an eyebrow in London! A German who does not move to Denmark is depriving himself of a great bargaining chip, even if he intends on Russia as a friend.

The GR alliance is very powerful, and usually means the kiss of death for England. The trick is surviving after the fall of England. You need to keep Russia going west towards France, which should put you in position to call the shots. Then you and the winner of the Eastern Division Playoffs may agree to eat some bear meat.

This brings us to the eastern bloc. Many first-time Germans tend to ignore happenings in the east, often to their lasting regret. It is a fatal mistake to ignore the east if you have any intentions of going past the Midgame to the nitty-gritty.

It has always seemed to me that Austria and Germany should be the best of friends. If they used the spirit of Germanic brotherhood to its best advantage, they should be close to unstoppable despite their many enemies. Germany should stress common enemies when talking to Austria, and try to be Austria's Rich Uncle. In other words, use negotiation and moves to keep Russia out of Galicia and Italy out of Tyrolia, as well as put in a good word with the Turk.

However, I have seen few of these alliances bear the fruit of which they are capable. It seems each forgets the other and concentrates on their own affairs. Together Austria and Germany can cooperate and split the world between them. It is also wise to add Turkey to this alliance, at least until Russia and Italy are gone. Then, you can either split Austria between you and the Turk, or leave those two to battle it out while you gather winning dots in the west.

About that Turk, I think you are a jerk if you don't write the Turk. Sure, he's far away, but he is also the only player who can’t attack you in 1901. You and he can exchange much useful information about goings-on across the board. Also, it’s easier to start a relationship in the beginning rather than when your units meet in the Midgame. In the short-term, you can have him tell England about the French attack he has heard about, or whatever. To the creative Hun, a friendly Turk is a real ace in the hole.

Last but not least, there is Italy. The Italian offers much potential to the Hun who knows how to tap it. It's little known, but Mussolini was the only one to ever get Hitler to back down in pre-WW2 Europe. Il Duce threatened to mobilize 40,000 troops if Germany annexed Austria. However, by clever diplomatic wooing and Allied lethargy, Hitler was eventually able to win Mussolini to his side, and later took Austria with Italian blessing.

The clear lesson here should be to make Italy your friend at all costs. A war against Italy can bring little profit, but can lead to many problems. You would be left with a wide open position that is easily flanked. Instead, concentrate on fostering Austrian/Italian peace, since it could lead to Italy attacking France and Austria attacking Russia. A wise Hun will attempt to orchestrate the entire scenario of events in the east to a boil under Russia's butt, while Italy heads west.

Even if the AI you fostered goes against Turkey, Italy can still often spare a unit or two to help you versus the French. You may also plan ahead for future fun by promising both England and Italy Iberia. Of course, you will usually have the jump on Italy in the endgame as well, as you will be in a better position to grab 18 dots quickly.

While these tips focus on one country at a time, in a real game nothing happens in a vacuum. Events in the east must be balanced against those in the west, and vice versa. Due to his central position, Germany has a foot in each bloc, and must often be the fulcrum on which the whole game balances.

In conclusion, to be a successful German you must be a constant sower of discontent and confusion among your enemies. Write as if your life depended upon it, because it often does. In "Free for All", a game recently started in Maniac's Paradise, the German was a non-writer. In Spring 1901 he was attacked by England, France, Italy, Austria and Russia. Don't let this happen to you!

Stan Johnson is a prolific postal player, often as the fun-in-the-sun Hun.

Pushing the Right Buttons

by Paul F. Glenn

What do you do against really aggressive players? I'm assuming you don't view yourself in that light, but you're concerned with how to get your share of wins, as well as some enjoyment. Where reputation is concerned, it's a decided advantage to froth a bit around the mouth, projecting fear and aggressiveness. It does work. But what if you don't see yourself in that image, or don't want to?

It doesn't take a board full of such players to dominate and define a game: look at the current DW Demonstration Game. There appears to be a committed AI understanding. As for the rest, it looks like a free-for-all. Aggressiveness and shifting relationships constitute the operating mode. Why isn't the AI alliance carrying the day? Too many players are seeking the same short-term result: get centers if possible, and prevent any one player from getting too big too fast.

The latter is taking higher priority than alliance structures. Fighting under an "idea" like that, loyalties change easily, long-term coordination is less attractive, and centers change hands with difficulty. When won, they aren't secured by the glue of trust. Further evidence is the viability of all seven players in that game for so long in the game. With the same immediate goals, there's little room to conduct diplomacy outside of immediate center count.

Consider a more typical postal game. There's more opportunity to deal based on differences between players. The postal dimension just cries out to us to expand the pool of satisfaction beyond the next center you seek.

So you want to win, or place well? Alright then, can you assume everyone else wants to do exactly that also? Really? Which players have you asked? What about the fellow who can tolerate slow growth yet criticizes lying loudly? The player who has no regard for tactics or strategy, shows little interest in learning either, and aches instead for a "press war"? Or even the fellow who wants to win, but is waiting for the first excuse to martyr himself against an attacker?

You have 3-4 weeks per season and freedom from prying eyes. Use it! Learn something about your fellow players, maybe even ask them outright what is important to them. See how they respond. What's to be lost? At worst, you're no worse off than when you wrote. But if they talk in terms that don't mesh with yours, well, you've got something you may be able to deal, and not make it center for center negotiation.

This can be a lot of work. With creative combinations you can throw obstacles in the way of stronger and aggressive players. This isn't "balance of power", it's "balance of interests." The best defense really is persuasion. Consider that they may be faced with a "cooperate or die" ultimatum from a ten-center gorilla, while you offer something more palatable. Maybe they'll like your style and buck superior odds. As long as they know what they want and you help them gratify it, well then, in exchange they might just help you "persuade" the sharp boys to pay attention.

When should you try this? The early and middle game. There's a strong likelihood of players still around who aren't solely concerned with "outcomes" and might trade position and assistance for a good time. By the Endgame, there are too many people all concerned with the next center, so creative proposals are less likely to bear fruit.

Here are some different interests that a player may have - it's your job to determine which button to push: (1) press, (2) revenge, (3) sense of personal honor, (4) experimentation, or loose cannon, (5) friendship, or cross-game relationships, (6) urge to do things own way regardless of outcome, (7) urge for elegant or clever plans, (8) winning, (9) humor.

I’ll illustrate with an example. In a particular game, I played Russia, and none of the players had been known to me previously. Five of the others did know each other, quite well, and made no secret of it. I consider the following interests identified above dominated this game: (2), (5) and (6). Here is how Spring 1901 went:

A: A Vie-Bud, A Bud-Ser, F Tri-Alb

E: F Edi-Nwg, F Lon-Nth, A Lvp-Yor

F: F Bre-Mid, A Par-Bur, A Mar S A Par-Bur

G: F Kie-Den, A Mun-Ruh, A Ber-Kie

I: F Nap-Ion, A Ven-Tyl, A Rom-Ven

R: F Stp-Bot, A War-Gal, A Mos-Ukr, F Sev-Bla

T: A Con-Bul, A Smy-Con, F Ank-Bla

Then came the following Fall/Winter moves:

A: A Bud-Tri, A Ser S F Alb-Gre (A Tri)

E: F Nwg-Nwy, F Nth C A Lon-Bel (F Lon, F Lpl)

F: F Mid-Por, A Mar-Spa, A Bur-Bel (F Bre, A Par)

G: F Den-Swe, A Kie-Hol, Ruh S A Yor-Bel (A Mun, Ber)

I: F Ion-Eas, A Tyl-Vie, A Yen-Tri (F Nap)

R: F Bot-Swe. F Sev-Bla, A Gal S A Ukr-Rum (A Stp)

T: A Bul-Rum. A Con-Bul. F Ank-Bla (A Smy)

This developed into an AIR assault on Turkey, taking him out in 1903. England never fully committed to Germany, and they were ineffectual against France. In 1902-3, England took Sweden; Russia and England fenced in Scandinavia; Russia and Germany fought in Silesia/Baltic; and AIR freely exchanged centers for tactical need. This cooperation induced a voted AR draw in 1906, reflecting a collapse of resistance and will (we had 14 centers between us, and Italy had 4). As far as other, non-win factors are involved:

(5) Cross and prior-game relationships were working here. From the beginning FI were "known not to fight each other", and Germany was concerned about that. The German and Turkish players were buddies, and the others knew it. So what happened? Italy fought France, and Germany didn’t press an attack on Russia to bail out Turkey.

(2) Revenge. Italy's move to the Eastern Med amazed me. In Winter 1901 he told me how the Turk had stabbed in another game, so he was real happy to do this. And the Turkish player confirmed it. This interaction had a profound effect on the game, as the Italian was very agreeable to ideas that didn’t interfere with Turk-bashing, and the pressure on Turkey with my Austrian alliance freed me to meddle in Scandinavia and in Germany.

(6) On the urge to behave a certain way regardless of outcome, France plodded on against EG, enlisting no help that I know of. Germany stuck to his initial impression of FI togetherness and stuck with England despite the latter's colorless moves. The German player believed he had no choice but to continue to pursue his course. The English player was distracted with pressures of his personal life. This lack of time for the game had its toll: static warfare. For my part, by the time AI had patched things up and invaded Turkey, I was set up to go the distance with them (whether or not we got a draw. I'd gotten enough gratification from the game to accept that).

Hard work doesn’t get you there. The Turk and I were the most active players in the game. The Turk clearly wanted to win, and would do whatever it took to get there. Bad luck for one of us, considering the lack of ambition in the EFG theatre. Reminds me of the NFC Central and East divisions: weak sisters win the Central, while an 11-5 record in the East barely gets you into the playoffs.

I might add (9), humor, to this. I didn’t act with much humor in this game. Both the Italian and the Austrian MUST have had a sense of humor, to convert a 1901 attack into a free and trusting relationship, with the Italians in Trieste and the Austrians in Venice. I think the Italian was the most satisfied player in the game. He told me how much fun he was having and what a great pair of allies he had in me and Austria. Well, there’s a fellow I can satisfy by playing thoughtfully, win or lose, and there’s nothing better than satisfying other players (even enemies). Else who’s going to play the game?

Satisfaction is what this is all about. A homogenous board, as in the current DW Demo Game, puts a premium on cleverness, tactical skill, and outright deception. A heterogenous board, as is the case in many play-by-mail games, introduces the unpredictability in opponents’ personalities, skills, and interests, thereby providing a basis for expanding our satisfaction.

The flip side, of course, is to examine your own needs. I’ve entered some games with plans having nothing to do with winning and the results have not only amused me, but I’ve also been successful, better often than when playing only for the win. Bizarre openings, just because I felt like it, stimulated my own game, as I saw how others would respond to an apparently “reasonable” neighbor behaving unreasonably. Give it a try - we may all enjoy it!

England's Sweden Strategy

by Kevin Brown

Funny thing about playing England. It seems that you always start out in the same position. Fall 1901 has just been completed and you're sitting with A Norway, F North Sea, and F Norwegian Sea. France has sent his fleet down into Spain and Russia hasn't moved north. How many times before have you been here? How many times have you waited for Germany or Russia to tell you what to do with your pieces?

If you're like most players, the answer is "Too Many.” But this common position is not one that requires a passive yes-man England. Don't let them tell you where to go, you tell them where you're going. Where is that, you ask? Simple: you are going to Sweden.

The move to Sweden can be effective against either Russia or Germany. The first thing to consider is whether Sweden is occupied. Obviously if Russia is in Sweden then you will need German support from Denmark to take it. This should not be difficult to gain. Tell Germany the whole plan: along with A Norway-Sweden, you will be moving F Norwegian Sea-Barents Sea and F North Sea-Norway (using your new build to cover North Sea). With your friendly German's support you can not only take Sweden, but also be in a position to take St. Petersburg in the fall.

If Sweden is unoccupied (presumably due to a standoff), you should have little problem getting Russian support into the province. In this case the F Norway-Sweden would be accompanied by F North Sea-Skagerrak (or to Helgoland Bight if you’re particularly bold) and either F Norwegian or your newly built fleet to North Sea. Then in the fall, you can take Denmark with two supports and Russia can slip into Sweden right behind you. With A Denmark, F Helgoland, and F North Sea, you will have a tremendous tactical advantage over Germany. With the fleet in Skagerrak instead of Helgoland, the advantage is not as great but still considerable. If France or Russia can spare an army, Germany should go down in short order.

You don't want to give away your strategy to whichever one you decide to hit. You can always solicit support from both Russia and Germany into Sweden, and then decide which to hit. Even if Russia has Sweden at the end of 1901, you can still go through to hit Germany. Russia should be happy to have the army out of Norway, particularly if he’s involved in the south. In that case, when the Russian fleet is dislodged it can retreat to Baltic Sea and help support you to Denmark, thus demilitarizing Scandinavia for both sides. The key thing to remember is that your move to Sweden can be made to look good for both Russia and Germany. When I first tried this strategy at DixieCon two years ago, both Russia and Germany supported me to Sweden in Spring 1902!

This strategy is not without its downside. If you go after Russia your gains will be limited to Sweden and possibly St Pete. A sustained attack into Russia would leave you very spread out and vulnerable if Germany or France turns traitor. If you move against Germany you leave your northern flank very open to Russian aggression (particularly if you moved to Helgoland rather than Skagerrak.) In either case you will be vulnerable to a French attack; you should make quite sure that France is an ally before attempting this maneuver.

There you have it: an uncommon answer to a common situation. Just a little decisive action is all it takes to change England from a solid, boring defensive power to a fluid, exciting dot grabber. Next time you play England, tell yourself to go to Sweden.

Go Ost, Jung Man

by Chris Warren

I hate playing Austria.

OK, so I'm not alone in that regard, but I have the double pleasure of an almost uncanny knack to draw it. In the four games I've played since starting tournament play, I've played the Austrians three times.

So, here's some advice for the weary Kaiser in the south

1. Don't Panic. Experience shows that either you'll do well, or you’ll suddenly find yourself with some free time on your hands.
2. Never give up (well, almost). In one game, I faced the following unpleasantness for Spring 1901: Austria: A Vie-Bud, F Tri-Alb, A Bud-Ser; Italy: A Ven-Tyl, A Rom-Ven; Russia: A War-Gal, A Mos-Ukr. In Fall 1901, I moved back Bud-Tri with support, bouncing the Italian, but the Russian went A Gal-Vie and A Ukr-Gal. At this point, it looks like a typical 1903 Austrian death, but I ended with an outright win. Fortunes can certainly change.
3. Keep close track of all the alliances on the board. In the above game, I discovered an EG alliance against Russia and used that to convince France to move at all speed to Italy, removing one of my early-game worries.
4. Do everything to get your neighbors attacked. Pressure on any of your close-by powers is to your advantage:
   • Italy - make sure this is done by France, not Turkey. The last thing you need is the Crescent navy in the Adriatic or Greece. Trying to get Italy to attack Turkey is optimal, but if he doesn't, you will have the pressure you need to keep him out of Trieste. Just remember that French fleets are no better, so help prop up the Italian against the onslaught you initiated.
   • Russia - An attack on Russia can help you in a number of ways, depending on your other alliance arrangements. In an AI vs Turkey, Russia will have little to offer but its fleet. The fleet would be useful for harassing the Turk, but not enough to justify cutting him into the spoils. An attack on Russia could also make your own invasion of that country easier, and hopefully set you up for a later attack against Germany.
   • Turkey - help against the Witch needs to come from Italy with little to no Russian involvement. If France has taken an interest in Italy, it should be easy to convince Russia that EG are unfriendly to him (and work to make that true).
5. Negotiate in the West as much as the East. Getting Russia and Italy attacked is good, but so is taking a small part in setting up an interminable situation with no one eliminated. Getting an Italian A Pie if an EF alliance is forming, or an army into Tyrolia from you or Italy if the EG is attacking France can be effective. An FG alliance is fine, as it is usually slow to get at England (although if you haven't accomplished your goals in the East, pressure can be placed as a defensive measure.)
6. Don't be afraid to enter Bohemia first. A lot of the Midgame and Endgame fighting occurs in the "neutral zone" of Tri/Boh/Sil/Gal. Unless there's been a solid draw commitment between you and Germany (or whomever controls the German dots), they will go into the zone and seize the upper hand when ready. It might tick off the German a bit, but it's very unlikely to cause a war, and may even prevent one until he can call in more troops.
7. Don't attack Italy! I won't say never, as after Turkey is dead it's not a bad idea. And, it can be considered if Jed Hatfield is Russia and some McCoy is playing Turkey. In the first turns, Italy can defend itself, unless you use all forces (not a good idea), and seeing the Turks behind your exposed back with a scimitar will be enough to put you off croissants for a while.
8. Seize the Balkans as a group ASAP. This means your home centers, as well as Ser, Rum, Gre and Bul. By keeping everyone out, you'll reduce your stabability by about 99%. Do any amount of negotiation or dot-swapping it takes to achieve this.

That's the real key: negotiation. If all your neighbors attack, you have few resources but your voice (or pen) and your ears. When applied correctly, they can lead to happy years of little red armies dancing through Europe.

Of course, I still hate playing Austria.

Eggs in One Basket, Or Starting Out Right

by Chris Warren

One of the most unique things about playing the Russian in Diplomacy is that not only do you have an opportunity to affect the West or the East, you have no say in the manner of how you do. The dual fleets -- one in the Baltic, one in the Black -- lead to intervention that's as often harmful as helpful. So, the question rests -- how do you dispose of your armies to account for your dual involvement?

I contend that it's best to pick one theater -- and hit it with all available force while securing the other with Diplomacy. This allows actual expansion opportunities instead of a slow tug of war on both sides of the board. And, in most every case, both armies are almost immediately useful. Let's examine the possibilities, depending on your target.

Austrian Strategy

Probably the favorite first meal for a Russian bear coming out of hibernation, the Austrian attack can be carried out with either an Italian or Turkish ally. In either case, A Mos-Ukr and A War-Gal are almost automatics. F Sev-Rum is usually the move for the southern fleet, but I prefer F Sev-H for a couple of reasons.

First of all, an army in Rumania is extremely useful, much more so than a fleet. In a war with the Hapsburg would you rather control Bla or Ukr/Gal/Bud/Ser? I thought so. By leaving the fleet in Sev, you could still support A Ukr-Rum while allowing A Gal to try some fun stuff. But the Austrian always moves A Vie-Gal, you say? Try this tactic with the Italian: Get Italy to approach the Austrian suggesting this:

			  Austria: A Vie-Bud, A Bud-Ser, F Tri-Alb
			  Italy: A Ven-Trl, A Rom-Apu, F Nap-Ion
			

The plan being to pressure Rumania while covering all bases with Trl-Vie, Bud-Gal. Should the evil Russian (you!) try something, then this will happen in the fall:

			  Austria: A Bud-Vie
			  Italy: A Trl-Tri
			  Russia: A Gal-Bud, A Ukr-Rum, F Sev S A Ukr-Rum
			

Extremely nasty, isn't it? It also gets your armies next to each other and isolates A Vie.

This is a lesson I learned, unfortunately, as the Austrian player. Kudos to Ken Kohn and Eric Aldridge for zinging me with it in conventional play. Playing off a strong R/T will make the Austrian more likely to band together for the Italian, as well as keeping the Black Sea clear. A Serbian or Viennese attack in 1902 suddenly becomes automatically successful, banning Turkish intervention.

Turkish Strategy

Russo-Turkish wars are difficult and usually net you little early on because the booty is split 2-3 ways. But if you have other reasons, you had better commit full-force. Objective one is to hold and keep the Black Sea, which means building F Sev in Winter 1901 if at all possible. So what needs to happen for that?

I prefer F Sev-Bla, A Mos-Sev, A War-Ukr. Here is the thinking: if F Sev-Bla goes, chances are that Armenia is clear as well. You can either try A Sev-Arm, F Bla S A Sev-Arm. Terribly effective. Or play it safe: A Sev-Rum, A Ukr S A Sev-Rum, F Bla S A Sev-Rum. Then build F Sev as soon as possible, and fill the gap with the Ukrainian or a newly-built A Mos, if you're lucky enough to get Sweden.

Actually luck has little to do with it. You need some pretty severe diplomacy to hold your northern position. But that's the second part to this strategy -- keep things in the west as confused as possible until you clear the east (it works exactly the same if you go north/west first). The way to slow things down is to get 2 players in the theater to go at it (I/A vs T or F/G vs E) while offering a little help or, especially against the Turk, non-intervention.

German Strategy

Attacks on Germany can be quick and devastating because you'll usually get a lot of help. The problem with this is, the more people who know, the better the chances someone will bet on it. The spearhead of your attack is A War, fighting it out for either Pru or Sil. I say it all depends on what you think the German will do. If you believe your attack is a surprise, I prefer A War-Sil, A Mos-StP. If the British forbid StP, Lvn is an inferior substitute.

Here is why:

If Germany opens F Kie-Den, their obvious fall move is F Den-Swe. If you move F Bot-Bal and A StP-Fin, he still gets only one Scandinavian build, you none, but now instead of threatening Swe with a unit or two, you have units on Swe, Den, Kie, and Ber. Add a little pressure in the West and it is too much for the Kaiser to handle. If he moves F Kie-Hol, you have the option of convoying any army (as you could from Lvn) or moving F Bot-Swe, A StP-Fin. From there the Baltic is yours, or, with Detente with the Germans, a three-unit attack on Norway in Spring 1902 is possible. The advantage Lvn has over StP, besides not scaring the English, is moving A Lvn-Pru in Fall 1901, but since you'll build A War there isn't much point to the move.

English Strategy

The English attack is really the only one that does not require both armies, with only one English territory (Nwy) handy. But don't let A War stray too far. A move to StP as a F StP(nc) vacates in Spring 1902 may be required.

As with the southern strategy, you need a two-on-one on one of your neighbors to keep you safe, either A/I versus T or I/T versus A. Shoot for the former, since a retreating Austrian in Galicia or (heaven forbid) the Ukraine can cause all sorts of trouble. In addition, the Turks take longer to kill, thus giving you more time to consolidate your position.

Summary

So in summary, no matter who is your target:

• Put all of your eggs in one basket (north or south) and go for fast gains so you can defend yourself.
• Negotiate furiously in the theater you're largely ignoring.
• Try to get your bored neighbors to attack a witch (England or Turkey).

Good luck to you and may your next game start be your borscht ever.

The Coast of Moscow

by Allan B. Calhamer

None of us was surprised when Russia ordered the raise of a Fleet in Moscow; but we were when he insisted it were legal. In the ensuing discussion Russia indicated further that he intended to move the Fleet coastwise to Sevastopol; and then, on the understanding that Sevastopol had only one coast, to move it on to Rumania, the Black Sea, or Armenia.

At least it became clear what he was up to. Congestion in the Don River Shipyards being what it was, he hoped to raise fleets twice as fast as usual for his southern frontier, by building them in Moscow.

I think the Northern powers rather approved of the idea. Austria-Hungary was dubious; Turkey, aghast.

"In order for Moscow to have a coast", said Turkey, "it seems either you have to follow one or the other of two theories. Either Moscow has a coast because it simply looks that way on the map, or else it has a coast because it borders on a body of water, that is, the Caspian."

"Sounds like a distinction without a difference" said Italy.

"If we follow the first theory" resumed Turkey, "that Moscow has a coast because it looks that way on the map, then what of Sevastopol? Certainly Sevastopol must have two coasts, because it looks that way on the map. Furthermore, since these two coasts are not named on the board, it may be impossible for Russia to raise Fleets at Sevastopol at all, Raise F Sev being void due to ambiguity.

"If we follow the second theory" Turkey went on, "we have to ask what the situation is if Moscow borders a body of water."

"Topologically" said Germany, "nothing at all borders on the Caspian, since you can't move to it. Therefore, Moscow has no coast."

Russia broke in. "Rule VII. 1. does not say that an unnamed space cannot be a body of water. It says, merely, that `Units may not move...to any location not specifically named on the board.'"

"But is the Caspian a body of water?" asked A-H. "Rule VI. 2. in the 1971 rulebook, says `The seas are divided into "bodies of water" by light, solid black lines.' There are no such lines in the Caspian."

"Are there such lines in the Black?" Russia challenged.

"Sure," replied A-H. "On the 1961 map, there is a very short black line separating the Black Sea from the Bosporus. The line is not a line from the base map; it's thicker than the coastlines, and there would be no reason for it on the base map."

"But does that line," asked Russia, "`divide the seas into bodies of water' as it says in Rule VI. 2.? It divides the Black only from Constantinople, which is not part of the seas."

"Maybe Constantinople is part of the seas, because Fleets can move through it" offered A-H.

"The trouble is," replied Russia, "Constantinople is clearly called a `province' in Rule VII. 3. a., Kiel and Constantinople. Nowhere does it say that Constantinople is part of the seas. It just says that there is a waterway through it."

"If Moscow borders on a body of water, the Caspian," said Turkey, "then so does Sevastopol, which then has two coasts. Is it then impossible to move a fleet there at all, because each coast is a `location not specifically named on the board', within the purview of Rule VII. 1.?"

"To employ the purview of Rule VII. 1.," said France, "it is necessary first to have a clear understanding of that purview. If `location' should seem merely the name of a province, then, of course, it would be permissible to move there, since Sevastopol is named on the map."

"All that doesn't matter," maintained Russia, "because Sevastopol doesn't have two coasts, because it isn't named as a `Province Having Two Coasts' in Rule VII. 3. b. Furthermore, Rule XIII. 2. says `If Russia builds a Fleets in St. Petersburg, he must specify the coast...'. No mention is made of Sevastopol, hence Sev. must only have one coast."

"Yes," replied Turkey, "but there are two ways it could only have one coast: because the two apparent coasts are one, or because you can't play on the Caspian coast. But if the Caspian is a body of water, then Sevastopol borders on two bodies of water, leading to various difficulties."

Russia answered, "Well, Albania borders on both Adriatic and Ionian, yet it has only one coast."

"Sure," said Turkey, "but Adriatic and Ionian are adjacent. Caspian and Black aren't."

"How do we know that?" asked France.

"We can see it!" exclaimed Turkey.

"Are we back to the appearance theory?" asked England.

"Distinction without a difference," murmured Italy.

"You have to use appearances to determine the mere gross topology of the board," spluttered Turkey.

"Maybe we should have a list of all possible topological links," said Germany.

"That wouldn't be official," England exclaimed. "Then, there's the danger that when you re-state anything, you may make mistakes in the restatement. Third, it seems like you would have to decide this case in order to make up the list."

Then France offered, "We may have a solution in the wording of Rule VII. 1.: `The Fleet may move to an adjacent coastal province only if it is adjacent along the coastline, so that the vessels could move down the coast to that province.' It is sufficiently obvious that the vessels can't get from the Caspian to the Black."

"I's the Potemkin villages all over again," England observed. "They told the Tsar they could build Fleets in Moscow and go down the Volga to fight the Turks. They knew he wouldn't know that there was no way the vessels could get to the Black."

Russia answered. "But we're not talking about a move from one coastal province to another. Sevastopol is one province."

"Then it's like Spain," said France. "We always have to go out from the same coast we went in at."

Russia rejoined, "But it doesn't have two coasts; Rules VII. 3. b. and XIII. 2. It has one coast, and we're glad to go in at any point, and come out at any other point on that single coast."

"What if Russia wanted to build a Fleet in St. Petersburg, on the coast of Lake Ladoga?" asked France.

Russia answered coolly. "The rules clearly state that St. Pete has two coasts, not three. Since they do not mention Sev., we have to assume it has only one."

"Since Sevastopol is not mentioned," said Italy, "it might have six."

"You can see it doesn't have six!" exclaimed Russia.

"Appearances, appearances," said Italy. "You can see it has two."

"Which bolloxes everything as far as raising Fleets in Sevastopol is concerned, if nothing else." added Germany.

"Not quite," said Turkey. "Russia could always escape ambiguity by writing Raise F Sev (Black Sea Coast), invoking Rule VII. 4., `A badly written order, which nevertheless can only have one meaning, must be followed.' Incidentally, his raise last turn was invalid, because he failed to specify the coast. That Fleet should come off."

At this point England remarked that in Hugo's Ninety-Three the Marquis de Lantenac, in a single hearing, ordered one and the same man to be decorated for bravery and shot for dereliction of duty. "In somewhat the same spirit," he said, "I suggest we recommend Russia for a Rusty Bolt, for coming up with the weirdest rule interpretation in many years, while nevertheless, at one and the same time, ruling out any use of the alleged Caspian or its alleged coasts."

And they all agreed, four to two, with one abstention.

Allan Calhamer is the inventor of Diplomacy, as if you didn't know.

The Art to Find the Mind's Construction in a Face

by Stephen Agar

Surprisingly Shakespeare never specifically reflected on the lot of the Diplomacy player in any of his surviving works. However, in his tragedies he did often comment on the broad spectrum of personalities to be found among Diplomacy players which help us some 300 years later cast light on why apparently sane and reasonable men, young in body and/or mind, spend a lot of money and even more time in order to move a few misshapen pieces of plastic round a bit of cardboard covered in sticky-back plastic. I say "men" for the simple reason that when you look at the sexual balance (or lack of it) in the postal Diplomacy hobby it is apparent that women can plainly see the ultimate futility of Diplomacy as a form of recreation. Lady Macbeths are few and far between in the postal Diplomacy hobby. In contrast five out of seven men appear to find the pastime fascinating (the other two drop out). Allow me to identify a few of the character types which spring to mind as the sort of people that one often finds indulging in postal Diplomacy.

Macbeth

There is a real pleasure in betraying other people and causing them mental pain. A Macbeth enjoys stabbing his ally in his most sensitive spot (preferably while they are asleep), although he may have to psych himself up to find the nerve to do it. Late at night he relishes rehearsing various stabs on his Diplomacy board waiting for the perfect moment. When that moment finally comes, he will write the fateful orders with a smile. For him the only thing that mars the enjoyment of a perfect stab, is the fact that he cannot actually observe the expression on the face of his ally when he reads the game report. A Macbeth will sometimes accept bad advice if it provides him with an excuse to be nasty, and the deed done you can be sure that his nefarious activities never cause him sleepless nights.

Horatio

A Horatio is a Very Serious Diplomacy Player. He writes to everyone and judges everything wisely. Although he is usually alive at the end of the play, he often finishes in the same position as when he started i.e. in a minor though pivotal role, though at least he retains his integrity and his home supply centres. For some reason, Horatios frequently play Italy.

Iago

A Iago is an insidious character, a cowardly Othello who tries to vent his desire for revenge as a result of some insult (real or imagined) through the agencies of another player. He is a stirrer with a banana for a backbone. Having managed to goad one of his neighbours into attacking the other, a Iago inevitably fails to profit from the situation as he lacks the killer instinct of a Macbeth. These miserable creatures are the Gollums of the Diplomacy world and should be sat upon.

King Lear

A Lear, although he may not realise it, is essentially a sado-masochist. This player betrays and stabs for spurious reasons and yet often seems to take an ill-defined pleasure in his consequentially swift reduction to a lone power-crazed wandering unit. A Lear will never appreciate an ally as much as he should, though may yet end up putting his faith in a Macbeth.

Othello

Revenge is sweet. If Germany promises to let an Othello into Sweden only for a Iago, who happens to be playing England, to spread a rumour to the effect that Germany really intends to stand Othello off, then no one should be surprised to find that all Russian units will immediately make for Silesia, Prussia and the Baltic, even if it does result in Russia's elimination in A03. An Othello judges that if he teaches Germany a lesson this time then Germany may even support Russia into Sweden next time. Such vendetta diplomacy is undoubtedly one of the easiest tactical games to play as it makes letter writing unnecessary. If an Othello is very lazy, he will start a vendetta before the game even begins in order to make all communication with the other player's redundant.

Malcolm

The classically silent Diplomacy player with whom it is impossible to communicate, let alone reason, is usually a Malcolm. It is not so much that Malcolms take pride in the paucity of their missives as much as they do not see the need for communication with the outside world; to them silence is an act of faith in their ability to win the game with as little effort as possible - they believe that they can just saunter on in Act V and walk off with the crown.

Hamlet

Diplomacy can be loosely described as a game of strategy, however there are many players whose raison d'etre is the innovative move that reveals Mr Calhammer's black secret. A Hamlet will spend days if not weeks trying to solve the enigmatic questions that underlie the game. He will spend hundreds of pounds on telephone calls trying to arrange the ultimate convoy of A(Syr)-StP, irrespective of what the Russian F(BLA) intends to do. A Hamlet will agonise over every move ("to order F(Ank)-BLA or not to order F(Ank)-BLA, that is the question, whether 'tis nobler to allow F(Sev) into the Black Sea etc...") as his inner need for certainty cannot accept that at the end of the day he is going to have to guess and take a risk. Guessing is not logical and Diplomacy should be a logical game.

Polonius

Some people give the impression that they play Diplomacy just so they can write press or write letters to various zines. Often a Polonius will be a big hobby name - no matter where you turn you will find his letters criticising some editor's stand on proportional representation, abortion, quantum physics, politics or even postal Diplomacy. His outpourings will inevitably be verbose with a tendency to give unwanted advice. He will play the odd game of Diplomacy, in order to justify to himself his involvement in the hobby, but for this sort of player the game is certainly not the thing. A Polonius can also be a publisher who still feels a need to play Diplomacy in order to demonstrate to themselves that they are really interested in the game, rather than in just promoting themselves - though in this they are really just deceiving themselves. A Polonius, somewhat contradictorily can also be a secret Malcolm when it actually comes to playing the game itself save that he usually exits in Act III, murdered by one of the other key players.

Rosencrantz & Guildenstern

These are the inconsequential nobodies who do little to develop the game in the short time that they are playing before dropping out in mysterious circumstances. They often play in pairs and amuse themselves tossing coins.

Eye of the Eagle or The Goal's The Thing!!

by Brian Cannon

It’s a brand new game. You’ve opened the latest issue of your favorite Zine to the gamestart announcement and discovered you are the Kaiser! Well", you think to yourself, it could have been worse - I could have gotten Austria. Experienced player that you are, you immediately begin contacting the other players and formulating your Master Plan. After the first round of cards and letters the Witches seem to have become the focus of some general concern and a passable strategy begins to suggest itself.

First you’ll join France in taking out England, while instigating an A/I/R crushing of Turkey. Then you’ll encourage France into the Med and play on the Italian fears to form a G/I to defeat France (and secure the West for yourself). Meanwhile, you’ll talk Austria into a G/A to defeat the Czar (pointing out HIS need to have a rear free of enemy forces). By this time you’ll have Germany, England, Scandinavia, the Low Countries, St. Pete, and Northern France for 14. By focusing Austria on the threat the Italian navy poses to his Med provinces, you’ll have been encouraging the build of an Austrian fleet or two and you’ll use that to raise just enough tension between A/I to stab and lunge into War, Mar, Spa, and either Venice, Por, or Moscow for the Solo. OK, it’ll take refining and certainly lots of slick talking along the way. But, hey! Who ever said winning a Dip game was easy?

With your Master Strategy firmly in mind, you set to work to talk the other players into following YOUR plan. Throughout 1901 letters fly fast and furious, and as you review the Fall 1901 game report you can see everything is falling into place for you. France is in Bel & the Channel and is +2; you’re in Den, Hol, and the North Sea and are +2; A/R are attacking Turkey; Italy is set for a Lepanto invasion; and (warned by you ) Turkey is making the best defense possible. He’ll go down, but it’ll take a while - which suits you fine. 1902 & 03 breeze by with you and France carefully coordinating the demise of England, the splitting of the spoils, and the placement of pieces while I/A/R defeat Turkey, splitting his spoils three ways and getting their units a little mixed up in the process. What could be better for you??!!? You shift into Phase-2 of your master plan independently writing Italy (about G/I vs. F) and Austria (about G/A vs. R) and wait for the Zine with barely restrained glee at how clever you are and how well everything is going....

Huh?? Hold on here!?! This must be the wrong game. The GM must have read the wrong orders!! Sure, Italy is moving against France (that’s good) BUT Austria just passed up an easy stab and, WITH Russia is moving strongly against....YOU???? Wait just a dog-gone minute!! What happened?? You write again to everyone and are rewarded with ... Total Silence (???) from I/A/R. You don’t dare stab France now - you NEED him to fend off that awful Eastern menace. Maybe you can patch up a stalemate line and find some advantage.... but ... aw heck - this wasn’t the way things were supposed to go!! Everything was going so smooothly and then the motor just fell out!!! What Went Wrong??? you cry out to the Fates.

What went wrong had nothing to do with "The Fates", nor with bad luck. It wasn’t some subtle clue you dropped in one of your letters, or the machinations of that treacherous and perfidious wight in Vienna or that frog in Paris. It wasn’t that the Czar suddenly and for no reason took a disliking to you and decided beer might be a welcome change from vodka. In fact, what I/A/R just did was perfectly reasonable, logical, and PREDICTABLE given the circumstances. What went wrong was quite simply this - You Forgot Your Strategy. While you were busy coordinating the defeat of England and figuring the everything was going just as you planned, the Eastern alliance was watching the development of a solid (and threatening) Western alliance (G/F) coupled with a sudden silence from those players. When they finally received the German offers in Winter 03 they were faced with choosing between continuing an alliance that was working well (and profitably) or stabbing an ally and trusting the good intentions of a player that (a) hadn’t written a meaningful letter in two years and (b) could quite possibly use the resulting confusion to stick with HIS ally and roll to a solid G/F two-way - at their expense. Given those choices their decision was to be expected. The sad thing is, all of this could have been avoided. Remember, you had them eating out of your hands (figuratively) back in 01 as you spun your webs & tales and worked your diplomatic magic. And then ... you let yourself get distracted by the Western battle, neglected your diplomacy, and allowed the Eastern players to recover from your spells long enough to see the threat you posed.

And this brings us to the point of this article - The first fundamental characteristic of the Expert Dipper: The Eye of the Eagle - the ability to keep focused, through thick and thin, on what will be needed to emerge victorious with a solo victory. Remember, as a player in Dip you will almost never have the ability to DIRECTLY control the moves of any other player (barring an occasional puppet). They will make the moves you want only when you can beguile them into seeing those moves as actually being in their interest. And that takes constant attention and effort. As Lincoln said to Grant when he wanted to ram a particularly necessary (but unpopular) action down the throat of the War Department in 1864 I repeat to you it will neither be done nor attempted, unless you watch it every hour and day and force it. So you too, if you would succeed with minimum reliance on the fickleness of luck, must show yourself diligent in (shall we phrase it this way?) keeping the wool pulled over the eyes of your victims. Sure, it’s difficult to maintain this focus. It takes concentration and discipline. Not everyone can do it. But then, did you think a Solo win in Dip came easy?? Oh you silly, silly, you (:-). And remember this - your opponents face the same struggle. If you can keep your focus while they get distracted, it can make the difference between a solid draw and the ultimate goal of the Dip Purist - a Solo Victory! So, what can you do to help pull this off? So glad you asked. Read on!

Emotion can be your worst enemy - and your greatest ally!! Like fire, it can save your life ... or destroy you. Time after time, in game after game, Dipsters, right and left, allow themselves to be swayed by: anger and lust for revenge due to a stab by an ally; fear over the threat posed by one opponent’s concentrated attack; excitement over the success of a particularly dangerous or clever tactic; wide-eyed, too eager, anticipation when an ally leaves their rear wide open to a ridiculously easy stab; and more. The player begins to think primarily about that one enemy, or ploy, or opportunity. Their correspondence becomes filled with discussion of how they want revenge for that stab that @$#$% can’t be allowed to get away with it or what tactics they and their allies can use to counter that threat or exploit that opportunity. If they think about the future at all, they mostly assume they will be able to work something out once they’ve dealt with this one matter. How much better it would be to keep the master plan on track and not NEED to work something out. After all, if you can get to your goal (that elusive Solo) what does it matter what others did in the process. If you WIN, it means they’ve LOST - and you can hardly do anything worse to them than that!!!

So here is a cardinal Rule for those who aspire to Dip Masterdom - First, you must Master yourself (that is, your own emotions). When the unexpected (and unwelcome) has occurred, put aside your instinctive fears or angers or hopes; take some deep breaths; reexamine the ENTIRE board and the moves of EVERY player (who else is doing what to whom); and ask yourself afresh with the current position and apparent player opportunities, what strategy can I employ to get the other powers fighting each other instead of me - to position myself for a comeback or a win? and How can I convince other players that the current board position actually threatens them more than me - or will if they aren’t careful? This doesn’t mean that you have forgotten about the event that aroused your emotions - only that you have found a Stratagem that (with its possibilities for improving YOUR position and advancing YOU toward a victory) is, frankly, far more important than any petty fears or angers.

Next, if Emotions can be so devastating to your own Diplomacizing, don’t be afraid to use emotions to sabotage your opponent. In one game, I absolutely needed an opponent to lay off my ally long enough for him to accomplish a breakthrough elsewhere on the board. So I wrote this opponent telling him (quite truthfully, actually) that his best bet was to keep on with the attack. But I wrote the letter as a flagrantly arrogant demand for him to do so and with a belittling tone that indicated he lacked the ability to see for himself what was in his best interests. And it worked. As desired, he promptly pulled back from my ally and threw all his forces against me. He was dead set on punishing me for what I had said and done (I had also implemented a piddling little one-center stab the season before). As a result - due to my ally’s being free to fashion his breakthrough - I jumped in two years to a solid 15 en route to (with good tactical play) a solo win!

And there are other emotions you can stir in your opponents and victims to aid your ends such as.... Discussing how E/G/F seem to have stopped fighting and so have likely formed a Western Triple invokes Fear to get I/A/R off your Turkish case (long enough to regroup). Offering (as Germany) to support France into the North Sea splitting England’s forces in two (and gaining an unopposed walk-in to Edinburgh in the Fall) invokes Eagerness and Anticipation to get him utterly committed to a war with England (and vice versa) that will hold E/F in thrall even when you and Italy later plow into the French underbelly. Discussing with Turkey how your R/T alliance (having defeated Austria with Italian help) will just steamroll thru Italy and all other opposition invokes Hope and Great Expectations of success to lull him to the TRUE reason for your fleet moving thru (into) Constantinople in the Spring - a vicious stab by you and your new Italian ally. The list is limited only by your own creativity and deviousness. But in each case, the main goal is the same - to use emotion to distract your victim from the greater strategic implications of the game so that you can sell him on YOUR spin and manipulate him to YOUR ends.

Does this sound Difficult? Dangerous?? Demanding??? It’s also worth the effort!! There is nothing more exhilarating than watching 6 other Dippers dance to YOUR tune move after move - secure in the unshakable belief that THEY are the ones pulling YOUR strings . Is this Devious? Is it Dasterdly?? Is it Underhanded and Sneaky??? Oh Yes!!!! And you’ll just Love It when the plan comes together.

On Conducting Diplomacy: The Art of the Possible "Trust Me" (And Other Tall Tales)

by Brian Cannon

Strange as it may seem to say or to hear, the Game of Diplomacy is about Trust. Indeed this is true not only of the Game, Diplomacy - but also of real world diplomacy as well. As in the real world, it is the players who are able to engender Trust in their compatriots who find themselves in position to form a useful alliance, hold together a faltering and shaky alliance, and set up the stab that propels them to victory. And, as in the real world, Trust is not a commodity that grows on trees, nor one that can be bought and sold. Rather it must be fed and nurtured to grow and once developed must be watched and coddled lest it wither and die from neglect or abuse. But once developed and utilized, it is a tool that can make the difference between glorious victory, and ignominious defeat.

In this article, I will discuss several principles and techniques that I have found helpful in developing an atmosphere of trust in Diplomacy games.

The First Principle: The Golden Rule of Diplomatic Success

Namely, Treat each player with the respect you would want them to bestow on you. And while this may seem simplistic or laughable to some, it never ceases to amaze me how effective it is in helping to build alliances that further my position - nor how much damage can be caused by ignoring this principle. There are actually several aspects to Respecting other players.

• First is to deal with each player as an honored equal - even if they are materially or positionally weaker than you. For example, continue to consult with them on possible coordinated moves; try to find out what their objectives may be (short & long term) and see if you can weave those goals into your own objectives; be open and honest with them about any correspondence you receive which affects them; and openly discuss ways to reduce the threat they feel from your greater strength. Nor should this show of honor be just a facade, either. I find that if I truly DO think of another player as an equal, not only is it easier for that attitude to be seen by them, but they are also more likely to give me the benefit of the doubt in any questionable suggestions or moves I might make. And that makes it easier to maintain a strong alliance (or set up an unsuspecting victim).
• Second is to avoid gratuitous lies like the plague. Certainly, there is a time for lying in Diplomacy, and a well-timed lie can be the difference between victory & defeat (or a draw), but it is striking how often a player lies when it is not necessary and poisons a potential alliance before it even has a chance to form. I try to always remember (before lying to anyone) that (a) they are liable to discover my lie shortly, and (b) if circumstances change I may later find I need them as an ally (or at least not caring whether it is I or another who ends up winning). With that in mind, I try to make sure that any lie I tell will provide significant help in getting me toward a victory (or at least a strong draw). Then, I can at least claim with some justice that the goal of the game required that I lie at that point and that it was nothing personal. The alternative, lying just for the heck of it, with nothing really to gain from a lie, tends to only tic off the other player so that they will react emotionally and decide they don’t want to trust you in the future. And beware, they may, later, be in a position where if they can’t stab you, they CAN throw the game to another player.
• Third, don't insult another player's intelligence by proposing a plan so obviously lopsided in your favor as to be a clear setup. An example here would be England suggesting to his German ally that their best plan is for England to land armies in Picardy & Brest (to help subdue France) while Germany cedes Denmark to an English Fleet (along with the rest of Scandinavia) as part of an attack on Russia (don’t laugh, I had an English player suggest something like this to me in one game - he was the FIRST power France and I obliterated). Another example (from another game I played in) was France proposing to Austria that if I helped him thru a stalemate line Turkey & I were setting up (getting French fleets into Emed & Aegean) so that Turkey was defeated, that France would then withdraw across the Med leaving me (Austria) with the Turkish dots as well as the Balkans and even Venice - France did NOT win that game, or even finish in a Draw.

The Second Principle: Use Truth to Mask Lies

The second principle (or technique) I find useful is to use Truth to mask what lies I Do" tell. In one game, as Russia, I wanted to be able to take out Turkey (if needed) and so I justified my request to send a fleet through Constantinople by pointing out, quite Truthfully, that R/T was one of the strongest alliances on the board and that the fleet could do an R/T alliance more good in the front lines than twiddling its thumbs in the Black Sea. Given the board situation, the move actually made good sense and so was convincing. The only lie" in it was what was left unsaid - that with Austria gone, Italy was just as good a choice for operations against the West, and was easier to stab as well. The proposal had enough truth in it that it was believable, and when Turkey DID believe it the stage was set for the stab. I also find it useful, in setting the stage for effective deceptions, to be careful to tell the Truth, as much as possible. This means, in negotiating with both allies and victims alike, to point out the pros and cons of various proposals and to be candid about the risks each idea may pose to each partner. It is true that in so doing I may be tipping off a potential victim to some" stab opportunities I may have, but I have found that being candid and listening to their suggestions in return, fosters a strong sense of trust which more than pays for itself in the long run.

The Third Principle: Understand Your Allies' Concerns

The Third principle (or technique) to use is to take the time to genuinely consider and understand the strategic and tactical needs and concerns of the player you are wooing - and then to plan moves that actually address those concerns. For example, if Turkey wishes to form an A/T alliance, he needs to make plain to Austria that he understands Austria’s concerns about his vulnerability to a stab and is interested enough in the alliance to actually make moves that address and mitigate that vulnerability. Even if he later plans on stabbing Austria, this is a good way to start. As time goes by and Austria sees Turkey actually making moves to help Austria become more secure, he will begin to trust the Turkish player more and more, and that Trust, while necessary to a strong alliance, can also begin to blind a player to threats later in the game. And if the Turk actually wants to maintain a strong alliance with Austria over the long haul, mutual trust is the single best way to accomplish it.

Of course, I should point out that making these principles pay off in practice requires a fair amount of thought and attention to detail. At the same time you are working with your ally to devise moves that protect them against the obvious threats (like your units adjacent to their uncovered supply centers) you are also working to set up a situation which favors YOU (rather than them) in the long run. In one game, as Germany, I arranged an alliance with France in which I supported a French fleet into the North Sea at a time when Russia still had Sweden and England still had Norway. However, this exposed an unprotected English dot in Edinburgh and went along with the formation of an A/T alliance that was advancing on Russia. There were also plans in the works for Italy to hit the French underside, and England really had no recourse except to attack the French units. The end result was that France, though being in a strong position against Germany, was distracted by other powers and ultimately had to open himself to a German stab simply as a part of defending himself against other threats (which appeared greater than any threat I posed). By the time I was ready to become a possible threat to me, I had already demonstrated by trust of him and maneuvered other countries into position where he was willing to take a chance and allow me near his supply centers. The stab that I was then able to perform was strong enough that even his attempts to throw his dots to the other side were ineffective.

Summary

So to summarize, three principles (or techniques) which I have found useful both in forming strong alliances and in setting up victims for a stab are:

1. To treat other players with the respect I want them to treat me with;
2. To be careful to tell them the Truth practically all the time and to use that Truth to mask the lies I need to set up the fatal stab;
3. To take the time to see each position and situation from their vantage point and jointly plan how to meet the needs and concerns of both our countries - and then gradually twist those plans so they give the advantage to me rather than the other player.

None of this is easy to accomplish, it requires a lot of thought and forethought to bring it off. But then, who ever said that Winning in Diplomacy was easy? If you take the time and apply the effort to build a sense of trust toward you in the other players, however, and put in the thought to nudge plans into paths that favor you without violating that trust (at least not blatantly) you will find the efforts will pay off handsomely, possibly even with that rarest of prizes - a Solo Victory!

Malicious Support: Diplomacy's Ultimate Force Multiplier

by Tim Hoyt

Force Multiplier: U.S. term for new tactics or equipment which are meant to increase a unit's combat effectiveness in a manner equivalent to an increase in its size... (Edward Luttwak and Stuart L. Koehl, A Dictionary of Modern War, HarperCollins, NY,1991, p. 226).

Diplomacy poses an irritating tactical dilemma. Players know that there can never be more than 34 pieces in play, and must calculate the strength of their forces against potential or actual enemy coalitions. In theory, no state is safe until it has eighteen units (a win) or a secure stalemate line: otherwise, potential enemy coalitions may outnumber and eventually destroy them. Until these ambitious goals are realized, players must do everything possible to create artificial "force multipliers", which increase their relative power against that of all others.

The obvious manner in which to achieve this is through alliance, which is the core of the game. The game of Diplomacy has been described as an exercise in convincing six other people to allow you to destroy them. This may be a little extreme, but no single player can win without the cooperation (witting or unwitting) of other players. Successful players maximize the utility of every piece: at the most basic level, this includes ordering only the minimal number of "holds". Successful alliances combine their strength, using support orders to defend existing territory or to displace and destroy enemy units.

The support order has limitations, which are described in detail in section IX of the February 1982 2nd edition rules (sorry if I'm using an obsolete set). One of the most intriguing uses of the support order, of course, is the unwanted support: helping an enemy into a space he was hoping to keep vacant by a "bounce". For example, Austria: A Gal Bud; A Vie Bud. Russia: A Rum S (A)A Gal Bud. This would be particularly annoying in a fall turn, if Austria were intending to build in "vacant" Budapest.

It would occasionally be useful to be able to force one of your own units to retreat, in order to keep an advance moving or break a potential stalemate line. This is expressly forbidden by the rules. Section IX.3 states that "an order to move into a space occupied by another unit of the same country may not succeed if the second unit fails to leave that space...an order by one country which supports an attack by another country against a space occupied by one of the first country's units does not permit a move dislodging that unit..." This can often be frustrating. Most players have probably experienced a situation in which if they could just free ONE of their units up, they would have that breakthrough, and their enemies would cower before them and submit to endless humiliation.

Fortunately, there is a way. The "unwanted support" order, while annoying, pales in comparison to the incredible aggravation and paralyzing effectiveness of the "malicious support" (I am indebted to Laurence Zuriff, not only for coining the phrase, but also for participating in a test case on Compuserve!).

Effective use of malicious support requires a tight alliance between two countries. It also requires some intermingling of pieces. Many players are unwilling to permit this, preferring to divide responsibilities. The most common form of this is the land-sea alliance: Germany builds armies, England builds fleets, for example. "Spheres of influence" are another means: France secures the Low Countries and Iberia and then attacks on the Mediterranean front, while England gets Scandinavia and attacks through the Barents and Baltic. There are advantages to these agreements: they provide psychological security for cooperating players in a cutthroat game; they delineate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour (if you build that second fleet, we're at war!); and they maximize the value of existing pieces in an alliance by ensuring that the fewest possible pieces are wasted guarding against the ally's possible perfidy.

The difference between "force maximization" (my own term) and "force multiplier" (an accepted military term) is that the latter INCREASES the capability of existing units: the same numbers of forces achieve the results of larger numbers of forces. Achieving this in Diplomacy is the equivalent of having extra pieces on the board, working for you. The way to achieve this is to intermingle allied forces, accepting the risks and vulnerabilities attached. Malicious support takes advantage of this by using enemy pieces to achieve coalition goals.

The Theory of Malicious Support

The theory of malicious support is as follows: allies A and B have intermingled, cooperating units against enemy C. There are times when it is advantageous for B to support C's units in attacks on A, in order to displace A's units and force them to "retreat" in an advantageous manner. For a coalition on the offensive, this may allow a unit to retreat across a not quite formed stalemate line, foiling C's efforts to establish an effective defense. On the defensive, malicious support may allow A to rebuild an unwanted unit as something more productive and useful.

The example which follows came out of Compuserve Game TAD149, Fall 1905 moves, for those who might be interested.

Position (Spring 1905):

• A: A Bud, A Gal, A Gas, A Mun, A Rum, A Tyl, A War, F Mid
• E: F Yor, F Hel
• F: A Bur, A Ruh, F Eng, F Hol, F Lon, F Por
• G: A Ber, A Kie, A Sil
• I: A Arm, A Mar, A Pie, A Ukr, F Bla, F Lyo, F Spa(sc), F Tyn, F Wes
• R: A Den, A Fin, A Lvn, A Mos, F Swe
• T: F Sev

The stinking ruin of Versailles still smolders as you assemble your new "provisional military government" of France. The recently deceased President was obsessed with eliminating England to the point that he allowed an Austro-Italian alliance to "turn the corner" into the Mid Atlantic, as well as giving up Spa and Mar. One quarter of your naval force sits beleaguered in Portugal: for some reason, your predecessor made no effort last turn to remove it from that obviously lost province. Paris and Brest are threatened by Austrian troops and, most ignominiously, the pitiful Hapsburg Navy, which stands astride the narrow Mid Atlantic like a Colossus.

Your traditional allies of Germany and Russia continue to engage in uncoordinated and often futile attacks on the Hapsburgs, although it appears that Munich will change hands once more this year and be restored to the Kaiser. You have just taken Holland, so a build is possible if one of your centers can be kept open. Obviously, you have your diplomatic work cut out for you, but you leave that temporarily to your Foreign Minister and concentrate on the tactical position.

Austro-Italian Attack in Fall 1905:

• A: F Mid-Bre; A Gas S F Mid-Bre; A Mun S (E) F Hel-Kie(failed, NSO).
• I: A Pie-Spa; F Spa(sc)-Por; F Wes S F Por-Mid; A Mar S A Par-Gas; F Lyo C A Pie-Spa.

The Catholic Alliance took advantage of the intermingled pieces through malicious supports. If France had attacked Gas, cutting support for F Mid Bre, Austrian A Gas retreats to Paris because of Italy's support for the French attack! At the same time, if F Eng bounces Bre and F Por cuts Mid's possible support, Italy's F Wes S F Por-Mid gains Portugal for Italy as an unsupported attack (F Spa(sc)-Por), and retreats Austrian F Mid-Iri for a spring attack on French Lpl. If France makes its "best move" to defend Bre and secure a build, it loses both Par and Por. As a result, rather than being able to build a piece in a vacant center, it will actually lose one.

This would not have been possible without malicious supports. If all of the pieces in theater were Italian, the retreat to Paris would not be possible, and neither would the support of F Por-Mid or the retreat of F Mid to Iri. Similar positions exist in the East, where Italy's two armies and a fleet cooperated carefully with Austrian forces against first Turkey and later Russia.

Conclusion

This is not exactly a "fair" example: the Austro-Italian alliance has a very strong hand to play in this game, and there isn't too much that France can do about the tactical situation. Nevertheless, it exhibits the malicious support at its nastiest, when it can turn a strong French defensive move into a surprisingly weak one. The malicious support may, however, be very useful in the "standard" Russia-Turkey alliance, where Russia attempts to move his F Sev out into the Aegean Sea in F 1902. A Russian fleet as a spearhead into the Ionian can be the recipient of malicious support from second-line Turkish fleets, allowing "offensive" retreats into Tyn, Apu, Adr, Alb, or possibly even an Italian-controlled supply center. Malicious support may also be a dastardly option in traditional F-G and F-G-R anti-English alliances. When the filthy Sassenach attack to cut your support for something nasty, have your ally support the English in and retreat to Yorkshire or Wales! Surely the opportunity of pulling off a really neat trick like that is worth the risk of having two or three allied units sitting near your home supply centers...

FOOTNOTE: Ironically, the French player did nothing we expected. His moves were F Por H, F Eng-Nth (!), F Lon S F Eng-Nth, A Bur-Par, A Ruh-Bur, F Hol S F Eng-Nth. While France lost Bre and didn’t (couldn’t) build, it retained the possibility of finishing off England and staying alive by cannibalizing German and Russian centers. The new provisional government, which requested a one week delay in orders for diplomatic reasons, apparently executed the entire Foreign Ministry. The French player failed to even attempt to break up the Austro-Italian alliance, and also did not communicate with his former allies in Germany and Russia. Lack of coordination between these allies resulted in the loss of Sev, Mos, Mun, and Bre to the Austrians. The Catholic Alliance in Spring 1906 controlled 21 centers (12 Austrian, 9 Italian).

The Little Guy

by David Partridge

Most of the articles you've read on strategy in Diplomacy have probably been involved with how to manipulate your fellow diplomats into falling over themselves while you craftily maneuver your way to 18 centers and the solo win. Certainly that is the primary goal of most diplomacy players, and a good thing to have in mind when starting out the game, but I'd like to discuss a situation which seems to arise far more frequently than the dilemma of deciding just how much crowing about your victory you can indulge in without being too gauche. It's 1906 and you have only three or four centers while a steamroller is rapidly approaching you, what do you do now?

First and foremost, don't write the game off! Comebacks by two center powers may be rare, but they do happen, and always remember that many games end in a draw, and you only need one center to be a part of a draw! But the end of the game is a long time down the road, how do you survive the problems facing you now? Your neighbors (the cowardly ones hiding behind you!) may tell you that you have an obligation to put up your best defense and slow the steamroller, and certainly there is nothing wrong with making a heroic last stand, it beats going out with a whimper. But, as General Patton said, you don't win wars by dying for your country, you win wars by making some other guy die for his country! Until you've lost your last dot, or someone has made it to a solo win, you are always still in the running. Any power that still has centers, even if its only one, can veto a draw, so you can never be counted out. If you can't find an ally willing to help you hang on and fight it out, try to find someone who'll keep you alive rather than see your centers go to his enemy. Remember the old maxim, my enemy's enemy is my friend.

A few years ago at a local Con, I had the folly of counting out a small player made excruciatingly clear to me. We were well into the mid game, and after a few false starts, I, as Germany, had formed a strong alliance with France. We had finished off the perfidious English and were sweeping forward on our respective fronts, heading for a rendezvous in the southeast corner of the board. By the time Italy and Russia had patched up their differences and finally finished off Austria, it was obvious that we had crossed the stalemate lines and barring silly mistakes on our part, they could not hold a defensive line. For several turns, they tried to slow our advance as best they could and campaigned hard to break up the F/G and get one of us to stab the other, but all to no avail.

Then, as French units were landing on the Italian boot, the Italian strategy took a sudden dramatic turn. Forsaking his homeland, he left two units to slow the French down, and sent the rest, including those forming part of the line against Germany, in an onslaught against the Russian. The Russian collapse was predictably sudden and total. It seemed that Italy had just decided that his position was hopeless and he was going to at least work out a few old grudges with Russia before he went. I was sitting fat and happy, and took full advantage of the moment to seize as many Russian centers as I could get, and then Italy lowered the boom with a new offensive. Not on the board, where I could have easily handled anything he tried, but on the diplomatic front. He pointed out to France that I had surged to within a few centers of the win and not only was it within his power to give me the win, but the only way to prevent my taking it was for France to immediately start cooperating with Italy on the defense. Suddenly, the F/G alliance was under an intolerable strain. In order to preserve the alliance, I would have had to ensure the growth of France while making no further gains myself and do this in the face of an Italy who had made it known he would throw his centers to me rather than lose to a two-way draw. Any plan to keep the F/G alive would have required extremely careful maneuvering and a lot of trust on France's part. France knew that if he continued the attack on Italy he couldn't prevent Italy from throwing the win to me, and trusting me not to take it if offered was for some reason not a route he wished to take. That only left a few turns to find out if I could get the solo win, and when the I/F defense proved strong enough, the game ended in a three-way draw.

The point here is not that you should always attack your ally when things look bleak, but that Italy did not let a tactically poor situation discourage him. Since he couldn't preserve his position by force of arms, he looked to see what needed to happen on the diplomatic front to ensure his survival. By attacking Russia, he realigned the board so that France could expect greater benefits from keeping Italy alive than from continuing the alliance with Germany. His position had not improved tactically, in fact, it had worsened, but he had introduced sufficient tension to make a tactically feasible result diplomatically impossible.

The thing to remember is that when faced with annihilation from a larger power, there are more options than simply resisting to the last man. If there is no other power willing or able to give you sufficient support to hold on, consider joining forces with your attacker! There is a lot of incentive for a large power to keep a smaller power alive if that power will work against the other remaining powers. Rather than facing a delay of several years as it fights through the small power's defenses, the larger power's front line has suddenly jumped forward several provinces, and his units, through the proxy of his protectorate, are already engaged with the next opponent. As the proxy makes gains, the master power will take its rearward centers, gaining centers perhaps more quickly than it would have by simply wiping out the proxy. If all you achieve as the small power in such an arrangement is to help the larger power to a victory, then perhaps a valiant last stand would have brought more honor and been more satisfactory, but many times you can use the changes in the power balance that you have created to your own ends. Perhaps your new protector had a partner who, now that he sees his ally suddenly surging ahead, will consider a stab? Maybe your move will finally convince the rest of the players to stop their silly squabbling and band together. Whatever happens, you are still alive and still affecting what happens on the board and that means you aren't out of the running yet.

David Partridge, a skilled Diplomat, also co-wrote the Randy Newman hit Short People. And his uncle was a Munchkin. His cousin is a Gnome.

Stalking The Perfect Alliance

by Brian Cannon

If you're like me, you enter a new game of Diplomacy eagerly anticipating and hoping for a thrilling victory, but still dreading the prospects of the enemy alliance or the treacherous stab that will reduce all your glorious plans to ignominious dust. In some games you never seem able to find an ally and get crushed by your neighbors like a pile of old and moldy potato chips. In other games, you are sure you've found and made an ally who will help you further your plans (and his own), only to find him changing sides and turning on you just when you were starting to roll - or, in some ways worse, proving just plain unreliable causing you to waste moves with NSO" (no such order) supports and the like and allowing your enemies to advance while you futilely spend your time and energy trying to breathe life back into your supposed ally. Since it is virtually impossible to be successful in Diplomacy without gaining allies at some point (barring variants like no-press Gunboat & Fog of War & the like), it follows that one of the most important skills of a successful Diplomacy player is the ability to build and maintain (and direct) an alliance. In this article, I'll discuss several aspects of alliance building and maintenance (ABM", yet another TLA ). This is by no means an exhaustive list; and, as is common in Diplomacy, there will always be exceptions that call for violating otherwise valid rules of thumb. Nevertheless, it can serve as a good starting point for those seeking improved success in their Diplomatic endeavors.

The first principle of effective alliance building is mutual respect. This includes mutual understanding of and concern for the legitimate needs and goals of each ally’s country and also, I believe, respect for each ally as a person and a player. This later is important because, ultimately, it is the player (person) who decides what alliances their country will join, what moves they will make, what Diplomacy they will conduct, who they will stab (and when) and who they will favor when the going gets tough. And since, so far at least, all Diplomacy players are flawed, FEELING, humans" (no Vulcans involved yet, to my knowledge), it must be expected that most players will be influenced in their strategic decisions by how they FEEL about you and the other players. Dale Carnegie could tell you more (and better) than I about how to build an attitude of respect into how other players view you. For now, I'll just mention a few thoughts.

1. Respect begets respect, and vice versa. If you think (and convey) that another player is a jerk, it’s likely they'll return the favor. If you think (and convey) that your potential ally is a good player with good ideas and a sound grasp of tactics, it is far more likely that they will be disposed to think the same of you (if you give them reason to, at least) or at least that they will be willing to give you the benefit of any doubt.

2. Interest and concern for ones welfare can be catching. If you take the time to see the world (or at least Europe) from the viewpoint of your prospective ally; and if you put in the energy to consider how you can help them reach goals that benefit their country (at least to the point of not damaging your own country); and if you genuinely listen to the concerns they express and put in the time and thought necessary to factor those concerns into any proposed plan for alliance; then you build a foundation from which a strong and long lasting alliance can be formed. One capable of weathering the stresses imposed by those scheming, untrustworthy and nasty yokels on the other end of your cannon barrels.

3. With the strength and resiliency of your prospective alliance at stake, seek to devise a Balanced plan. An unbalanced plan (one which favors one ally significantly more than another) can" be the death of your alliance hopes - and can kill your alliance later even if you succeed in forming it now. The best plan, generally, is one in which each ally has minimal (and roughly equal) opportunities for stabbing another ally; in which each has reasonably equivalent opportunities for growth; and in which no ally becomes (or is likely to become) THE obvious target once the alliance has been successful (e.g.: a Western Triple E/G/F in which England rules the North, France the Med, and Germany a thin band thru the middle - just begging to be crushed by E/F on the theory that a 2-way beats a 3-way any day). The challenge here is to devise a plan for the proposed alliance that considers and seeks to prevent such imbalances from developing. David Partridge's article in DW #75 about "The Little Guy" is a good illustration of how an otherwise stable G/F alliance became unbalanced (due to unexpected and unplanned for mechanizations by Italy) and disintegrated forcing inclusion of Italy in the Draw.

4. Open and active communication lines are, in practically every case, essential to the health of a long term alliance. Silence presents a vacuum to your current ally in which fancy can construct all sorts of demons and fears about WHY you stopped writing. And when other players ARE writing and following sound principles in their attempts to build a new alliance structure (one which excludes you) with your current ally, you are just begging for trouble if you give them an open field to play in. Certainly there are times when you can't keep up the writing as much as you would like (you're on vacation or ill or your work load is taking all your free time, for example). In these cases, be candid and let your ally know what is going on so he will understand why your communication has diminished. Invite him to take an increased roll in your alliance’s plans and to keep communicating with you. Do everything you can to ensure he understands your continuing interest in maintaining an alliance which will benefit both of you and your continuing commitment to that alliance - even in spite of your reduced letter writing.

In addition to the above, here are several techniques that may be employed to shore up or strengthen (or encourage the building of) an alliance you desire. Not every technique will be applicable all the time, and there are many others, but these can be a few more arrows to add to your quiver.

1. Paint the picture (to your prospective allies) of an enemy alliance which will destroy all of you if you don't band together. It may even be necessary to attempt to encourage the formation of such an alliance. True, this can be dangerous - but if you are having difficulty convincing your prospective allies to join you (instead of attacking you) it may be necessary. Ideally, the nature of such an enemy alliance should be that your alliance (if formed) will be able to emerge victorious from the conflict, but which will be able to eat your prospective allies (and you) piece by piece if they don't join with you.

2. While you will be planning your alliance’s operations so that each ally has minimal opportunity to stab another, there will always be slight discrepancies (someone will have a slight advantage). If possible seek to keep that slight advantage on your side.

3. Of course, along with this goes the added responsibility of reassuring your allies that even tho you may have a slight advantage, they can trust you not to exploit it. Giving preference to their desires about your builds; maintaining a buffer between your forces and their dots; selflessly assisting them in other areas of the board to their benefit (or potential future benefit); and discussing & highlighting their importance to the alliance are all steps you can take to balance your allies perceptions of your slight stab-potential advantage.

4. Anticipate ways in which a current ally could turn on you if they decided to join a new alliance - and plan how you could deal with each possibility. If you can arrange your moves to be in position to deal with such treachery while continuing to help the alliance move forward you will have gone a long way to preventing such tricky stabs (at least by others). This is a rather complicated area so aside from mentioning it I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader (or to a later article) to discuss in detail.

5. If you can't guard yourself against likely stab opportunities by your current allies, seek to plan moves that will make YOUR units essential to the alliance. The most common example of this is, of course, maneuvering yourself into a crucial position in a stalemate line. A position in which you possess the absolute ability to allow the enemy alliance thru any possible stalemate lines no matter what your current allies do about it. A position in which you can retaliate to a stab by forcing the stabbers onto the losing side. Another example is one in which your alliance is advancing but has yet to cross the enemy’s stalemate line. If you can so arrange it that your units are essential to crossing the line (for example, pushing a western alliance past the key positions of Venice and the Italian boot). If you are France in such a position with the ability to cross the line, but also with the ability to help the eastern powers bottle up the line if you are stabbed, you possess tremendous leverage - even if your home dots are surrounded and unprotected.

Of course, there is much more to alliance building and managing than I've discussed here. Not least of which is the question of what to do when your alliance has defeated all opposition and entered the end game. Do you accept the draw? Will your allies accept the draw? Will you (or they) seek to reduce the size of the draw? Or lunge for a solo? Do you have the ability to even consider the option? Fertile field here for future articles (including by other budding authors lurking out there . For now, aside from encouraging more of you who are reading this to consider submitting articles (especially Strategy & Tactics articles), I will close with this quote by Benjamin Franklin, July 4, 1776: "We must all hang together else we shall all hang separately." How will YOU hang?

Brian Cannon is a regular contributor of Strategy & Tactics articles to Diplomacy World.

Diplomacy and the U.S. Army's "Principles of War"

by Tim Hoyt

After the First World War, in an effort to simplify the complexities of warfare and strategy to a manageable level, the U.S. Army formulated a short list of fundamental principles which guide warfare at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels. These principles, to list them briefly, are Objective, Offensive, Mass, Economy of Force, Maneuver, Unity of Command, Security, Surprise, and Simplicity.

At first glance, one might ask why these are applicable to Diplomacy? After all, Dip focuses (at least in theory) on diplomatic interactions between states, rather than strictly on military applications of force. Can a list which is intended to, among other things, teach young lieutenants how to lead small units into combat have much relevance to a game which deals with the conflict and fate of empires? In short, exactly why the hell am I writing this article? It's not like I'm getting paid, or anything [note: talk to editor about revising pay scale].

There are, in fact, two levels to Diplomacy. One level is psychological: players vie with one another to convince neighbors and non-neighbors, friends and adversaries, and even the occasional well-intentioned neutral to help them carry out nefarious schemes of European conquest. This level is extremely Machiavellian, and has most of the facets that make Diplomacy so unique. Personal judgment and timing are critical in a game which more than occasionally dissolves into a contest to see which partner can stab the other first. For some, this is the fun part.

The other level is more military-oriented. Any good nefarious scheme requires some sense of 1) what it is you wish to accomplish (conquer half of Europe), and 2) how you intend to do that, since you start with only one-sixth (a little more if you're the Tsar) of what you need to acquire in terms of centers and forces. In essence, you require a plan, and it's a good idea to have some idea of what you want before you start negotiating.

The Principles of War can be very useful in constructing a plan, especially for those who may have just started playing the game and gotten clobbered by people who used to be your friends but suddenly turned into slobbering, backstabbing, cannibalistic fiends with a penchant for mayhem and destruction. There is never a perfect strategy: in fact, there are a lot of strategies which are quite good, but fail to win games for any number of reasons. But any decent strategy starts with a few basic ideas, and the Principles of War are an excellent starting point, particularly for beginners whose heads are still swimming from their last debacle. Besides the inevitable "I can't believe he lied to me" issue, the primary cause of beginner defeats is simply lack of strategy.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the objective is to focus military efforts on a clearly defined and attainable goal. Your ultimate goal is clear: grab eighteen centers and mock all the other players as the miserable sycophants that you have forced them to become. Intermediate objectives, however, are necessary to get there. For Diplomacy purposes, TACTICAL objectives are the most immediate ones: who do you ally with in the first turns, with the intention of dealing with which enemies? OPERATIONAL Objectives look several turns ahead: how do you position yourself for a knockout blow of your enemy? Which states may be in a position to interfere with your plans, or to attack you? How will you approach them, and negate the threats they pose if necessary? STRATEGIC objectives focus on the long-term: after you've annihilated the initial enemy, what do you plan to do next? Be unscrupulous, and stab your ally? If so, you'd better be thinking about how to get in position, and who you'll get to help you do this dirty deed. Objectives can change during the game, as your allies prove more or less trustworthy and enemy coalitions appear to screw up your plans. Don't worry about it: adapt and carry on!

OFFENSIVE

You cannot win this game without taking the offensive. You cannot compete in this game without maintaining the initiative (which is probably a better word than Offensive for this principle, but I didn't write them). If you find yourself in a game where you are reacting, rather than forcing others to react, you may be in trouble. Not dead yet, to quote Monty Python, but in trouble. One easy way for this to happen is if you do not have operational or strategic objectives. If you have a lot of units not moving, you have probably lost the initiative at least temporarily, and you are certainly not taking advantage of opportunities to mass against another prospective opponent. If you've reached the midgame (one or two states destroyed) and you don't know what to do next, you've lost the initiative and you'd better do something fast or you'll be shark food. Being friends with everyone on the board is no security: trust me, they'll stab you in a minute!

There are, of course, times when you have no choice but to assume the defensive. Fight like hell to gain breathing room. Try to detach one of the allies, either through diplomacy with them ("I'll give you a better deal than France"), diplomacy against them ("hey, Russia--want a slice of the Kaiser while I tie him up for you?"), or focused and aggressive defense. Sometimes you can break a coalition by making sure that one partner doesn't do as well as the other. The defensive should, if possible, only be assumed temporarily: ALWAYS be trying to regain initiative! You never know when your opponents' coalition will collapse, or when someone will NMR (in a mail game). If you can't guarantee that your best possible defensive moves will keep you safe, then try to second-guess your opponent and attack to keep him/her off balance. Obviously, you want to preserve yourself as long as possible, but if you're going to lose a center, why not gamble and try to throw a monkey wrench in the works?

MASS

Mass, sometimes known as CONCENTRATION, is the intimately related to the principle of Economy of Force (see below). The purpose of mass is to mobilize superior power at crucial points for decisive success. In essence, if you can arrange it, you should only be fighting on one front at a time (a dead white male named Hitler, may he "rest" in eternal torment, found this out the hard way). You may not need a lot of units to succeed if your victim's pieces are tied up on another front: the jackal stab, where you overrun someone from behind while they're in a war on another front, is a time-honored tradition (think Stalin and Poland in 1939), and happens a lot to Germany, Italy, and Austria.

ECONOMY OF FORCE

The principle of Economy of Force dictates that only minimal force is directed at secondary or irrelevant objectives. Don't fritter away your pieces in useless moves. Don't leave a lot of pieces to defend against a possible stab by an ally (unless you're sure it's coming): it indicates lack of trust (a condition, if possible, you ought to keep to yourself) as well as wasting pieces you could be using to grab more centers. Holding in place is usually silly, if you can do something even remotely useful with the unit like offer an ally support, or can move to a more effective position. As France, there is rarely a reason to garrison Gascony unless one is in a pitched battle for Iberia and interior France. If you have a unit in Gas, and there's no immediate threat, get it somewhere else. You NEVER have enough units in the places you need them.

MANEUVER

Never underestimate the power of maneuver, even in a cramped little board like the one we play Dip on. There are usually several options for any combination of units, and while positions can be relentlessly broken down through attrition, creative use of units can sometimes achieve surprising results. Use of the Malicious Support order, discussed last issue (I always like to reference my own writings--makes me feel important. Plus, I may be able to talk Doug into giving me a commission on back issues that he sells through my shameless pandering. Whaddaya think, Doug?) is one example. Grab critical positions on the board, and hang onto them if at all possible. Among these are Nth, Mid, Ion, Tyl, and Mun--all of these are chokepoints, and they also figure highly in the establishment of stalemate lines (ask Bernard Finel--he's got a list of several hundred of them. Get a life, Bernard !). Convoys and the wide ocean spaces allow units to rapidly shift position, particularly in the Atlantic. Almost every possible position in Diplomacy has a weak flank: roll it up and the position falls (the exception, of course, are the stalemate lines).

UNITY OF COMMAND

This is especially applicable to alliances. If you're part of a coalition, and at various times you must be in order to win the game, you must coordinate your actions. It isn't enough to work with somebody, if you're not cooperating. Germany's pieces don't do you a lot of good in your attack on France if they're not supporting you, or if you are unable to support them for lack of communication, mutual hostility, or whatever. If you have ideas, try to submit them to your partner respectfully, asking for his opinion and suggestions, and encourage him to do the same. Sometimes you have to swallow orders that you "would never have made" in order to keep a coalition together. Sometimes your allies are, simply, cretinous. Bummer. Do the best you can. Try to talk out options as much as possible, and never be afraid to play out potential moves and countermoves on the Dip board or reference map.

SECURITY

This principle refers to the need to prevent enemies or possible enemies from achieving an unexpected advantage. This includes both the need to guard against a stab and also the need to maintain initiative when engaged in a war. It also means not giving away your secrets and plans unnecessarily. Security, at times, appears incompatible with Economy of Force: should Austria guard against Italy the first turn, or fling all its units to the east for the successful attack on Gre? At times like that, you just have to make a choice, live with it, and do the best you can. Perfect security isn't possible in this game, or at least not until you're extremely close to a win. Good Diplomacy may achieve a level of security that no combination of units can get you.

SURPRISE

The purpose of surprise is to strike the enemy at a time or place or in a manner for which they are simply unprepared. Stabbing is one way. Another uses maneuver to attack where the enemy doesn't anticipate it: convoys can be particularly devastating in this respect.

SIMPLICITY

K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid). Relatively simple plans are usually the best. Don't get too caught up in how to take that vital thirteenth center in the fifth year, when it's only Spring 1902. Things change, and so must your plans. Simple plans are a hell of a lot easier to change, and to explain to allies.

So how does this apply to the new gamer? I'll use England as a test case, because its position is relatively secure and its options, compared to other states, relatively limited.

As England before Spring 1901, you decide on your objectives. "Hmm...let's see: first I'll take France with German help, and then assist the Germans against Russia while I weasel my way into the Med. I'll then have pieces from Stp (nc) to Tyn, which leaves Germany effectively at my mercy. I'll concentrate most of my forces on whoever is dominant in the eastern Med region, and leave my garrisons and one big build as the "stab force" against Germany which will eventually buy me my 18." Note that this plan is Simple, combines immediate (Tactical) and broad (strategic) Objectives, and it might even work. By gaining a German ally, you practice Economy of Force (don't need to guard against two potential enemies) and Mass (you can throw all your forces at France). You can keep Security by negotiating simultaneously with France, either bargaining for a neutral Eng or promising an alliance against Germany. Your attack should then benefit from Surprise, provided your German ally doesn't leak it. Of course, you could suffer the nasty little surprise of a Franco-German alliance against you, but at least you'll be blocking France from the Channel and buying yourself time to rethink your objectives and strategy.

The best negotiating position is to present Germany with a concrete Tactical Objective (in the fall, I'll support you to Bel, and then next spring we'll hammer into France) . This plan should, ideally, look more than a turn or two ahead (Operational Objective): telling Germany, for instance, that you'll divide up the French realm by giving him Bel, Par, and Mar (if he wants it), while you get Bre, Por, and Spa, for instance. Don't be too worried about promising away centers you don't own yet--you can always renegotiate, so be generous. You may wish to keep operational objectives flexible: for instance, plan on either convoying to Picardy in 1902 OR taking Mid, depending on France's builds. Also, stress that the alliance will continue after the vile Napoleon has been drowned in a butt of Malmsey: promise him support against the (inevitable) Russian attack, or offer to support him into Russian territories as part of the alliance.

In Spring 1901, Mass your forces (F Lon-Eng, F Edi-Nth, A Lpl-Yor or Wal). Don't waste moves, or order pieces to hold if they can position themselves more effectively or be useful (Economy of Force). Don't get TOO carried away by Economy of Force: garrisons are a good idea, at least some of the time. For instance, leaving one piece to defend against Russian perfidy in Scandinavia isn't a bad idea (particularly a garrison in Nwy), but a S1902 move of newly created F Lon and F Edi to Nth and Nwg respectively isn't doing a lot for the war effort against France. Unless Russia has demonstrated bad faith, reeks of untrustworthiness, or has built lots of pieces in the North, you may well be wasting pieces and needlessly annoying Russia. Heck, if you're allied with Germany you should be able to arrange a bounce around Nwy or Swe.. This exhibits both Economy of Force, and Unity of Command: together you each leave a one-piece garrison which temporarily forestalls all Russian moves in Scandinavia and frees your pieces up for an overwhelming joint operation on France.

As the attack on France proceeds, think about what to do next (Operational and Strategic Objectives): foresight will avoid the problems of losing initiative (see Offensive). As France collapses, some of your units will be freed for use elsewhere. Cooperate with Germany against Italy or Russia: although your forces are divided against multiple opponents, Unity of Command will make your combined forces more effective, and with France collapsing (say, around 1903) you can probably afford to open a second front (if one hasn't been opened for you!).

Alternatively, you can stab Germany, using most of your forces and leaving France to remain a pitiful husk, never to recover and possibly only fit to act as your puppet (BWAHAHAHA!). This wasn't part of your original strategy, but it might be attractive depending on the circumstances.

The Eastern powers, whoever they may be, will be very interested in what England wants to do after France is squashed (so will Italy, if it still exists). An apparent southern strategy can be rapidly shifted north (Maneuver) to achieve Surprise. Assume you have F Spa (sc), F Por, A Bur, F Eng, F Nth, A Nwy, F Bre. Russia may feel secure until you move F Nth-Nwg, F Mid-Nat, F Por-Mid, A Bur-Gas, A Nwy-Fin, F Bre-Eng, F Eng-Nth and threaten a major assault on the north including two armies (F Mid, F Nat, F Nwg C A Gas-Nwy; F Nth S A Gas-Nwy). Combined with German movement of armies to the east or a fleet into the Baltic, even a strong Russia might get worried. This move may be much better in the long-term for an Anglo-German alliance if, for instance, a Russo-Turkish juggernaut is in the process of picking the bones of Austria-Italy: England "proves" (temporarily, at least) that it is no threat to Italy, and may even gain reluctant Italian acceptance of British fleets in Wes for "joint defensive efforts", while simultaneously putting a lot of pressure on the Tsar. If you can prop up a weak but friendly state that is at war with your enemy, why not do it (Economy of Force), while you Mass on another front for a crippling blow to your.mutual enemy? Never underestimate the utility of a well-played buffer state ally: by keeping it alive you deprive your enemy of initiative, and may ultimately take the Offensive against him while he is engaged on more than one front (the reverse of Economy of Force).

But enough of this. The idea, I hope, is clear. A simple plan of one paragraph provides the strategic focus for both diplomatic approaches and a series of campaigns aimed at eliminating enemies, depriving them of the initiative, and positioning your forces for ultimate victory. Doesn't that sound simple? Best of luck.

Tim Hoyt is now a prolific Dip World contributor.

Sun Tzu and The Art of War

by Tim Hoyt

"War is a vital matter of state. It is the field on which life or death is determined and the road that leads to either survival or ruin, and must be examined with the greatest care." (Chapter 1).

The Art of War represents the earliest existing codification of military and political strategy, and is probably the most widely-read work on strategy in history. (It helps, of course, that the book comes from China, which is undoubtedly the most widely-populated country in history, and which has a long literary tradition.) Sun Tzu's book is widely studied by the business and military communities today. At least seven different translations appeared in the last two decades alone, including an "official" copy of the version used by the People's Liberation Army complete with Marxist dialectic and critique (I know this because I have them on my desk. Isn't it great, being weird and obsessive?)

Historical information regarding Sun Tzu is spotty, and complicated by the existence of a separate text by Sun Pin (apparently a descendant) which is also titled The Art of War (to be examined, perhaps, in a later article). The oldest Chinese historical records indicate the Sun Tzu lived at the end of the so-called Spring and Autumn Period (703-481 B.C.). During this period, the ruling Chou Dynasty gradually collapsed, and power drifted into the hands of increasingly independent provincial nobles. As these nobles contested for power and influence, China became divided into approximately a half-dozen to a dozen sizeable "kingdoms". The Period of the Warring States (403-221 B.C.) marked the struggles of the largest of these kingdoms to destroy their enemies and unify China. This period represents the closest parallel in the Asian world to the kinds of "balance of power" politics that dominated Europe from the 18th-20th centuries, and which form the basis of Diplomacy and, coincidentally, much of modern international relations theory.

Sun Tzu was a contemporary of Confucius (who lived from 551-479 B.C.). The tone of the text, which may easily be read as an exercise in Taoist philosophy, is profoundly influenced by both the increasing violence of the end of the Spring and Autumn period and by changes in the prevailing military technology. Warfare was changing from an aristocratic monopoly to a profession, and the "butcher's bills" in battle were increasing from the hundreds to the hundreds of thousands. The perfection of an "art of strategy" which would minimize the disruption and social cost of increasingly terrible and bloody wars was clearly desirable. The Art of War consistently indicates a marked dislike for warfare. The height of strategy is not to subdue the enemy in battle, but to subdue him without fighting at all. Sun Tzu, unlike many Western analysts, focuses on the period before the war begins as a principle realm for strategy. This pre-war period requires deft manipulation of friends and enemies during the mobilization of military forces, stockpiling of logistic requirements for the initial campaigns, and other preparations for war. Sun Tzu, therefore, pays particular attention to deceit and diplomacy: two topics that should be close to the heart of any serious Diplomacy player.

"...the best military policy is to attack strategies; the next to attack alliances; the next to attack soldiers..."(Chapter 3)

There's a reason that Diplomacy recommends an extra-long period of diplomacy before the first turn. This is the period when most, if not all, players formulate their basic strategies for the game. These strategies may or may not be formulated in cooperation with allies, but in any event they require outside assistance to have any chance of succeeding. Attacking enemy strategies still requires a strategy of your own: who is likely to be your enemy? Who do you want as an ally? How can you get them on your side? A simple method is to attack a fellow-neighbor's strategy. You don't even have to tell the truth, as long as you're persuasive. "Doug? Doug Kent? He ALWAYS attacks France when he plays Britain. He's been after me as an ally from the word go, but I just don't trust him. Germany and France are natural allies..." Denying an opponent allies at the beginning of the game is the best way of putting him in a position where you can destroy him.

"A government should not mobilize its army out of anger...Act when it is beneficial; desist when it is not. Anger can revert to joy, wrath can revert to delight, but a nation destroyed cannot be restored to its existence, and the dead cannot be brought back to life." (Chapter Twelve)

"The individualist without strategy who takes opponents lightly will inevitably become the captive of others."(Chapter Nine)

This is the essence of competitive Diplomacy play. ALWAYS have a strategy. While no strategy is perfect, in the absence of one you are simply floundering around the board waiting for someone to get organized enough to attack you and take you over. Recognize that no strategy is perfect: there are simply too many variables, many of which reside in the individual psyches of your fellow-players, to plan for everything. Remember to be flexible, too: plans change, allies stab or are stabbed, former enemies may become fast friends or useful tools. And remember that your enemies have strategies, too.

"In ancient times, skillful warriors made themselves invincible, and then watched for vulnerability in their opponent. Invincibility is in oneself; vulnerability is in the opponent. Therefore skillful warriors are able to make themselves invincible, but they cannot cause vulnerability in an opponent." (Chapter Four)

The ugly truth is that you can't force someone to be vulnerable. You can, however, sometimes persuade them to weaken themselves. If you can't get them to weaken themselves, and you decide to attack them anyway, be prepared for a long war (see below).

"Warfare is the art of deceit. Therefore, when able, seem to be unable; when ready, seem unready; when near-by, seem far away; and when far-away, seem near. If the enemy seeks some advantage, entice him with it...Attack where he is not prepared: go by way of places where it would never occur to him you would go." (Chapter 1)

Like it or not, treachery and deceit dominate the game of Diplomacy. Players spend most of their time figuring out when and who to trust. Deceiving your opponent is particularly critical just before the stab. Always have an excuse ready, and try not to make the pre-stab move too obvious. Think a turn or two ahead, and come up with clever and nasty combinations. Naturally, you don't have to worry about this if you have lots of pieces and no enemies. But for those of us not graced with those conditions, deceit is a wonderful way to assist our neighbors in becoming vulnerable.

Deceit is not lying: it is more sleight of hand, or, if you prefer, the small con. An example is the Italian opening move of A Ven-Tri. This *could* be a full-fledged stab of Austria. It also can be combined with a Lepanto to get an extra army into the Balkans against a possible R-T combination. The only way to know for sure is to wait until the fall move. Even an Austrian attack on Tri (A Vie S F Alb-Tri, or some variation) is no guarantee that there isn't an Austro-Italian alliance: perhaps Italy then retreats to Bud or Ser, where it can still be useful against the Eastern powers. A skillful Italian player can keep this up for a couple of turns. Mind you, if he's *not* allied with Austria, this deception won't do him much good! But if he is and wants to keep it secret, this deceit may forestall an R-T, or at least keep it off balance for a couple of turns early in the game.

"Forces are to be structured strategically, based on what is advantageous." (Chapter One)

The meaning of this should be obvious. In Diplomacy, there are only two kinds of pieces: armies and fleets. Each state has only limited resources. Forces must be built to achieve your objectives (which may require complementing your allies' forces) or to defend your possessions against enemy attacks. What's the threat? What's the objective? These are questions which should, but often do not, determine builds. Under what circumstances does Austria need to build a second fleet, especially early in the game. Should Italy build A Rom or F Nap in 1901? When should England build the second army? Should France build F Bre in W1901? (The answers to these and other troubling questions, naturally, can be found by a new publication by Doug Kent entitled "Diplomacy: The Truth", available for a nominal fee of $99.95 from Illuminated Publications, Munich, Bavaria, Germany, c/o Adam Weisshaupt and friends).

"In joining battle, seek the quick victory...in war, I have heard of foolish haste, but I have yet to see a case of cleverly dragging on the hostilities. There has never been a state that has benefitted from an extended war." (Chapter 2)

Gee, doesn't this seem obvious? In fact, academics have "proven", either through ponderous statistical research or through more readable history-based analyses (I strongly recommend Geoffrey Blainey's Causes of War) that wars almost always start when one, or both, sides think they can win quickly. The problem, natch, is that most wars take a long time, both in the real world and in Dip, unless you have some way to make the enemy collapse.

In Diplomacy, there are two ways to do this. 1) Have vastly superior resources and position. 2) Stab the poor bastard when he's most vulnerable. Number one can either be done as a coalition (how long does France last against an E-G-I?) or later in the game, when you have become a monster. Sometimes, later in the game, it is done to you, by someone else who's a monster. Bummer.

Stabbing has its ups and downs. That first-turn Italian stab of Austria, for instance, really looks great: it doubles the potential build for Italy, which gives so many more options for later turns because of the extra units. On the other hand, Austria may have a very hard time forgiving and forgetting: in fact, the stab may drag Italy into a long war with Austria which is both unproductive after the first turn and which allows Russia and Turkey to solve the Balkan dilemma on their own, almost invariably to the detriment of Italy. Stabbing for one center, without a plan or allies to follow up, is a good way (not necessarily the best way, but close !) to get yourself in the kind of long war that Sun Tzu abhorred.

Some long wars, however, aren't such bad things. I was recently involved in a Youngstown variant where France (Kevin Jaekley) put a truly elegant stab on Italy. He didn't gain much initially, but gradually enveloped the Italian position and drove the Italians out of the Mediterranean and the African coast. It took a couple of years and some very careful and well-planned moves before Italian centers started falling, but by stabbing when he did France completely halted Italian expansion (they both had about a dozen pieces at the time) and forced him entirely on the defensive.

As the victim of a stab, you must make a choice. Do you sue for peace quickly, and hope the stabber keeps the deal, or do you try to draw out the conflict, gain other allies, or hope that the stabber's allies eventually desert him? A long war may be better for you, and worse for your attackers, than an immediate peace. On the other hand, a quick peace may allow you to minimize your losses and stay in the game as something other than a minor power or puppet.

Last but not least, Sun Tzu devotes an entire chapter (Chapter Ten) to the "nine types of ground". Much of this discussion is tactical, but some of it is still relevant for Diplomacy players. The board is a constricted space, and therefore the occupation of certain provinces can be extremely significant. Some of the most important and influential spaces on the board are not supply centers, but provinces or sea zones which allow you to threaten multiple attacks.."Land that would be advantageous to you if you got it and to opponents if they got it is called contested ground".

Contested ground is, generally, the ground which powers try to negotiate neutrality pacts over in the first few turns of the game. It's great to have if you're there, but it usually means war once you've taken it. Burgundy is a good example. So is Armenia, or the English Channel.

"Land that is surrounded on three sides by competitors and would give the first to get it access to all...is called intersecting ground."

Early in the game, Tyrolia is intersecting ground, as is Belgium. As the game progresses, other provinces and sea areas become critical: Galicia is almost always intersecting ground during Balkan conflict, for instance. Sweden is usually intersecting ground in 1902 , and Skagerrak is frequently intersecting ground that holds the key to Scandinavia. Taking intersecting ground without the support or permission of at least one of the other neighbors is likely to lead to conflict. On the other hand, if someone else gets there first, they pose a substantial threat to your position.

"When you will survive if you fight quickly and perish if you do not, this is called dying ground."

A pleasant thought, that. For Italy, the Ionian Sea is almost always dying ground: if you lose it to an opponent, your chances of winning plummet, and survival doesn't look good. The same is true for England and Nth, for France and Mid (and, often forgotten, Gas); Germany and Sil, Turkey and Arm, and Russia and Ukr (to name just a few).

So there in a nutshell, you have all the secrets . Naturally, there are no guarantees, but if you have a strategy, pursue it through alliances and deception, break the alliances or your enemies, build appropriately, and are aware of the critical provinces for you to break stalemate lines and defend your home centers, you've got a pretty good start on the parts of the game that you can control. Best of luck!

Tim Hoyt is a regular terror in the Dip forum on Compuserve, and he's not stupid either!

Conflict in Silesia - Planning For The Inevitable War Between Germany and Russia

by Stephen Agar

Long ago, Richard Sharp promoted the theory that Germany usually thrives when Austria thrives (or at the very least Germany does well when Austria manages to stick around for a while), and the available statistics appear to bear this out. However, is this really the full story? The purpose of this article is to suggest that Germany in fact does well when Russia does badly and while Russia doing badly and Austria doing well may be different sides of the same coin, that is not always the case. I would doubt if a Turkish invasion of Austria holds quite the same long-term horrors for Germany as a successful Russian invasion, while a successful attack on Austria by Italy is probably only bad for German prospects if it is accompanied (as it so often is) by Russian gains in Austria as well. This slightly different approach would have some ramifications for Germany strategy over and above the Anschluss which we all know and love.

Having GM'd 30+ games of Diplomacy, after a while you do start to notice patterns creeping into the games. One common situation is to see Germany and Russia slagging it out for control of Berlin and Warsaw by about 1904, sometime Germany is victorious and (unlike Hitler) reaches Moscow, on other occasions Russia triumphs and the whole of Germany falls. Often the victor is the Power who strikes first. Conflict between Russia and Germany is, in my view, generally inevitable once mid-game is reached. That being the case, I would argue that a successful strategy for Germany will take this into account from day one.

The Polish Battleground

Few Russias open with A(War)-Sil and even fewer Germany's try A(Mun)-Sil or A(Ber)-Pru. After all, there are the neutrals to pick up and there is a need to sort out an alliance structure amongst near neighbors. But once the initial land-grab is over, where does Germany get the next few centers from?

If all is going well for Germany he will be in an alliance with either France or England against the other. In the event of a Franco-German alliance you would expect to see Germany build F(Kie) to threaten English interests in Scandinavia and the North Sea, while France tackles England direct. While England is slowly taken out, France moves into the Mediterranean and Germany goes... where? Well, intervening in Scandinavia may already have brought Germany into conflict with Russia and if you're building A(Mun) and A(Ber) it is just ever so easy to order A(Ber)-Pru, A(Mun)-Sil and you've got a supported attack on Warsaw. On the other hand, sometimes Germany is so determinedly anti-English that he assists Russia in Scandinavia in order to get the extra Russian fleets needed to crack open the North Sea, but this tends to plant the seeds of Germany's downfall in the mid-game, for reasons discussed later.

Anglo-German alliances aren't much different in practice. England sends fleets against France and probably puts an extra couple of units into Scandinavia. Germany pours armies through Burgundy and gives the English some support in the north. By 1903-4 France is effectively out, England has the outlying French centers and maybe even St. Petersburg and yet again German armies built in Mun and Ber look east for the next few centers. After all, it is difficult for Germany to build fleets quickly enough to take on England single-handed, so it is easier to build armies instead. Of course, this strategy can be fatally flawed as a few years later Germany will be very vulnerable to an English stab.

The Russian Perspective

The fact that Germany often looks to Russia for the second tranche of supply centers once the Western triangle is settled is quite logical when you consider the proximity of the Russian centers, the fact that Germany is essentially a land-based power, and the influence of Switzerland and the stalemate lines on geography. In particular, in order to win the game without crossing the stalemate line Germany needs two or three Russian home centers to stand any chance of victory.

And of course the converse also applies. Russia needs to secure her frontiers in the early game and will be looking for assistance from neighbors to get a foothold in the Balkans or Scandinavia. This is certain to bring her into conflict with either Austria and/or Turkey in the south and with either England and/or Germany in the north. If Russia strikes a good deal in the Balkans and makes early gains, then it is likely that in the short term Russia will keep sending armies southwards. But once Russia has got as far as she can easily get (usually the Vie/Bud line) or as far as she has agreed with her ally, where else can Russia seek growth? It has to be in Scandinavia and Germany. By this time either Germany will have let Russia into Scandinavia, there will be an uneasy balance in the area or England will have monopolized the situation, perhaps even taking StP.

The usual Russian game plan in the north would be to take Scandinavia, the North Sea and maybe the odd English center while eliminating Germany through encirclement. And of course if Germany assists Russia in taking Scandinavia he is just speeding up the process. A continued Russian presence in Scandinavia coupled with Russian success in the Balkans will, in my opinion, inevitably lead to a Russian attack on Germany. Indeed, if you consider where Russia is to get 18 centers from, you have Mos, StP, War, Sev, Con, Ank, Smy, Rum, Bul, Gre, Vie, Bud, Tri, Ven, Swe and Nwy for 16. To win Russia must take mainland Italy (difficult without a large naval presence), take England (possible with German help, but Russia can't build fleets that fast) or take Germany. Of these three options, Germany is the easiest, especially with help from Russian units in Scandinavia and Austria. Of course, if Turkey is still in the game, then the need to take the German centers for a victory becomes overwhelming.

So what does this all mean for Germany?

I believe that the mid-game interests of Germany and Russia in Diplomacy are almost always incompatible and that for real and lasting success one must take the home centers of the other. Therefore, that Power which is first able to mount such an attack effectively will have a decisive advantage and that early strategy for both Powers should be directed at putting themselves into that position.

There's More To It Than Just Threatening Italy

If there is any substance in this analysis, it follows that Germany should try to keep Russia weak, by denying her Sweden in 1901 and at the very least maintain a balance of power in Scandinavia to keep the Russian genie well and truly bottled up in the north. On the premise that my enemy's enemy is my friend, Germany should support Austria (to deny Russia early builds) and do all in her power to discourage the emergence of a Russo-Italian alliance or a Juggernaut. The aim must be to keep Russia isolated and weakened, so that she spends her early game defending the homeland. If Russia manages to achieve a secure southern flank then Germany is in trouble. This means that Germany should not neglect to maintain effect diplomatic connections with countries such as Turkey and Austria, because by the time the mid-game comes around their position in the game will directly influence the ability of Russia to wage war on Germany.

I would go on to say that I think, save for desperate circumstances, that it is a tactical mistake for Germany to do much by way of supporting Russia against England. Once Russian fleets get to Norway and the Norwegian Sea it will be impossible for Germany to push them back on her own. Even when Russia gets into trouble in the south, all too often a rump Russia can survive in the north for years and years, denying Germany the Scandinavian centers. If Russia reaches the North Sea, then Germany is encircled and the odds of Germany withstanding a determined assault from Russia are slim, especially once a Russian fleet gets into the Baltic.

Germany must aim to resolve the western triangle before matters settle down in the east, so that she can build armies to attack east before Russia is in a position to build spare armies in Warsaw. Essentially, it doesn't matter how Germany resolves the E/F/G conflict - an alliance with.England makes things difficult for Russia right from the start, but leaves Germany open to a stab later; an alliance with France may allow Russia to break out in the north, but may prove more secure in the longer term. Only remember this: Russia is not really your friend.

Russia, on the other hand, should do all in her power to achieve influence in Scandinavia and hopefully prevent an Anglo-German alliance that could see StP coming under pressure. If Russia can spare A(Mos) in S01, then the move to StP must hold out the prospect of increased influence in the north and hence an early ability to strike west. However, any influence gained in Scandinavia will be irrelevant in the face of a determined A/T alliance and it is the struggle for power in the Balkans which must be uppermost in Russia's thoughts. Just as Germany benefits from an isolated Russia, Russia also benefits from an isolated Germany, provided the end result isn't an over-mighty England.

To conclude: if you're Germany it isn't enough to support Austria. Far better to fix the real enemy - Russia - as soon as possible.

Diplomatic Schizophrenia

by David Partridge

A year or so back I had the opportunity to play test a variant designed by Tim Snyder and Jamie Drier. The variant, called Juggernaut, plays just like regular Diplomacy, except for the fact that there are only six players and one of the players secretly controls two powers. The game was played on the Internet using the Judge software so that individual press to each power was possible as everything was rerouted through a central computer and no names were ever revealed, however it could easily be played as postal Gunboat. The victory conditions were either a solo 18 center win by any power, or a combined 24 center win by the two Juggernaut powers.

I was lucky enough to be given the Juggernaut, playing Austria and Russia. Hiding the actual Juggernaut powers seemed like the most important issue, so I decided to try and forge strong, long term alliances for each power as soon as possible. The other players would all fear the Juggernaut and find a strong alliance attractive, and these alliances would appear as obvious choices for the Juggernaut to the rest of the players. The Italian player was friendly and wrote good press but did not put for a lot of strategic suggestions and seemed quite willing to follow my lead, so the Austrian player became a loud and boisterous player, participating a lot in the press, sending lots of messages and generally taking the lead in the A/I alliance. The German player was a quiet, terse player who seemed very strong tactically, so the Russian became a quiet follower type who was more than willing to get most of his moves from his German ally and rarely had a suggestion of his own.

These two alliances quickly became dominant, reducing the remaining three powers to a few centers at best, and both Italy and Germany were certain that the other alliance represented the Juggernaut. When the time came to make my move, Russia stabbed Germany viciously while the A/I alliance continued to hold together, maintaining a seesawing balance on the Russian front and continuing to press Germany. Based on the play of Russia throughout, the poorly thought out justifications he gave Germany for the stab, and some "mistakes" in the battle in the south, Germany continued to be convinced that Russia was acting alone, that A/I was probably the Juggernaut and that Russia was just being short sighted and foolish. He refused any advances by Italy, seeming them as a ruse of the Juggernaut and berated Russia for his stupidity. A sudden series of "lucky guesses" led to the collapse of the Austrian front and an 18 center Russian win. To the last, Germany never held a belief that Russia was part of the Juggernaut, and Italy had only a few suspicions.

Now, to the point of this story (yes, there is a point, actually two.) First is that this is a fun variant and well worth trying. second is that the methods that seem so obvious when playing as the Juggernaut can be applied equally well, to standard Diplomacy. Diplomacy is a game of psychology, and, although not literally as in Juggernaut, each player represents more than one power. If you are playing France, you are not just the glorious reincarnation of Napoleon heading inexorably towards your justified dominance of Europe as you picture yourself. You are also the despicable backstabber who violated the truce and grabbed Belgium, as seen by the German, and the currently peaceful neighbor who's growth is causing some concerns as viewed by Italy, the steadfast ally as viewed by England, and a potential partner against the treacherous Italian as viewed by the struggling Austrian. The face you present to each of these players should not be the same. Is your English ally an open and forthright type who seems to believe in game long alliances and trust between partners? Then certainly an open and trusting partnership is going to go over better than an armed truce alliance. Yet I have seen many honest and sincere partners suddenly stabbed by their allies. Not so much because the stab made good tactical or strategic sense, but because the other player "knew" his ally was up to something. A three way alliance I was in recently broke up when one of the players stabbed both the other players in conjunction with the powers we were fighting. While this effectively destroyed the alliance, it also led to the destruction of the stabber as he was crushed between his former allies. When asked why he had done it given how likely his destruction was, he said that he had to, because he knew that we were planning to stab him. After all, neither of us had even raised the idea of stabbing the other with him, so obviously we were planning together to stab him! The trustworthy and open face I had presented to partner one was certainly not the correct choice for partner two. Had I seemed wary and distrustful with him, insisting on frequent confirmations of the alliance and carefully negotiated balancing of our forces the alliance probably would have held together long enough to crush the opposing coalition.

The thing to remember about Diplomacy is that it is only partially a game of strategy and tactics. Each player is a potential ally and a potential enemy. A brilliant plan is not enough if the ally you need simply decides he doesn't want to be a part of it. Those opening letters are more than just a means of determining which of a set of stock openings you are going to choose. They are the way you form an opinion about the character of the other players, and most importantly, the way they form an opinion about you. Long rambling letters to the serious, stick to business strategist are not going to endear you or advance your position, nor are strident calls for revenge or long tactical analyses going to charm the player who's out for a romp and couldn't care less about a win. Remember, there are six other players out there, and they probably represent a broad enough range for you to write any kind of letter you want and receive a positive response. Not only is it good strategy to treat each player as an individual and adapt the face you present to them, it's likely to be more fun, and that is what the game is really about. Have a long tactical discussion with Sue, spend several pages talking about the ski conditions with Paul and suddenly remember to suggest a move in the postscript. You'll find that not only will your alliances last longer and your suggestions be better received, but you'll look forward to those letters more and start to develop friendships that go beyond the game you are in, and that's what makes this a hobby, not just a never ending tournament.

Niccolo Machiavelli's "The Prince": A Textbook for Diplomacy

by Tim Hoyt

(Token Disclaimer: In the interest of political correctness, it is appropriate to note that most people consider the adjective "Machiavellian" both pejorative and demeaning: it is usually used as an insult. Most people have not read "The Prince", but almost certainly have an opinion about it anyway. I would not recommend that anyone bring up this article in polite company, or that anyone take the musings of the author as in any way suggesting that Machiavelli was anything other than a thug, a fascist, and a blackguard: such ideas simply won't do in the enlightened New World Order which, as we know, represents the end of history. The Author neither confirms nor denies that he has actually read "The Prince", or that it influences his Diplomacy play in the slightest, and if questioned in a court of law will dissemble to the best of his ability. Obviously, any negative repercussions for this fall strictly on Doug Kent's head-he's responsible, so blame him. This may seem Machiavellian to you: well, in the words of Frances Urquhart, you might think so, but I certainly couldn't comment.)

Niccolo Machiavelli's often-slandered volume "The Prince", written in 1513, remains one of the single most important works in Western political thought, and represents one of the fundamental readings in Western political science. "The Prince" was written in response to the decay of the Italian states-system. For over a century, Venice, Milan, Florence, the Papacy, and the Kingdom of Naples had vied for supremacy in the Italian peninsula, changing alliances and policies in order to ensure that no one state became supreme. Late in the 15th century, in an effort to change the regional balance of power, Italian states invited first France and later the Hapsburg Empire (Spain and Austria, at the time) to participate in inter-Italian warfare. The outside powers proved overwhelmingly powerful: even coalitions of all five Italian states failed to successfully resist French and Hapsburg armies. By the middle of the 16th century, Italy had become a battleground for the ambitions of France and the Empire, and the Italian states found their sovereignty and freedom of action declining as they relied increasingly on alliances with one or the other of the two "great powers".

This may sound familiar. Seven powers, two at "the corners" (in this case, France and the Empire), with the central powers attempting to maintain a balance of power and the "Wicked Witches" ultimately struggling for hegemony. I suspect that many of us have played Diplomacy games which followed this script virtually to the letter. The wars of the Italian states, in fact, represent the first real "balance of power" system in modern Western history. Avalon Hill produced a game called "Machiavelli", based on this struggle with the addition of an eighth power, the perfidious Ottomans (who spend a lot of time lurking about in the eastern Mediterranean). The rules are much more complicated than Diplomacy, and much more subtle, which may be one reason the game never caught on in a big way. (I've got a set, but have never actually played the damn thing).

Machiavelli wrote "The Prince" for Lorenzo de Medici, ruler of Florence. It was intended as a primer of sorts: a distillation of Machiavelli's service in the Italian wars to date and a reflection on recent Italian history. The intent, from Machiavelli's perspective, was to help Medici rule in such a way that not only ensured his survival and that of his dynasty, but also in a way that would permit Italy to be free of foreign occupation and invasion. One of the last lines of the book reads "THIS BARBARIAN OCCUPATION STINKS IN THE NOSTRILS OF ALL OF US", and the last chapter (XXVI) is entitled "Exhortation to Free Italy From the Barbarians". Much of the text is related to the duties of the Prince regarding his internal problems: when to oppress, when to cajole, when to bribe, and that sort of thing. Some of these passages are interesting for Diplomacy players as well, but most of this article will reflect on Machiavelli's observations of the international system as he knew it. His perspective, in many ways, can be compared to that of a Diplomacy player with three centers in the end game: he knows what went wrong, and has some good ideas about how to fix it, but it may simply be too late.

GENERAL STRATEGY:

III:146-149, 165-168 - "The Romans in these matters acted as all wise princes should, having regard not only to present ills but to future ones as well and preparing for the latter with all possible care. For if evils are anticipated they can be easily remedied...On this account they were willing to make war with Philip and Antiochus [leaders of other empires] in Greece rather than have to fight them in Italy though at the time they could have avoided either course."

III:253-254 - "A war is never avoided but merely postponed to your disadvantage."

Diplomacy is, ultimately, a game of conquest. To win, you have to grab half of Europe, arranging and discarding alliances with gleeful abandon as you stomp your way to rightful hegemony. Using that perspective, it makes sense to assume that every state is an enemy, and that war is inevitable. Cooperation, as we shall see below, has dividends, and is absolutely necessary to win the game. But refraining from involvement in a conflict may simply mean that when you go to war with the winner, it will be on their terms and they will be stronger for having defeated their present opponent. One of the most fundamental errors in Diplomacy is to rest on your laurels, especially in the midgame. Just because you've knocked out your neighbor and feel secure doesn't mean that you don't have enemies. Your neighbor's neighbor, who was probably your ally in the recent war, has just become a threat. (See the article on "Kautilya" a couple of issues ago, the author notes with a shameless plug. What was the deal on royalties for back issues, Doug?). And whoever you have been allied with is going to be either looking at you with visions of barbecue sauce and some minced onion, or else is about to continue expanding in other venues, and when he gets strong enough you'll be the next meal. Sorry, folks, but the war isn't over until you control the world. BWA HA HA HA!

GENEROSITY AND INJURY

VIII:138-142 - "For injuries should be given committed all at once so that, there being less time to feel them, they give less offense, and favors should be dealt out a few at a time so that their effect may be more enduring."

XVI:76-83 - "Among the things a prince must guard against is precisely the danger of becoming an object either of contempt or hatred. Generosity leads you to both these evils, wherefore it is wiser to accept the name of miserly...than to seek a reputation for generosity..."

There is no greater injury you can do to someone than to stab them. Therefore, in the words of the Bard, "...'tis best done quickly..." Every alliance has tensions: it's hard for two people seeking to maximize advantage at the expense of the other while still cooperating not to have minor, or indeed major, disagreements. The single worst thing you can do is to try to weasel your way a little bit at a time while the other guy's busy elsewhere. "Gee, I just took Rumania-it's not really a stab, and you don't lose anything because you got a center somewhere else..." Don't spend a lot of time whining, either: "PLEEZ can I have Rum, sniff sniff". These kinds of things may make your ally, with whom things seemed to be going so swimmingly while you were getting your way, just turn around and smack you upside the head. If you're going to put the knife in, do it well, in a way that really hurts. If you're not willing to stab yet, quit your complaining and do something productive.

"POWER POLITICS":

XVIII:78-83 - "In actions of all men and especially of princes, where there is no court of appeal, the end is all that counts. Let a prince then concern himself with the acquisition or the maintenance of a state; the means employed will always be considered honorable and praised by all, for the mass of mankind is always swayed by appearances and the outcome of an enterprise."

XVII:28-38 - "Here the question arises; whether it is better to be loved than feared or feared than loved. The answer is that it would be desirable to be both but, since that is difficult, it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one must choose. For on men in general this observation may be made: they are ungrateful, fickle, and deceitful, eager to avoid dangers, and avid for gain, and while you are useful to them they are all with you, offering you their blood, their property, their lives and their sons so long as danger is remote...but when it approaches they turn on you."

Gee, and you wondered why "Machiavellian" is considered a bad word? Well, Machiavelli was practical: he knew the difference between the society he lived in and the way idealists wanted to live. The same is true today, although our society is one hell of a lot closer to an ideal one than 16th century Italy. Freedom has always had its price: part of that price is the rule of law, and the costs of law and order are, in some instances, repression, deceit, and fear. In Diplomacy, the only law is force: if you can't defend yourself, nobody else will volunteer to help you unless they get something out of it. The problem with being loved is that it won't necessarily keep you from getting trampled. Everybody in this game has the same victory conditions, and the odds are that sooner or later, you will be a target. It's a nasty, dog-eat-dog world out there, so for goodness sake don't be a cat.

ON LYING:

XVIII:27-30 - "A wise leader cannot and should not keep his word when keeping it is not to his advantage or when the reasons that made him give it are no longer valid."

XVIII:54-57 - "It is good to appear clement, trustworthy, humane, religious, and honest, and also to be so, but always with the mind so disposed that, when the occasion arises not to be so, you can become the opposite."

See above. Let's be honest: one problem with a game like Diplomacy is that people can take it personally. It is, in fact, something we all probably do once in a while. Let's also remember that it is a game. I recently had a private exchange with another player after a stab. He took it pretty well, but argued strongly that keeping one's word is both a better means of play and also a more effective one. I'm ambivalent, at best, about both arguments. Actions taken in Diplomacy should have no more bearing on one's moral character than actions on a stage: it is a game, a role, and does not in any way necessarily reflect one's personal standards or beliefs. As a more effective means of play, there is some truth to that, particularly in a gaming community where reputations are known. "Cross-gaming", which is frequently condemned, is a part of life: a player with a reputation for honesty and an utter lack of double-dealing will gain more allies in the long-run than one who is known to stab everyone at the first opportunity. On the other hand, that player will also frequently get hammered by less scrupulous allies once his usefulness is over. Even nasty Machiavellian player's can cultivate a reputation for honesty and integrity, within limits.

ALLIANCES:

XXI:40-47 - "A prince is also esteemed when he shows himself a true friend or a true enemy, that is, when, without reservation, he takes his stand with one side or the other. This is always wiser than trying to be neutral, for if two powerful neighbors of yours fall out they are either of such sort that the victor may give you reason to fear him or they are not. In either case it will be better for you to take sides and wage an honest war."

XXI:72-81 - "If the prince chooses his side boldly, and his ally wins, even though the latter be powerful and the prince be at his mercy, nonetheless there is a bond of obligation and friendship...if your ally be the loser then he will welcome you and, as long as he can, he will give you aid..."

XXI:82-91 - "When the two contestants are of such stature that you will have nothing to fear from the victor, it is even more prudent to take part in the war for you will accomplish the ruin of one with the aid of the other who, had he been wise, should rather have supported him."

III:111-114 - "One must make himself a leader and defender of his less powerful neighbors and strive to weaken the stronger ones..."

XIX:13-15 - "A prince will be despised if he is considered changeable, frivolous...cowardly, or irresolute..."

The meat of the Diplomacy game, with apologies to vegetarians, is the necessity to ally with other players, and get them to help you win. Players who have mastered the art of Diplomacy still don't win every game, or even half their games, over time. But the passages above provide some useful hints on how to view the utility of given alliances. If you are already engaged in a war, neutrality in a second conflict may be the best option. If you are not engaged in a war, and two of your neighbors begin fighting, neutrality is an extremely weak option. You must always be looking ahead to see what other powers are growing, and allow these perceptions to guide your alliance choices in the middle game. Ensure that others do not grow strong by allying with their weak enemies: a modest commitment of units on your part can severely slow the growth of your potential competitors. Allying with a stronger power to attack someone must only be done in extreme circumstances. To paraphrase Winston Churchill in 1941, when England allied with the Soviet Union to defeat Hitler: "To defeat my enemies I would sup with the Devil himself, but I should make sure to use a long spoon."

NEW PLAYERS AND SUBSTITUTES:

XVIII: 57-61 - "It must be understood that a prince and particularly a new prince cannot practice all the virtues for which men are accounted good, for the necessity of the state often compels him to take actions which are opposed to loyalty, charity, humanity, and religion."

XXIV: 4-9 - "For the actions of a new prince are much more closely scrutinized than those of an established one, and when they are seen to be intelligent and effective they may win over more men and create stronger bonds of obligation than have been felt in the old line, inasmuch as the minds of men are wrapped up in the present and not in the past."

These words are particularly addressed to new players and substitutes. The quickest way to get beaten in your first few games is to trust too much. People are going to try to wax you, and you have to be prepared to do unto others. Substitutes in mail games, both snail and electronic, face a slightly different situation: they have inherited positions (usually inferior) from players who simply didn't give a damn. Often, their position is complicated by an NMR (no move received) the previous turn. In these circumstances, survival often calls for the most drastic of power politics: lie early, lie often, do whatever it takes to secure support and keep it for a few turns, and make it clear that you have not joined the game to provide dinner for the other piranhas, but have a little nibbling of your own to do before you go. Offer accommodation, if necessary, but drive a hard bargain: if you're going to ally with someone, try to make it contingent on joint moves against a third party. Don't wait for others to approach you, though-they're looking at you as lunch.

CONCLUSION:

XXI: 101-106 - "Let no state think that it can always adopt a safe course; rather should it be understood that all choices involve risks, for the order of things is such that one never escapes one danger without incurring another; prudence lies in weighing the disadvantages of each choice and taking the least bad as good."

This is, in this author's humble opinion, one of the most important facts of both international relations and Diplomacy (the game and the practice). Every action has consequences, and every decision has good and bad aspects. The best outcome can always be doubted and questioned, because perfection is unattainable. The defeat of the Soviet Union after forty years of Cold War has not provided the utopian world sought by idealists: instead, we have seen the Gulf War (which we won but lost, since Saddam Hussein is still around), changing security requirements which have increased the role of U.S. and multi-national forces in ethnic conflicts around the globe, increased concerns over the proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons in the developing world.

At the time of this writing (9 February 1996) the "People's Republic" of China is preparing massive military maneuvers off the coast of Taiwan (also known as the "Republic of China"), and demanded that the U.S. cease all arms shipments to Taiwan. New evidence has recently been released that the PRC is selling sophisticated missile guidance technology to Iran, and has provided both ballistic missiles and critical nuclear weapons production components to Pakistan. U.S. law states that the President must impose economic sanctions on China for all of these violations. Business and economic interests argue that we cannot afford to risk access to the Chinese market or the loss of trade from that country. The Chinese government, noted for such staunch humanist measures as genocide in Tibet, running over student protesters with tanks, execution and imprisonment of democratic activists, and condoning both infanticide and slave labor, has recently announced a return to sounder ideological principles: a euphemism, perhaps, for yet another anti-democracy purge. Lest I sound like an unrepentant Cold Warrior, let me state categorically that the New World Order is unquestionably a safer and more just world than the Cold War international system. But without stooping to China-bashing, it doesn't take a genius to see that not every country subscribes to our ideals, and that states still use force to achieve goals which they cannot reach through other means. Don't throw your copy of "The Prince" out yet-it's going to be useful for more than just Diplomacy for some time to come.

Driving a Juggernaut

by Stephen Agar

Most postal Diplomacy players come to grips with the concept of the Juggernaut fairly early on in their careers - the notion that a strong Russo-Turkish alliance can just steam-roller over the rest of the board, crushing all beneath their wheels. I suspect that true Juggernauts are far and few between, in that they often break down early in the game if the going gets tough, but the mythology lingers on.

Given that any firm alliance from the outset between any two powers can be very effective in Diplomacy, perhaps it is surprising that a Russo-Turkish alliance should have been honoured with a special name, after all we don't go around describing firm Anglo-French alliances or Russo-Italian alliances as anything in particular. It is true that if Russia and Turkey can reach a true accord then they have a lot of potential because they can control two of the four corner positions on the board, which means that instead of operating on the usual expanding balloon sort of strategy, they can just march across the board in a single line. In particular, co-operation in Austria can reap quick rewards, especially if Italy has been unwise enough to attack Austria as well.

Starting Up the Juggernaut

What are the hallmarks of a Juggernaut? Well, it is never easy to predict the alliance structure on the board from S01 moves, but insofar as S01 moves mean anything I would expect a Juggernaut to feature Russian moves along the lines of F(Sev)-Rum; A(War)-Gal; A(Mos)-Ukr or StP, while Turkey orders A(Con)-Bul; F(Ank)-Con; and A(Smy)Std or moves to Ank. On the other hand a stand-off over the Black Sea doesn't exclude the possibility of a Juggernaut, as Russia and Turkey may want to disguise their close co-operation, though F(Sev)-BLA coupled with A(Mos)-Sev probably does.

The first priority for the Juggernaut must be to crack the collection of SC's in the Balkans and then release the builds necessary to finance Russian expansion in the north and Turkish expansion in the Mediterranean. Even with a determined and co-ordinated Juggernaut, this can be very difficult if it faces a determined Austro-Italian alliance from the first move. The Juggernaut will be in a better position if Austria opens defensively with F(Tri)-Ven or F(Tri)Std and this would be a good goal for initial diplomacy. Indeed, if you can sow enough distrust between Austria and Italy it may not even be hard to achieve. This immediately prevents a second build for Austria and opens up the possibility of a second build for Turkey. In the autumn the choice will be between using A(War) and A(Ukr) to force Galicia or using A(Ukr/Sev) to move to Rum (the fleet moving to BLA if the intention is to head for the Med. or to Sev if otherwise). No doubt the decision will rest to some degree on Italian intentions. Of course if Russia can persuade Italy to attack Austria from the beginning of the game and perhaps even seize Galicia in S01 then the Balkan battle will be almost won already. Russia will only get one build unless he can take possession of Gal in S01 or if he can persuade Germany to allow him to take Sweden. Neither of these are easy to accomplish. Turkey is also probably going to be limited to one build unless there is immediate hostilities between Italy and Austria which allow him to take Greece.

The other challenge for the Juggernaut is to eliminate the threat to the stability of the alliance posed by the southern Russian fleet. This will usually be sent into the Mediterranean via Constantinople, or returned to rot in Sevastopol. The former is more risky for the Turks, but is better in the long term, the latter is less risky but always leaves open the possibility of a Russian stab. A final solution is to somehow connive to disband the Russian fleet.

If Italy is exerting no real pressure on Austria after S01 my preference would be to order A(Smy)-Con; A(Bul) S RUSSIAN A(Ukr)-Rum; F(Rum)-BLA; A(War)-Gal. It is probably better to get an army into Rumania with the possibility of striking into the Balkans in 1902 then making a half-hearted attempt to stop Austria from taking Greece (which Turkey) may well capture in 1902, with Russian assistance to cut supports, providing Italy does not support an AUSTRIAN F(Gre). Of course if the Juggernaut is not facing an Austrian F(Alb) or if Russia took Galicia in S01 then other possibilities open up, but putting an army into Rumania must be a priority.

One possibility not yet discussed is that the Juggernaut will use A(Mos) to move to StP in S01, on the basis that this will assist Russian expansion in the north in 1902. It is certainly true that if Russia has the security of knowing that her southern flank is safe then she can afford to send a second unit north, and it will probably not affect the number of builds gained in 1901. The only downside is that it means that Rum will have to be taken by F(Sev), so there can be no supported attack on Ser or Gal in S02. The best plan is probably to send A(Mos) to the Balkans if it is thought likely that Austria and Italy will co-operate, but if an Italian attack on Austria is expected, then there is probably more to be gained by heading north.

Assuming the Juggernaut's Success

Assuming the Juggernaut carves up the Balkans between them a fair split would be Rum/Bud and Vie for the Russians and Bul/Gre and Tri for the Turks, with Serbia up for negotiation (though in my experience it usually goes to Russia). In order to force ION Turkey will need at least three fleets (possibly four if Italy has Tri or Mar as well as Tun), which means building fleets should be a priority if ION is to be taken by 1903/04. Russia will use her gains to build armies in the north and west and possibly a second northern fleet on StP nc. One reason why Russia often does better out of Juggernauts than Turkey is that her potential for additional builds is so much greater, thanks to the proximity of Scandinavia. Once Turkey has her share of the Balkans she can get no further until she has broken through the ION bottleneck - which is never an easy task - it will usually take at least three fleets and this is not even achievable until A03 at the earliest. As the Juggernaut rolls on it is easy to foresee that Russian can get the momentum to get up to 10 centres by the end of 1904 (Sev, StP, War, Mos, Rum, Vie, Bud, Ser, Swe, Nwy), or possibly more if units are released to attack Germany), whereas Turkey will probably be stuck on 6 or 7. Nevertheless, it is possible that by 1904-1905 the Juggernaut will control over half of the board.

Putting the Brakes On

But it need not be so: any alliance can be stopped. First, it is imperative that any western power suspecting the emergence of a Juggernaut can get Italy on side. If Italy assists (directly or indirectly) with the partition of Austria then she will release the centres that the Juggernaut needs to gain momentum. Even if Italy has attacked Austria from S01, both should be prepared to bury the hatchet if a Juggernaut is on the cards. Of course it may be very hard to persuade Italy of the sense of such a course of action, as Italy no doubt believes that she has a firm alliance with Russia and that they will both move on Turkey once Austria is dealt with - though in practice Russia may be quite content for Turkey and Italy to face each other while Russia seeks gains elsewhere.

If it is too late to do much to prop up Austria, then the only really effective way to hold back the Juggernaut is for either an early resolution to the E/F/G conflict with a firm alliance between the two survivors to hold the Juggernaut back or a three-way E/F/G alliance in which France turns south and puts fleets into the Med. while England and Germany tackle Scandinavia and central Europe before Russia can acquire the momentum to enable her to thrive. Solid two-way alliances only really prosper when the rest of the board is suspicious of each other and divided - the danger of the Juggernaut for the western powers is that the potential for quick growth if the Balkans falls early on is such that the other powers may not have time to get their act together.

However, just holding a Juggernaut back could mean that the game ends up in a four or five way draw as east faces west over the iron curtain and I would guess that this rarely happens. Experience suggests that if a Juggernaut can be stopped, the it will not take long before one side of the Juggernaut decides to attack his ally instead. In cases where Russia has been left with a Black Sea fleet then it is all too easy for Russia to order F(Sev)-BLA and build A(Sev) in an Autumn season. And once one side of a Juggernaut attacks the other, you can be fairly confident that the Juggernaut is gone for good.

One question worth asking about Juggernauts is "What is in it for Turkey?" Good question. Unless the Italian player is an idiot, a Juggernaut is almost certainly going to favour Russia - who will slip the knife in when Turkey is over-stretched and claim an outright win. Similarly, Turkey must be content with second place or he must stab Russia at the optimum moment. Neither player can afford to leave his back door open, so it is not unusual for some sort of perpetual mutual stand-off to be arranged over Rum or BLA to protect both sides.

The Juggernaut remains a fearsome alliance, but not a very fashionable one. It requires mutual trust early on (something Diplomacy players are not very good at), but once established can do very well indeed, because to be stopped the other players have to take a long-term view (something else Diplomacy players are not very good at!).

Caution - Used and Abused

by Brian Cannon

On September 17, 1862, 85,000 Federal troops under McClellan faced 50,000 Confederate troops from the Army of Northern Virginia under Robert E Lee across a meandering stream outside the small, sleepy village of Sharpsburg, Maryland. The stream was called Antietam; the day was the bloodiest 24 Hour period in the American Civil War; and the Battle of Antietam, which began five days earlier in a quiet field outside Frederick, Maryland as the last best hope for a quick victory & peace, changed the course of the entire war - and ended the career of a cautious General.

Time and again in the game of Diplomacy, an ambitious General must weigh the decision to attack or defend, to be safe or go for the gusto, to proceed carefully and methodically or go hog wild. While there is no single answer to knowing when to be conservative and when to let it all hang out, from history we can watch as different commanders contemplate caution, learn some of what motivated their decisions, and observe the results. It is my hope that each reader will gain insights from these historical examples - ideas to apply to your Diplomacy play that you may find the sweet reward of victory. Well, at least in games I'm NOT in.

War, like Diplomacy, is more than a battle between faceless armies, between bunches of plastic or wooden markers, or even between masses of men facing each other with deeds of courage and bravery. When the power of the Roman armies were reported to Hannibal after his crossing of the Alps he is reported to have replied, "What is this parroting of numbers? Give me one look into the mind of Flaminius" (the Roman Consul). Hannibal understood that war (and this is true of Diplomacy as well) at its heart was a battle between the minds of the commanding Generals.

Major General George Brinton McClellan

Major General George Brinton McClellan was a man of contrasts. Only 36 years of age, he was commander of the jewel of the Union armies and believed that it was his destiny to save the Union. Loving the Union and deploring slavery he had no hate in him for the armies he was fighting and earnestly desired the day when South and North would once again stand shoulder to shoulder as brothers. Granted the largest and most powerful army of its time, he remained convinced that General Lee had a larger and more powerful force. Seeking peace, he feared the brutal victory that would alienate the South and prevent a negotiated peace. And above all he was saddled with the belief (shared with the War Department) that his task was also to ensure the safety of Washington. With all these conflicting forces at work in his mind, the Battle of Antietam played itself out.

Antietam: A Case of Missed Opportunities

Antietam was a case of missed opportunities for McClellan and the Union. Having a golden opportunity, with the Discovery of Confederate Special Orders 191 revealing that Lee had split his forces and that the Union army was in position to crush each piece in detail, McClellan hesitated a day before advancing. Federal forces then allowed inferior units to delay them at Crampton's Gap and Turner's Gap while General Lee succeeded in bringing a sizable portion of his army (tho still far less than the whole) together for a stand around the town of Sharpsburg on September 17, 1862.

Some of the worst fighting of the day was around and through Mr. Miller's thriving 40-acre cornfield for possession of the high ground marked by the unprepossessing presence of a Dunker church building. The high ground commanded much of the Confederate defensive position and if it could be taken and held Lee's forces would be driven from the field with nowhere to go but into a trap between the Potomac River and the victorious Union army. In such a circumstance, there can be little doubt that the Army of Northern Virginia would have been taken practically as a whole and with it all of McClellan's hopes and dreams could have been realized: restoration of the Union, a negotiated peace which left slavery untouched, reconciliation with the Southern states, and a hero's crown for the victor and savior of the nation. Within 36 hours Lee's army was retiring across the Potomac, living to fight on, and McClellan was letting him go.

In a series of attacks and counter-attacks around the cornfield and along a nearby sunken road, two entire Union Corps and much of a third contested with Confederate units under Stonewall Jackson, D.H. Hill, McLaws, Jubal Early, Hood, & JEB Stuart - and ground themselves into dust. The Southern lines held, it is true, but only by the narrowest of margins. Confederate General Longstreet, even years after the battle, agreed that as few as ten thousand fresh Federal troops could have swept the defenses and taken Lee's army & all it possessed. Those ten thousand fresh Federals were actually available in the Corp of General William Buel Franklin - ready and willing to fight. Unfortunately, Franklin's Corp was also the only remaining organized Federal command on the right side of the Union lines. The risk, if those forces committed to the attack and lost, that the Rebels would flank and sweep the Union position was too great for McClellan to countenance. Franklin's Corp was held back from a solid attack and was only used piecemeal to bolster faltering attacks elsewhere.

Elsewhere it was the same story: heavy fighting, heavy casualties on both sides. Union forces attacking weaker Confederate units in defensive positions, both sides tearing each other to bits, and Lee's lines holding only by grit and determination. A Union attack on the southern end of the line in the afternoon was on the verge of success and was beaten back only by the timely arrival of units from A.P. Hill's Division - units which arrived in the nick of time only after making a forced march through the night and morning - units which were worn with weariness but gave their last efforts nonetheless to stop the Union advance. The Union commanders on the front lines realized how thin were the Confederate positions by late afternoon. Word was sent back begging that fresh troops come up for a final attack that would break Lee's army in pieces. Once again, those fresh forces were available: another entire Federal Corp under General Fitz-John Porter, held as a reserve, fresh and ready to go smashing things. For a time it seemed that McClellan might actually approve the attack this time - until, as it is recorded, Porter reminded the commanding General that he commanded "the last reserve of the last army of the Republic" - and the attack was not made - and Lee held his position.

In the end, the battle was ironic. McClellan sought a smashing victory that would end the war on his own terms and crown himself the hero and savior of the Union. Time and again he had that victory within his grasp. But he also wanted to ensure that he would not lose and that Washington would be safe from Rebel forces. And seeking the safe path he lost the smashing win he desired, settling for driving Lee back into Virginia. Because he gained ONLY a tactical victory, the war would go on. Because he gained AT LEAST that victory, however, Lincoln was able to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. And that transformed the war into a struggle to abolish Slavery, a war which precluded a negotiated peace. And that was a war which McClellan simply could not wage. Seven weeks later, McClellan was relieved of his command.

And so a General, with victory in his grasp, allowed the fear of failure to paralyze his tactics and rob him of the glories he sought; and in the end to rob him of his career. May the ambitious Diplomat, in commanding HIS armies, beware of the caution that paralyzes.

In upcoming articles, the study of Caution - Used and Abused will continue with other examples from history: Grant, in "The Wilderness"; Bradley at Mortain, Avranches, and Argentan; Halsey & Nagumo at Midway"; and more. Stay tuned!

Opening Strategies for Austria

by Steve Smith

If this were a perfect world you would get to play Austria 14% of the time. Here on CompuServe I have had the privilege to play it 25% of the time. I have completed 7 games as Austria. More than anyone else here. This does not make me an expert or mean that I even play it well. It simply means that I have a lot of knife wounds. I have been eliminated twice, drew four times, and have won once. Take it for what it is worth.

If you draw the lot of Austria don't panic, don't resign, don't commit suicide and hope to come back as a different country in another life. Austria is actually a very strong country. All you have to do is survive the first couple of years. Once you have done that then you have a fair chance to not only draw but to win.

So how do you survive the first couple of years? Number 1 priority: Do whatever it takes to keep Russia and Turkey from allying. Beg, plead, and even hold their children hostage to ensure a war between these two. Offer to support Rum into Bul and Bul into Rum. Promise Turkey whatever it takes to get him to move to the Black Sea. Sacrifice your fattest calf to whatever god you worship and plea for Smy-Arm. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of eliminating the R/T alliance. Make sure one does not form.

Second priority. Ensure friendship with Italy. Trust Italy. Take him down with you if attacks. Reassure him that you will both die if either attacks the other. This happens to be true about 95% of the time. Do whatever Italy wants. Let him into Trl, Tri (assuming he is only moving through) or support the Lepanto. Neither you or Italy can afford a war. Most Italians realize this. Encourage them to read this and the suggestions for the Italian player. AI wars are bad for both.

You usually have to worry about an attack from Italy when it is played by a new player with little experience. They often don't realize that by attacking you that they are signing their own death warrant.

You don't mind anything which limits Russian success in the north. Even if you ally with Russia against Turkey do what you can to encourage Germany to bounce him out of Swe. Also encourage England to move to Bar in the fall. This helps keep Russian attentions away from you.

Standard openings: F Tri-Alb; A Bud-Ser. These two moves should always be your opening moves. Few others are of any value. Russia owns Rum. Let him have it.

The only question is what to do with Vie. You don't want Russia in Gal. You can keep him out with diplomacy or by moving there yourself. If you move there make sure it is either a prearranged bounce or that you have a very solid alliance with Turkey. Gut call. If you feel you can trust Russia to leave Gal alone then I recommend Vie-Bud.

What do you do if an RT alliance develops in spite of your best interests? Make sure you and Italy work together. The two of you can stall the RT. It is then up to FEG to come to your rescue. You don't want France coming after Italy because if Italy dies so do you. You want to encourage through diplomacy an attack on Russia in the north. This will in time help you out.

Good luck.

{Steve Smith is not the same person as the other Steve Smith.}

Opening Strategies for England

by James Meuller

It takes a special kind of idiot to write an article about opening strategies in Diplomacy for England while currently getting plastered in the early going of a game *as* England. Well, ladies and gentlemen, I AM that idiot!

When I find out I'm going to play England, before learning anything else about the game, my primary concerns are obvious. France and Germany. These are England's big worries.

Oh sure, if Russia chooses a northern approach it can be a major pain, but this is relatively easy to squelch diplomatically. Conjure up southern invasions (real or imagined) and Russia will usually pull his punch. If he doesn't, you have a plethora of allies to choose from to chastise the aggressive Russian. No sensible German will want to see Russian units all along his northern border, and an alliance born out of need is often as good as any other.

So you talk to Russia to make sure you won't be seeing his units headed your way in droves (and prepare the groundwork to wipe him out if you do), what next?

Now it's time to settle down and get into those diplomatic trenches with France and Germany. It's imperative to prevent an F/G against E at all costs. Belgium, for instance, is a nice thing for England to have in 1901. Give that sucker away in a heartbeat if it's the difference between England alone and England with an ally.

If offered a western triple (E/F/G), I accept it with reservations. The major reservation is Germany. If Germany *wants* a triple, that's great. But if E tries to influence him toward it, any competent Germany will smell a rat. Let Germany persuade you, rather than the other way around.

Ultimately, western triples almost invariably bomb. Fortunately for England, it's not the British who get nuked! Germany is almost always the odd man out. But the western triple may be serving a very useful purpose (say, opposing a dangerous Russo-Turkish combination.) England should be constantly weighing the costs and the benefits of this alliance, and trying to be friendly with his allies so that when it's time to consign someone to the ash heap, it ain't England.

Ideally England will have the pick of continental allies between France and Germany. If diplomacy is handled correctly, it's surprising how often this 'ideal' situation arises! How do you choose which one to go with? That's entirely dependent on the character of the players. Personally, I think that it's a dead heat.

I know some players feel that E/F is a stronger alliance, but there are very definite advantages to E/G as well. With an E/G, in the mid-game (after disposing of France, of course) you have the chance to do some great open-field running in the Med.

If England is trying to move east in an E/F, there is the logistical difficulty of landing enough armies fast enough. France is likely to outstrip England, growth-wise -- not a desirable turn of events!

In an alliance with Germany, as the game progresses, tensions mount because of the geography of the home centers. This makes the alliance a touchier one, but it's mostly to England's advantage since it's far easier to stab Germany than vice versa. When Germany starts building fleets, it's pretty much a dead giveaway what he's thinking. Make sure you have an agreement about the numbers and locations of units, and this alliance can thrive, though.

On the subject of opening moves, I don't have a lot to say. I never have any preconceived notions about how I'd like to move. If you get a French player or a German one that you like and trust (to a certain degree, anyway) who is enthusiastic about blitzing the other, by all means go for it! If relations are uncertain, a more cautious approach is required.

As a general rule it's important in the beginning to remember that England's greatest strength is a weakness too. It's true that it's very difficult to invade England, and an active defense can keep the barbarians at bay for quite a while. But that very isolation can lead to a fatal complacency. Why worry about finding allies right away? Plenty of time later, right? Wrong! England can really suffer from a lack of direction in the early part of the game. It's just as important for England to make friends as any other country, perhaps moreso when the reputation of the 'Wicked Witch' is taken into account.

{James Meuller is also not the same person as the other Steve Smiths.}

Opening Strategies for France

by Mike Oliveri

Tom Nash wrote the first Don't Ask article for France, and I have to start mine by recommending that you read his. He did a wonderful job, and it is worth the time. Had I known that he would eventually leave our forum, I would have asked him to do a special issue of Don't Ask where he could have covered all the countries.

But you didn't come here to learn about Tom Nash! You came here to learn about playing France. More specifically, how to open as France. So, let's lay some ground work. France has a lot of options to open. You can play France four or five times in a row and still not have used all of them. And each one is a different game for France. This makes France one of the more interesting and at the same time more challenging countries on the board. With that, I want to ask you, when you first learn that you have France, before the personalities get involved, do you have a plan?

Where do your 18 centers come from? That will tell you who your friends are going to be and who your enemies are going to be. Any variation from this initial count, required by alliances or just the play of the game, will force you to shift your imaginary victory line. Therefore, you want to think about shifts that you can live with, and ones that you don't want to be forced to make. But that can be done in the middle game when you get there, and unless you get swept up by E/G(/I), you will get there!

You start with Bre, Par, Mar. That's a given and let's hope that you will not have to shift your victory line that much [g]. Then you add Spa and Por. That is conservative, but usually no one is arguing yet. So, let's add a little spice. I say you also want to lay claim to Bel. That's six, and that is your preferred opening goal. Many players say that getting six to start is marking yourself for immediate elimination. I don't agree. If your diplomacy skills allow you to get six, then the alliance necessary to get there is in place. The only time you will settle for five is when you can't convince England or Germany to let you have Bel from the start. If that's the case, you still have some dipping to do, but this is where you start. Now comes the hard stuff. In no particular order, you have Edi, Liv, Lon (England), Hol, Kie, Mun, Ber (Germany), and Tun, Nap, Rom, Ven (Italy). That's only seventeen, and as such it is your base for a two-way draw. But to win, you will need either Den or Tri. So, who are your friends? Russia, Turkey, and possibly Austria. And who are your enemies? Yep, every last one of them. Your mission is to figure out the order of it, not the who of it!

Keeping that in mind, where will you get help and where will you be forced to go it alone? Italy should be tied up with Turkey. If he wants to open to Trl, all the better. It keeps Germany occupied and seals Italy's fate. If Italy opens anti-Austria, you can let him go, but he will probably have to be your second target. You want to keep Russia in your camp, and Russia really doesn't care whether it is Italy or France he has to deal with in the end game. But a strong I/R/T against Austria is not all that bad. If things go in an orderly manner, T should be the target of I/R after Austria falls. You just want to make sure that when Italy turns your way, he is rushing to recover from your attack and not the other way around [g]. The tough choice is yet to come. Are you pro-English or pro-German? Remember that you want six if at all possible. So, the openings are dictated by those two factors. Also, keep in mind that you want Russia to help you against your temporary ally, be it England or Germany. If Russia is going to be working I/R/T against Austria, and then I/R against Turkey, you are not getting that help. You have to force Russia away from that plan. The best way to do it is with a strong F/G against England. If you team up with England, Russia and England often get into a stalemate line. That gives you something, but a hot war between Germany and Russia is much more to your liking.

Pro-German/Anti-England Opening

If you are going to do it, do it with flair. I will discuss a more neutral opening later. But for now, we know where we are going, so let's get there as quickly as we can. The bottom line is that you have an alliance with Germany to take on England together from the get-go!

		  S/01 F Bre-Eng; A Mar-Spa; A Par-Gas. 
		  F/01 F Eng-Bel; A Spa-Por; A Gas-Spa.
		  Builds: F Bre, F Mar, A Par.
			

There are better openings if you are willing to settle for five instead of six, but I believe in going for the gusto if the opportunity presents itself. Ideally, you have German support into Bel. He builds one fleet in Kie and you have the upper hand on England. Neither of you need to send more units into the battle. Your combined four fleets should do fine, but if you want to add an army or fleet to the cause, you can. Your armies in Por and Spa move back to the center of your home country. Defense and your second target dictate that you move for Bur and Mar/Gas as soon as you can. The fleet in Mar should stay close to home for the same reasons. If your second target looks like Italy, then you want to try to have Mar open for its second fleet build by F/03. Also, if you do get six in 1901, you may not see anything in 1902.

The cornerstone to this, and all of my openings, is that you try to commit a minimum of force to your initial target. You reinforce as needed, but some of your builds should try to stay close to home. Anytime you find yourself sending your first builds in the same direction as your opening, you are creating a void to your rear. A void which will be hard-pressed by your neighbor before you are ready to respond.

Pro-English/Anti-German

Because duplicity is the spice of life in this game. Take a look at the above opening, only play it with England in your camp going against the duped German partner. I'm not recommending that as the strongest opening against Germany. I just think it can be fun [g]! Your builds may be a little different, but not necessarily so. You already have a lot of armies to the rear. They just have to get to the front to do some damage. Maybe the order of builds is changed, with A Par first, then F Mar and F Bre. Order of builds can be argued as an indication of intent, and defense (with a reassuring tone) is your right as a strong dip player.

But if you are working with England to hit Germany, it is probably better to be more direct. Try this on for size, again getting England to support you into Bel.

		  S/01 F Bre-Mid; A Mar-Spa; A Par-Bur. 
		  F/01 F Mid-Spa(sc); A Spa-Por; A Bur-Bel.
		  Builds: A Par, A Mar, F Bre.
			

Again, I use my builds primarily to cover my rear and prepare for my second target. But in this case, most of my movement has been away from my primary target. Because of this, I want to get my armies into the game faster than waiting for the army in Por. Also, Germany will be a tough nut to crack even with an active England, so the additional army will probably be needed. The fleet in Spa stays close to Mar, just in case, while the fleet in Bre moves to Mid. The rest is trying to push into Ruh and Mun, while helping England land in Hol.

All Other Openings

If my previous words about duplicity were of interest to you, don't forget to play this opening as an anti-English ploy. You want to build two fleets and one army, and you want the Spa fleet to come back around again, but it works very well. In fact, the above anti-German opening is your basic start when you are unsure of where you are going or if you are going to move on Italy first. When you are unsure, you will probably have to settle for five in F/01. That is fine, but try to have the option for six in any case. If you are moving on Italy first, you are playing (hopefully) a Western Triple. In no other case should you choose Italy as your first target. E/G is enough of a problem in 1901. Why would you want to deal with that in 1903 or 1904?

		  S/01 F Bre-Mid; A Mar-Spa; A Par-Bur or Gas. 
		  F/01 F Mid-Spa(sc); A Spa-Por; A Bur-Bel.
		  Builds: F Mar, F Bre, A Par.
			

If you must go for five, you probably must also move to Gas. This is friendlier than the move to Bur, and it is defensive in nature. If you have no pressure from any of your neighbors, you can take Spa and Por with your armies and let the fleet hold. Or you could make a decision on who is going to be your first target. You might as well, it is still the same decision as the one you had last turn. Italy? Move to Wes. England? Move to Eng. Germany? Move to Bur. Any of these is better than just sitting and waiting for one or more of them to decide for you.

If England or Italy surprise you, your army in Gas can be used to cover Bre or Mar. But if it is only one of them I would be tempted to let one center fall with the intention of getting it back by F/02. If Germany moves into Bur, however, I would cover both Par and Mar, taking a single build gladly. When Germany moves to Bur in S/01, there is little that even the best diplomacy can salvage. Take your lumps by being limited to a single build. But make Germany pay for his decision. Over and over again! Russia should find it an interesting opportunity. The German moves west in 1901. That is expected. The German continues to move west in 1902. That is a void which has to be filled! Sorry for the cliche, but it is an offer that can't be refused because it is an offer that may never be made again.

So, there you have it. Start with one these openings as your base, and vary the diplomacy before you vary the opening. What you will see are all the clever hidden moves for F/01 which can be spun off of each of these S/01 openings. After you have played with them, add some more options by taking a strong anti-English opening by moving into Eng and Pic. You will only get five centers, but the variation should be fun to play. Try a Western Triple, so you can appreciate why French players hate it so! Go ahead, move that army into Pie and see what it gets you. [g]

The point is that France has lots of options, more than anyone else on the board, with the exception of Russia. Then remember that he needs four units at the start of the game to give him his advantage in count. Another nice thing about France is that you really can be stumped and it probably won't hurt you. But try to avoid that by having a plan. Count those eighteen so you know exactly where they are coming from. Then you can respond quickly and with force when Russia, Turkey, or someone else starts to threaten your chosen sphere of influence. And never forget to play the diplomat. After all, it is the name of the game!

{Mike Oliveri is an occasional Diplomacy World contributor, and more importantly, one of my toadies.}

Opening Strategies for Germany

by Bernard I. Finel

Germany is, in my opinion, probably the most interesting country to play. Unlike Italy, Turkey, and England, it has a potential rapid growth path. And only Russia matches Germany in terms of the number and diversity of possible opening strategies. The key to playing Germany is to understand her strengths and weaknesses.

Germany's key strength is a central position which allows for rapid expansion (there are 10 SCs within two moves of Germany's home centers). Another strength is an easily defensible land border in the west and the fact that you can pretty much count on Austria not attacking early across the Barren Zone (Trl, Boh, Sil, Pru).

Germany's central vulnerability is almost always a lack of fleet strength. This plays itself out in two ways. First in the short run, a lot of German players get themselves in trouble by focusing on Den, Bel, and Hol. Since England will almost always hold Nth, a single English fleet can tie up three German units trying to hold those centers. Of course, if you don't tie up those units, you risk being stabbed by England. So rapid expansion on the North Sea periphery is something to be avoided. Better to buy English friendship by supporting him into Bel than demanding it for yourself.

Second, over time, Germany often faces a seaborne threat from either France or England — whichever has won the naval battle of the Channel — and a seaborne attack will eventually erode virtually any land-based German position, no matter how large. I think that an E/G alliance is usually going to spell trouble for Germany, especially if England is played by any sort of competent and/or ruthless player (I tend to equal competent with ruthless in a dip player). Simply put, with superior fleet strength England can wage war on Germany with impunity. The solution? Kill England early if possible. But if you can't bring that off, the next best choice is to develop your own fleet strength, or at least threaten to build your own fleet strength unless England agrees to send his fleets off into the Med. F/G is less dangerous because France will often get wrapped up in the Med, and in any case France can build F Mar which, unlike English builds, does not have to move along the German flank to get into combat.

This forms the background for my assessment of German openings:

The Western Triple

Do not join one. In fact, neither France nor Germany have much to gain from a Western Triple. England gets to Stp before Germany gets to Mos, and before France starts taking Italian centers en masse. So, by 1903 England will have a choice of stabbing either France or Germany. Germany usually is the one to get it. The only time a Western Triple makes any sense is when there is a strong R/T alliance. Even then, you'll likely get killed, but since R/T can sweep the board in any case, you might as well try what you can.

E/G

A decent choice when dealing with a difficult France. Buy English friendship with Bel. Hope that Italy can be made to move to Pie. France is a tough nut even with a concerted E/G. In the long run you probably will need to get rid of England though, so cultivate Russia early. This strategy is risky. If you can't dominate the west before the east gets settled it is easy to get caught with your pants down. And encouraging Russia into Scandinavia can sometimes lead to being attacked by Russian fleets from the north and armies from the east.

F/G

This seems to me to make the most sense. The key, I think, is to make sure France understands the tradeoff of position for centers. I'd be willing to give France a disproportionate percentage of the spoils in exchange for a very limited French fleet presence up north. But if France insists upon keeping fleets in northern waters, then you can't let her also have the centers.

I don't like the other openings — north into Scandinavia, east into Russia, or southeast into Austria. You just leave yourself too open to attacks from the rear. Some people suggest sending a single unit off to Sil, Boh, or Trl as a bargaining chip. I think that's one of those ideas that sounds great in a strategy article but in practice pisses people off for no good purpose while blunt your offensive strength in your main theater of action. Now, that does not mean you can't threaten or hint at different openings in order to gain diplomatic leverage, but I think Germany is just as well off to play the opening straight.

In short, I think Germany has a lot of potential, but with only three countries in the west, it is imperative to settle the E/F/G triangle early and cleanly. And it is crucial that this settlement, whatever it may be, does not leave you open to an easy seaborne stab.

What you do after the opening depends on what has happened elsewhere on the board. F/G can go a long way. A/G is an interesting alliance and works as long as you can keep a seaborne power on your side until the endgame. G/T works well too. G/R will often run into problems as soon as dividing up Austria gets discussed, although as long as there remains a strong southern third party, Russia can often help guard your flank as you finish in the west.

Some will argue that my focus on seaborne threats is misplaced, that the danger for Germany comes from its central position generally and that the key is to get to the edge of the board. I think that is valuable advice if possible, but it is the potential inability to strike back against sea power that keeps me up at night. I mean, let's say you take out Russia. Start off E/G, kill France, then as England goes into the Med, you work with Austria in the east. If all goes well, you add Stp, War, and Mos to Hol, Den, Swe and your home centers. If England then attacks you will lose Hol, Den, Stp, and anything in Scandinavia. Your line of defense becomes Kie. Easy pickin' for your former Austrian ally, eh?

Let me add one more point. I think that as a central power it is usually wise to kill off as many other players as possible. "Well, of course," you are all saying, "you always need to kill players to win." Yes, that is true, but I think it is especially important as a central power. The edge powers can often benefit from keeping lots of minor powers around and squabbling. It keeps things loose enough for them to seize a dominant position and carries few risks. For a central power, it means more countries who might decide to go for your more attainable centers.

So my advice: settle the west, guard against seaborne attack, and kill as many players as possible as quickly as possible. In a fast, ruthless, blitzkrieg game Germany has the advantage.

Opening Strategies for Italy

by Mike Morris

Statistics for games on CIS show that Italy has the least wins, least shared draws and second to most eliminations (next to Austria) of any country. Drawing Italy therefore presents you with a major opportunity to demonstrate your greatness - it will take smooth tongued diplomacy, steel edged strategy and a modicum of luck - but Italy can definitely win the game, or at the very least share a two-way draw!

Italy is a central power, like Germany, but unlike Germany, Italy has a paucity of centers available. While Germany can reach three neutral centers the first year, Italy can reach only Tunis. Centrality and limited early growth potential are therefore the determining factors of Italy's opening position. Italy is in the middle not only geographically, but also politically. The three western nations (England, France and Germany) can either form a western triple or team up two against the third. The eastern nations (Russia, Austria and Turkey) don't usually form a triple, but quite commonly two will ally against the third. This leaves Italy as the odd man out - not necessary for an early alliance, but also not necessary for any power's aggressive goals. Italy's one available neutral center can be taken without being contested, so an enemy needn't be made for this conquest.

This means that Italy will not often be an early target, often has the luxury of picking sides and can usually change sides fairly easily. The main long-term strategic guideline for Italy is flexibility. Along with flexibility, patience is a necessary virtue. Italy is not in a very good position to gain much from an early war. Best to foment peace and bide your time. Of course some aggression is necessary, but it is best kept limited and controlled as much as possible. Italy's chance for greatness will most likely come in the mid-game, when it can be a significant power broker if it has remained viable.

With these principles in mind, peace with France and Germany is very important. Nothing much can be gained from an early attack on either. The necessary commitment of forces north or west leaves you extremely vulnerable to attacks from Austria and Turkey, the attack is very likely to be unsuccessful, and if you are successful you instill fear in Austria and Turkey and become a very attractive rallying point and target!

Keeping the mid-game in mind, an alliance with Russia is an important goal. You might perhaps just agree to keep each other informed and wait for the appropriate time to act, maybe 1904 or 1905. Russia can also be an important ally in case Austria (or rarely, Germany) attempts an early blitz. While the novice Russian might enjoy seeing Austria or Germany moving west, the experienced Russian will see the long-term potential of an Austria or Germany grown fat with Italian centers.

This leaves Austria or Turkey as early targets - even with a strategy of keeping a low profile you shouldn't just sit still! My preference is an alliance with Austria aiming at Turkey as the target, i.e. a Lepanto. A war with Austria can be successful, but if it isn't, you're dead. Austrians stabbed by Italians are quite often vengeful to the point of suicide. And for the war with Austria to be successful, you will see Turkey and Russia taking large chunks of Austria. Once T/R starts to roll, Italy is the inevitable next target. I would only attack Austria if: 1. the Austrian was demonstrably hostile, and 2. I had a solid agreement I felt I could depend on with either Russia or Turkey to attack the other once Austria was eliminated. All things being equal, Austria is Italy's best early alliance.

An alliance with Austria committed to an attack on Turkey is best pursued via the "Lepanto". The Lepanto opening is named after the "Gulf of Lepanto", which is an old name for the Gulf of Corinth, and which was the site of a naval battle in 1571 in which the European powers defeated Turkey. (The Gulf of Corinth is the body of water between mainland Greece and the very large peninsula just south of it, the Peloponnisos). The idea therefore is to stop Turkey in its tracks. The moves are:

			Sp '01    I: F Nap-Ion; A Rom-Apu.
					  A: F Tri-Alb; A Bud-Ser. 
			Fl '01    I: F Ion C A Apu-Tun; A Apu-Tun.
					  A: F Alb-Gre; A Ser S F Alb-Gre. 
			Italy builds F Nap.
			

Sp '02 I: F Ion-Eas; F Nap-Ion.A: F Gre-Aeg.

In Fall '02 Italy convoys A Tun to Smy if Turkey has been completely blind or totally preoccupied with Russia, or convoys A Tun-Syr, or if F Gre didn't make it to Aeg, forces it. If Turkey built F Smy and bounced Italy in Eas, then Eas is taken. In any case the idea is to land an army on Asia Minor ASAP. If Russia is at least neutral, this will work by 1903. If Russia cooperates and challenges Turkey in Bla, the 1902 timetable should hold.

The "disadvantage" of the Lepanto that is usually pointed to is that Italy has its forces strung out across the Med. These are the advantages as well. If Austria proves to be an unreliable ally, if Russia decides he must attack Austria, or if Turkey wants to cut a deal involving an attack on Russia while Italy attacks Austria, the potential for that attack is there. In 1902 F Ion-Aeg, F Tun-Ion will very likely give Italy Gre with Turkey's assistance. I would not advise this, however, unless Austria proved to be demonstrably unreliable. Following the Lepanto through is usually the best course. Italy's cut should be all three Turkish centers (or perhaps only Smy and Con if Russia is included in the deal). Austria gets Bul and of course peace and friendship with Italy!

These are the basic ideas with which I would enter the game as Italy. What you hear from everyone else, and what they subsequently do, will necessarily force modifications. But to begin with, I would of course write all powers early and often! This is even more important with Italy than any other country. Be a conduit of information - provided discreetly! Be everyone's friend (no one is your natural enemy, you can potentially help everyone, so endeavor to do so).

A significant problem for Italy is a western triple (an England, France, Germany alliance). Do what you can to foment suspicion. Try to find out which personalities and gaming styles blend and encourage an alliance between those two against the other. It is not very important which two, just so long as you can encourage two of them to attack the other. Discuss strategies and compare notes with Russia. He is just as afraid of a western triple as you are. This is a good way to cement a long term alliance with Russia as well as prevent a western triple.

In terms of specific agreements, do whatever you can to put together a non-aggression pact with both France and Germany. Try to get Trl and Pie declared DMZs. Stick to it, at least until the mid-game, when you are ready to move. You might also agree with France that you will not move a fleet to Tyl if he does not build a fleet in Mar, but that if he does, you will have to station a fleet in Tyl. If France does build a fleet in Mar, you will need to re-evaluate your plans and look at the possibility of a western triple.

Russia is your best potential ally if you are to win the game. You have no reason to be enemies to begin with, and every reason to be friends. Write often and cement the friendship. Coordinate your efforts regarding the western powers as well as Austria and Turkey. If Austria blitzes Russia unexpectedly, seriously consider an attack on Austria. If he is attacking Russia, he will not be able to help you against Turkey. And if he and Turkey are allied, you are the next target.

Try to put together a Lepanto with Austria. Austria is your best early ally, an alliance that will give you the staying power to become a power broker in the mid-game. It is very difficult to win as Italy without stabbing Austria, but the stab has to be timed correctly, and usually it is done in conjunction with Russia, around 1905 or so.

Finally, Turkey. Turkey is your greatest threat. Austria risks suicide by attacking you. France has better pastures to plunder. But Turkey, with Austria's concurrence or after Austria's demise, can attack you with impunity. So be friendly with Turkey, learn what you can, encourage him to attack Russia (never Austria), but don't trust him for a minute and keep your knife sharp!

If you have no reason to expect an immediate stab, the best opening moves are: F Nap-Ion, A Rom-Apu; A Ven H. A fleet in Ion sets up the Lepanto, allows you to convoy an army to Tun, and doesn't upset France as F Nap-Tyn would. An army in Apu can support Ven if Austria stabs by moving two units on Ven, and of course can still be convoyed to Tun. A Ven H is seen by some as a weak move, but I think it is preferable to any alternative. A Ven-Pie would upset France considerably, as would A Ven-Trl upset Austria and Germany. And there is no point in moving to Rom or Tus, so hold in Ven and let everyone think you're wishy-washy. It will do you well in the long run.

The early strategy is preferably a Lepanto. If Austria is totally uncooperative, work with Russia. If both Russia and Austria are hostile, work with Turkey. If all three of them are against you, throw yourself on the mercies of France and explain the extreme danger he will be facing soon! In the mid game, if Russia is a viable power, cooperate with him and stab when the two of you are in position to do so. If England and Germany have beaten up on France so that he is near death, take Mar and cut a deal with one against the other. In any case, remain flexible. You have the potential, if you've survived into the mid game, to side with any other power and help him do well. Make the proper choice, bide your time, and keep your knife sharp. An Italy with 6 or 7 centers in the mid game has already beaten the statistics. Keep your eye on the prize. With a modicum of luck you'll do very well.

{Mike Morris has been a familiar "face" on Compuserve for quite some time now.}

Opening Strategies for Russia

by Dave Scharf

Dave's Four Styles of Diplomacy Players
Before delving into tips specific to the play of Russia, I propose to outline the four broad (and extreme) styles of play into which I tend to categorize Dip players. Ask yourself which group you fall into. Your style of play may well dictate how you play Russia. And, therefore, my thoughts on Russia may simply be irrelevant to you.

(1) The Ditherer:
The ditherer believes that constantly waiting to "see the lay of the land" will make him/her a winner. This style of play is conservative in the extreme. It is characterized by a willingness to agree to all sorts of DMZ's and peace treaties (agreements which are generally kept), but a reluctance to actually attack anyone until they are already being assaulted in force by one or more other players. The ditherer is defensive by nature. The thinking is "if nobody ever attacks me, I'll get a few scraps here and there and I'll win." The ditherer will do well in games where a balance of power is maintained over several game years since the ditherer may well accomplish some slow growth.

(2) The Terrorist:
The terrorist believes that attack is the only style of play. This style of play is aggressive in the extreme. It is characterized by wanton assaults on neighbors with the intention that others will "join in the cause." Terrorist players depend upon positional play and a swift attack more than they depend on a superior force and a long slow war of attrition in which the force with numerical superiority will ultimately win. Agreements mean nothing to the terrorist. Agreements are made ONLY to secure superior position for the terrorist. He/she will not hesitate to break them. The terrorist will do well in games filled up with ditherers. In other words, if you have no fear of being attacked by those around you -- then you have free reign to do the attacking.

(3) Methuselah:
Methuselah seeks a single long-term alliance. This style of play is characterized by an early two-way alliance which will be played to a two-way draw. Methuselah never wins because Methuselah doesn't want to. Methuselah considers a draw to be a win. This style of play is characterized by a willingness to sacrifice one's own interest in favor of the interest of the two-power "super country" alliance. Similarly, Methuselah will hold grudges. Stab him/her and then ask for peace and you will NOT get it regardless of the cost to Methuselah. He/she has a long, long term plan and wants to see it through regardless of the ebb and flow of the game. "OK, F/E will get together and trounce Germany, then I will go up against Italy while you attack Russia through the north and that should leave us into a position to attack Austria whilst we keep Turkey confined to the SE corner of the board." The plan is hatched prior to Spring 1901 and will either succeed as is since it will not be changed, or Methuselah will be defeated trying. Methuselah will do well if the other five powers on the board don't see it coming and continue to bicker among themselves whilst the "super country" knocks them off one by one.

(4) The Jack Rabbit:
The Jack Rabbit prefers to think in the short term. This style of play is characterized by a player who asks him/herself "What will put me in the best position in the fall of THIS year." Alliances and agreements are intrinsically short term. What agreement can I make now that will facilitate achieving my short term goals? Once the immediate objective is met, a new one is set. "OK, Austria has been eliminated, now on to Italy" (and the completely new set of agreements that need to be made). The Jack Rabbit occasionally stabs ineffectively, tempted by a single center gain without regard to the long-term consequences. The Jack Rabbit will do well in games filled up with Methuselah or ditherers.

My Style of Play:
I tend to fall somewhere between the Assassin and the Jack Rabbit, especially in the early going. It is my strong desire to come out of the gates really strong. And so, regardless of what country I play, I tend to arrange a strong early alliance bent upon destroying one of my two neighbors. The quicker someone is out, the narrower the field. Similar to a raise in poker... you've got to get some people to fold before their hands catch up to you and beat you. This style, I think, results in early success or an early exit. If you guess right and pick a solid early ally then you are on your way to eliminating one enemy early and securing an excellent early position for yourself. If not, then you have set your cards upon the table and your two neighbors will certainly be in an excellent position to eliminate you.

Further on this point, I find that a lot of players are not direct enough. They wait to be asked into an alliance and then wait to be asked to do this or that. Generally, my first message to my neighbor is "Do you want to get together and blitz our mutual neighbor?" Often, players accept the first solid offer they receive. So, talk early and make your intentions clear.

Further, if you know your opposition and can place them in one of the classes above then you are at an advantage. If you are Germany for example and you know that France is a Ditherer and England is an Assassin then it should be a fairly easy matter to steer England towards France. France will have replied to England's messages with "show me you're serious about attacking Germany and I will join in." When you reply to England "Let's do it, I will move to Bur in Spring 01 and France will be gone by Fall 02" England is much more likely to accept your offer than France's. Also like poker, knowing your opposition can be an invaluable asset.

The Unique Play of Russia
The Opening:
Generally, the board divides into F/G/E in the west and R/A/T in the east -- Italy sits somewhere in the middle and can go either way, although other than an early attack on Austria, Italy will not be of much consequence in either realm until Spring 03. Russia, of course, is unique in that she also can play a strong role among the F/G/E triangle due to her position in Scandinavia. In fact, Russia can come into conflict or cooperation with every country on the board save France as early as Fall 01. So, if you are playing Russia, then get busy. Talk to everyone. And talk to them often.

What should you say? The greatest threat to Russia is A/T. So, your first goal should be to ensure that there is no A/T blitz coming. My first step is to write to Austria and ask if he/she would like to blitz Turkey, while also writing to Turkey and ask if he/she would like to blitz Austria. My initial communications are direct and to the point, and hopefully first out of the gates. As I say, the first offer is often accepted. There then will follow a series of negotiations concerning DMZ's and specific moves and the splitting up of centers and so forth. If all goes well, you will be left with a choice "Do I side with Turkey or Austria?" If I know nothing about the other players, I will tend to side with the player that communicates promptly and openly. Lack of communication usually means lack of interest in my plan, or lack of time to devote to the game -- both make for poor allies. Other tactics to lure either A or T into an alliance include the spreading of false information. This has, in my opinion, limited success. I tend to believe what I get from the horse's mouth and nothing else. But you are rarely held accountable for little white lies that are passed along second-hand. So, for instance, I might tell England that Austria has invited me to attack Turkey and I might tell France that Turkey has invited me to attack Austria. If either of these rumors gets back to either A or T it should help in convincing them to join in my own plans. If you can start that game by avoiding an A/T alliance you are well on your way.

With Italy, I dither. Whether or not I choose R/T or R/A I don't say too much to Italy about my plans until they are plain for all to see. If I am attempting to eliminate Austria with a R/T then I don't want Italy to know that. Italy and Austria talk a lot. They have the only two home supply centers on the board that border on another. Each, although Austria more so, is concerned that the other will attempt to slip into a home center. So, almost no matter what Italy is saying to me, I wait until my moves speak for themselves to really open up honest lines of communication. Italy and Austria talk too much and I don't want Italy tipping my hand to Austria.

In the north, you must talk to Germany about the potential bounce in Swe. It is usually a simple matter to convince Germany not to bounce you in Swe. Likely, Germany has his/her hands full with F/E -- he/she does not want to risk an additional enemy and avoiding conflict with you is almost certainly Germany's best option. Usually, in 1901, the north is routine. Stp-Bot-Swe. In 1902 though, things get dicey.

As of Spring 02, G/E can take Swe from you no questions asked. From there, it's not much of a stretch to take Stp and then the north is open to invasion and you are soon fighting a losing battle. The whole point of your negotiations with the western triumvirate (F/G/E) should be to maintain a balance of power until one of A/T is eliminated and your position is consolidated and defensible. For that reason, when it comes to F/G/E, I am a ditherer. I may well try to sow the seeds of discontent with some rumor and innuendo to keep the F/G/E guessing as to one another's intentions, but as Russia you must take something of a wait-and-see approach. A F/E alliance is good. Swe will be safe and so, in turn will Stp remain free while you pursue your interests in the south. In fact, I think that a F/E is best for Russia since with the intervention of a single fleet (build F Stp(nc)) you can help Germany out substantially and keep that balance of power going for the foreseeable future with minimal investment of units. A G/F is also not bad. You likely can't do much to help England (although I wouldn't be too anxious to help in her downfall), but that's not a bad thing since England can probably hold off the marauders long enough for you to settle matters in the east. It is the G/E alliance that spells trouble for Russia. In the first place, they can take Swe in Spring 02 no questions asked and from there they will go on to attack Stp... Mos... etc. So, Diplomacy in the west should be aimed by misinformation and anything else to attempt to avoid a G/E alliance. If it does materialize, you may have to invest substantial assets in the north immediately to stave off the inevitable assault that is coming your way. In Diplomacy, too often, players get caught up in their own plans that they leave preparation for the next challenge until it is too late. If there is a G/E alliance then, as Russia, you WILL be challenged in the north. And, that challenge will come sooner rather than later. You must respond immediately -- even if that leaves your A/T front short a unit or two. Hopefully, in the south, you have developed sufficient steam to continue the attempt to eliminate one of A/T while still sending three units to the north (Swe is already there, a build in Stp and a build in Mos).

So, in short, I open with Russia:

1. Arranging a solid R/T or R/A alliance bent on destroying the odd one out. If it's R/T, as soon as it is obvious on the board, I encourage Italy to join in -- the bigger the blitz the quicker Austria goes down and the quicker that one of my opponents is gone (now one of SIX of us will win instead of seven).
2. Attempting to keep G/F/E in a balance of power or confusion, but most importantly I attempt to avoid a G/E alliance. Take Swe.

If it is R/T v A then War-Gal and Mos-Ukr are obvious. Sev is more difficult. I prefer to move to Bla since it is such an essential place. I usually ask Turkey to permit me to go there -- it is the best position even for an attack on Austria. If Turkey is reticent then I suggest an arranged bounce in Bla to open in spring. And in fall, I make a fleet build in Sev conditional on Turkey moving to Bla (ie. If Turkey moves Ank-Bla then build F Sev, otherwise build A Sev).

If it is R/A v. T then Sev-Bla is near essential. Also War-Ukr; Mos-Sev. Obviously, in any case Stp-Bot-Swe is the 1901 moves for that fleet.

First year builds: If there appears to be ANY threat in the north and I mean ANY threat, then F Stp is essential. F Stp(sc) if the trouble is coming from Germany and F Stp(nc) if England is the primary threat. In fact, I make that build almost regardless. Remember, prepare early. You will eventually want to defend yourself in the north, or, go on the attack. In either case, another fleet -- if not another two or three will be essential. Start in 1901 if at all possible. Better to ask forgiveness than permission.

The Middle Game

I am here assuming that one of A/T has been eliminated and that you have at least held your own in the north. Now the decision becomes "Do I stick with my original ally, or do I take him/her down next?" Often, this decision is not in your hands. If a strong two-way alliance has emerged in the west then you will pretty well have to stick with your original ally since they are now, or soon will be, coming your way.

In fact, I find that R/T is the strongest alliance on the board. If the other players do not recognize it and continue to squabble while R/T disassembles Austria then R/T can usually coast to an easy victory by virtue of the fact that their forces will be bolstered by Austrian/Balkan supply centers and in better position to keep the offensive moving west. If you are in a position to do so, keep moving west. Russia, by virtue of her position, is usually in a better position to stab a R/T ally than the other way around. So, keep rolling. Take down your ally when the time comes. In the meantime... eliminate as much opposition as possible.

If you choose to abandon your original ally then there are still many options available to the Russia player. And it is this part of the game that makes Russia a particularly strong country to play. R/I works VERY well in the middle game. Your original ally can now be beaten and you will likely get the lion's share over Italy -- again due to your position on the board. In addition, Italy is probably lagging behind you at this point and any opportunity for growth is usually welcomed by an Italian player.

R/E works well against Germany -- a Russia fleet in Bal works wonders.

R/G works well against England. And even R/F by the middle game is very feasible against Germany or England.

One note on stabbing your allies: Don't do it unless you are sure that you will gain sufficient units or advantage to be decisive. In other words, unless you can go on to eliminate the victim, don't stab. I admit that sometimes things don't go your way -- you stab Turkey at the very moment when the rest of the board has woken up and realized that you might win and called off their petty squabbles. But, too many players spoil a good opportunity for a win by stabbing their early game ally too soon and thus allowing the opposition on the other side of the board to get things sorted out and into a superior positional advantage. If there is a country on the board that is in a poor position -- attack. Don't stab your ally for a couple of lousy centers and let Germany get her troops mustered on her eastern frontier.

In short, if you can get to a point where one of R/T has been eliminated and you have yet to be seriously threatened in the north, you ought to win. To stop you, the remaining countries on the board will probably need to call off their own petty squabbles and line up against you. If you take part in a second elimination then you certainly should win. This is, again, a positional advantage of Russia. If you wind up fighting France for instance it is likely that your builds will get to the front before France's will. And that, once the game does bog down into tactics and attrition, should be sufficient advantage to win.

I have, I admit, said little about specific tactics along the way. I didn't see much value in such a discussion. Tactics tend to be a matter of setting up the board, analyzing the combinations of moves and using a little risk management. "Which move will bring me closer to my goal whilst risking the least?"

Good luck. Keep looking over your shoulder. Keep your knife sharp. And, if I ever play Russia against you in a game... everything I have here written is all lies.

{Let's all be sure to tell Dave how great his article was, so he'll be motivated enough to keep writing for DW. Okay?}

Don't Ask For Turkey, When You're Hungry

Thoughts On Playing Turkey

by Dirk Fischbach

I. Salem Aleikum
Aleikum Salem, dear Sultan. You have made an excellent choice this morning - Turkey is among the finest powers on the board. Yet, many decadent Europeans do not understand that victory comes in the final battle, not the first, nor do they realize that clever tactics may win a battle but strategy wins the war. That is why one of the early Diplomacy historians, Richard Sharp came to write in "The Game of Diplomacy" about our beloved Ottoman Empire, "I find it claustrophobic, inflexible and frustrating.... A country for tenacious, uncommunicative, unambitious tacticians. Turkey bores me to death." He just did not understand that our forces do not rush to battle before the morning coffee. We often conquer only one country (Bulgaria) in 1901, and perhaps may not gain a single additional dot in the following years. Yet as Mohammed is my witness - any Turkey which survives until 1904 with her three home centers untouched by the infidels has an excellent chance of winning the game. To help us, Allah crafted our beautiful motherland to be a natural fortress, tucked into the Southeastern corner of Europe. While I lead you through your palace, my Sultan, let us share some ancient wisdom about the proper ways of ruling Turkey. During this tale, you will hear of the "Lepanto" and other cruel intrigues against your well-being. You will be told about the "Steamroller" and other paths to excellence, and most importantly, you will learn that the experienced sailor concentrates on the horizon, not on the bow of his ship. Take a moment to consider these brainless bugaboos on the other thrones of Europe. Every child knows that you should not hunt when you are hungry, for then you do not have the patience needed to pursue the ultimate prize. These morons are so eager to rush to the first battle, so focused on winning medals in meaningless struggles that they rarely think about the crown jewel awaiting him who is first to gain 18 dots. Thus I am sure you will not mind my taking you on what seems like a detour but will prove to be the direct way to victory.

II. Turkey: An Eagle's View
You might have already guessed, oh Omnipotent One, Turkey is for strategic minds. That is why so many of its rulers fail. If someone prefers tactics over strategy, likes high stakes gambling, and is more interested in an early 10 than a late 18 dots, they do not have what it takes to play Turkey. I know that you, my Cherished Commander, are different from those stupid Europeans who are so overoptimistic that they book their victory parties even before the first move. You, my dear Sultan, are wise enough to take your time and look at the map. No, not at your neighboring countries, you look at the stalemate lines. That's the name for imaginary but impenetrable lines of defense no enemy can ever force his way through. To give an example, if France holds with F TYS and F Tun it would be difficult for our navy to gain access into the Western Mediterranean Sea. Add a few more units (F LYO, F WMS, F Mar) and our mighty forces could never break through no matter which or how many units we possess. That is known as a stalemate line. You need 18 dots to win and to my knowledge no Turkey ever captured them without sailing into the Western Mediterranean. So just like any good sailor, you should concentrate on the horizon - think about strategies that get you past Sicily, my Ingenious Emperor. The problem is, sailing West usually necessitates eliminating Italy and your Italian fellow knows just as much about Diplomacy as you do. Certainly, Italy is the country most likely to end in the dustbin of Diplomacy history, but in an earlier life your loyal servant has seen such blasphemy as the Union Jack raised in Ankara. You should not take anything for granted in Diplomacy. Let us reconsider stalemate lines, oh Prosperous Pillar of Faith. Other stalemate lines to watch are the Strait of Gibraltar, the Alps south of Munich and the surroundings of St. Petersburg. Jointly they form the key stalemate line dividing the board into seventeen Northwestern dots (including Spa, Mar and StP) and seventeen Southeastern dots (including Warsaw). You need to pass this line somewhere in order to win. Not focusing upon that fact during every single turn of the game, while writing every single letter you send, and when deciding every move, retreat and build will be the main cause of failure. Your home centers are far from the stalemate lines and Turkey's traditional slow start does not help in getting to or even passing through these barriers. Yet, if you succeed, you will be assured of victory. So you are a strategic mastermind, Wisest Potentate Of The Civilized World. You look at the map and ponder over the stalemate lines. What do you see? You will need fleets, fleets, fleets to rule the Mediterranean (*that* every Sultan seems to see) but unless you decide on the "Steamroller", you also need armies, armies, armies. Look at your two closest neighbors. Austria and Russia. Both are land-locked countries and to capture all of their dots, fleets don't help. Ruling the waves does not gain 18 dots and stalling you in the Ionic Sea is easier than resisting a combined land-sea attack by our mighty forces. So like everything in Allah's wonderfully crafted world, this is a matter of balancing your powers wisely, my Supernal Sultan. The only problem with armies is that Bulgaria is a bottleneck for expansion to the Balkan, and unless you have a fleet in BLA, your expansionist plans will be frustrated more than once. Now, let us enter the war room, and review some dangerous knives pointed at the heart of our nation.

III. Lessons from Lepanto: Ensuring Survival
Our wise men say that Turkey is hard to eliminate. Indeed it takes a determined attack by two of our three neighbors (with the third not rushing to our help) plus a lot of time to break Turkish resistance and take our three dots. That is the benefit of resting in a "safe" corner. Nevertheless there are ways in which deceitful neighbors can take your empire out and preventing these moves should be your primary goal. Years ago, an American infidel named Edi Birsan invented what is now the most famous Diplomacy opening, the "Lepanto" (Hoosier Archives, Nov. 1971). It is not merely an opening, it is a strategic alliance against Turkey. In this scenario Italy and Austria strike a deadly blow to our fortress by placing an Italian expedition corps in Turkey's Syrian Achilles heel: Italy moves F Nap-ION, A Rom-Apu, A Ven H in Spring 1901, F ION C A Apu-Tun, A Ven H in Fall 1901, builds F Nap and attacks Turkey with F ION-EAS, F Nap-ION and F ION C A Tun-Syr, F EAS C A Tun-Syr in 1902. As the Turkish Commander in Chief, you should learn these moves by heart, these constitute the deadliest poison you will ever encounter. Although I hate to descend into tactics already, I must provide you with the antidote to this toxin. The best response is F Ank-Con in Spring, 1901 and a build of F Smy in Winter, 1901 but that would make Turkey vulnerable to a Russian attack. Thus you should leave no doubt from the onset that the Battle of Lepanto took place in 1571, not in 1902 (besides, back then, Spain ruled the Med. afterwards and reduced Italy to an Austrian front yard). Of course Italy will think "this Lepanto stuff must be great if the Sultan is that afraid of it" but fortunately, you are a smart diplomat. Intrigue Italy with the possibilities of easy gains on Austrian soil and you are halfway to victory. We will come back to what one might call the "Anti-Lepanto" defense when I discuss the Opening Moves but first we need to look at the other threat: Russia in Armenia.

IV. Armenian Alternatives: Stabs and Steamrollers
Oh my Keeper of the Right Faith, the most common threat to Turkey is a Russian fleet in the tranquil Black Sea. It constantly puts two of your supply centers at risk. Yet, arranging a demilitarized zone (DMZ) in BLA is like praying for rain - it fails when you need it. Combined with a Russian A Arm, F BLA grows from a nuisance to a deadly noose. If Austria or Italy join Russia, you are history in the making. Thus it is important to keep Russia out of Armenia. Our strategic council found three ways to achieve that. The first is to move there yourself. This is commonly achieved in the "Russian Attack" (F Ank-BLA, A Smy-Arm) to which we will come back in the "Opening Moves". A word of advice - gaining Sev in 1901 is a rare outcome and the main effect of this opening is to raise Austria's price for cooperation. The second way to keep Russia out of Armenia is a stand-off F Sev-BLA, F Ank-BLA. In Spring 1901, that is a common arrangement between our two nations, but it works just as well later. Yet, in the Fall 1901 Russia will want to use F Sev to take Rum and afterwards few Russians are willing to bind their units in a DMZ arrangement. The third way to keep Russia out of Armenia is to make him your ally. That is the most dreaded alliance on the board and is commonly called "Juggernaut" or "Steamroller." Russia rolls through continental Europe while Turkey rules the Mediterranean coasts. Once established, that alliance is almost impossible to stop and if you and the Russian have agreed upon it, your foremost goal should be to keep it secret as long as possible. The Spring, 1901 standoff over BLA is too common a feature to trick anyone, thus you need at least a Turkish move to BLA in the fall to camouflage your plans. In its purest form, the alliance will result in a "lease" of A Con to Russia while Russia orders F Sev exactly the way you want him to. This often fails because it is difficult to channel the Russian F Sev through Con into the Med without inviting a stab. A pure "Steamroller" starts with A War-Gal, A Mos-Sev, F Sev-BLA, A Con-Bul, F Ank-Con, A Smy-Ank in Spring, 1901 and A Sev S A Bul-Rum, F BLA-Con and F Con-Bul (sc) in Fall, 1901 but these moves are far too obvious and risky to be recommendable. Thus Turkey and Russia usually suffice with bouncing F Sev-BLA and F Ank-BLA and retreating the Russian fleet off the board at the first possible moment. Even a perfect "Steamroller" creates just one little problem for Turkey. It benefits Russia more than our glorious nation. A smart Russia will know this and will hand you dots in the Balkan to keep the two of you at par during your slow crawl through the Med. However, greed tempts most Russians, and unless second place is your goal, they must be stabbed eventually. The only alternative is to slow Russia's expansion down by cooperating with her enemies, which brings me to our next issue: Strategic Alliances.

V. Strategic Alliances: Good Confederates Can't Stab
Turkey has two natural allies - England and Germany. They have the key requisites to be your confederates - common enemies and no opportunity to stab you. England is a corner power like you and her main goal is just like yours - crossing the stalemate line. Central powers sometimes call the two of you the "Wicked Witches" because sitting and scheming in your corners you can jointly spell trouble for everyone else. England can prevent France from stabbing Italy (your chances of reaching the Strait of Gibraltar are slim once French fleets entered the Med.) and England is one of the few counties likely to go to war with Russia in the early game. An English - Russian dot-fight in Scandinavia is excellent news for you, my Smart Sultan. Unless, sadly, your Russian partner is incompetent enough to lose that battle and permit English armies in Moscow. Germany is not as useful, but a weak Germany makes for a strong Russia, or has France turning South quicker than you would like to see. Thus you should foster the friendship and nurture that ally. France is a nuisance. Getting him to attack Italy is difficult in the early game and may be counter-productive after 1903. He has the annoying tendency to stop England and Germany from doing what you would like them to and there is nothing you have to keep him at bay. Send him friendly letters and use him for spreading rumors but that's about all you can do with France, my Revered Ruler. Among your closer neighbors, a Steamroller with Russia is promising but may be too obvious while any alliance with Austria suffers from the potential two-way battle against Italy and Russia. There have been many heated debates among our nation's wisest generals whether an alliance with Russia or with Austria is more successful. In a "Steamroller," Turkey is the junior partner and usually ends in second place. With Austria it is just the opposite. Turkey tends to be the stronger nation and the one much better suited to stab his ally. That sounds like A-T is preferable but A-R is a forceful alliance while A-T is often countered by an Italian alliance with Russia. To tell you the truth, my Sultan, nobody knows. Both are viable options but in the end it will come down to your judgment. Italy is the only neighboring power that is an unlikely choice as your ally. Both of you need to rule the Mediterranean to prosper and both of you know that you will eventually clash. Italy is a good test of your skills as a diplomat. Offer him nothing, but make him think you are giving him the sun, moon and stars. Best of luck with it, my Witty Wordcrafter, for in this I have little help to offer. A discussion of alliances would not be complete without the coalitions that are potentially harmful to you: A-R and A-I are both dangerous and common, but thanks to your board position, they will need a lot of time and patience to pry you out of the corner. Furthermore, few of these alliances work well over the long run and you should take every opportunity to drive a wedge between them. Be alert but do not fear for your sound sleep, my dear Sultan. To return to a more general view, the perfect game for Turkey sees England fighting Russia, Germany attacking France, and Austria defending against Italy, which leaves you time to pick the dots in your vicinity. Once Turkey reached 7-8 supply centers, our forces will be almost impossible to stop. That should be your medium term diplomatic goal. Let me come back to the initial Richard Sharp quote, my Sultan. A main reason for Turkey's pitiful record are the many "incommunicative" rulers we had. Unless seventh place is your goal, you should write, write, write - every turn at least one letter to every power, probably three or four to even the most distant ruler. With that diligence and your famous penmanship, my Sultan, we should see Turkey excel in this game. Now I have kept you from the battlefield long enough, Wisest Guard of Ottoman Greatness. Let us rally our troops for the battles to come.

VI. Finally: The Opening
Volumes have been written about other countries' openings. For Turkey it's simple. Army Con-Bul is a must, and beyond that there are merely four sensible options:

1. The Russian Defense: F Ank-BLA, A Smy-Con
2. The Russian Attack: F Ank-BLA, A Smy-Arm
3. The Anti-Lepanto: F Ank-Con, A Smy H
4. The Pastiche Opening: F Ank-BLA, A Smy H

Volumes could be written about each of these options. But one thing is clear – patience, careful diplomacy, and wise decisions lead to victory for Turkey.

Allah Akabar!

Let's Get Personal!

by Pat Conlon

Opening strategy articles must make fine reading for novices (I wouldn't know, having had my baptism in Voice of Doom). But I sometimes wonder if there are other players out there, experienced or not, who find most such writings a restatement of the obvious. There is the occasional exception. Dick Fischbach's advice to would-be sultans reads like an Islamic Machiavelli. There may be little new here aside from his emphasis on long range planning over short term gains. Kirk has given it enough color to make it a delight to read. But are there all that many players out there who still need to be told that if you have the English position, it is imperative that you not allow F/G to ally?

duhhh...helloo-oo...regular...or decaf...helloo-oo...

Having read through the seven articles in the latest DipWorld, I now feel a strange compulsion to submit my own two cents' worth. My subscription is up and my checkbook is low, which is a more believable raison d'etre for this article to many of you. Cynics! So I asked myself: what would be more useful to novice or pro than a rehashing of the Lepanto? What advice seems needed most to all our diplomats, based on my recent games? So I made a list, and gave it a catchy name: The Seven Deadly Sins of Diplomacy. If you practice the Seven Deadly Sins, your opponents will die. Well, anyway, it's still a better name than the seven principles for effective diplomacy. And here they are:

1. Write everyone.
2. Evaluate your six opponents.
3. Choose a strategy based on that evaluation.
4. Map out your 18 center win.
5. Keep writing nearly everyone.
6. Look for Murphy.
7. Trenches and horizons.

WRITE EVERYONE. This is simple; it's basic; it should be old news to everyone. But it isn't. Or at least, a great many of you aren't doing it. I suppose the world would be a much better place if so many of you weren't "doing it", less taxing on the environment and all that. But in Diplomacy, if you aren't "doing it", you will be left out in the cold. So write everyone. You have important goals you need to accomplish with each and every letter. For the remainder of this article, assume that you have drawn England. It should be obvious to you why it's important to write to France and Germany. But just in case you run into one of those screwy Germans who doesn't see the need to write to England (and yes, Virginia, they are out there), attack him. But why should you have to write Austria? Chances are he'll be gone by W'02 and you want to finish writing letters so you can play Doom. Answer: You want to establish rapport with the Austrian. Make him your friend. Swap stories about your dog and his broken foot. If he gets past 1902, a friend is much easier to negotiate with. A friend is more likely to believe any lie you might have to tell him. A friend is more willing to help you deceive another player. But if you write him off in S'01 and he survives, he will take a very calloused view of your wants and desires when you finally admit that you need his help. There are many more reasons to write everyone, as you shall soon see.

EVALUATE YOUR SIX OPPONENTS. Can't do this unless you have written all of them and have gotten one or two letters from each in return. Who likes your ideas? Who doesn't? Who sounds like a moron? an obstinate pig? fresh meat? The country you draw does not determine the most successful strategy you should play. Who's playing each of the other six positions determines the path to success. You need an ally whom you can trust to write regularly in order to coordinate moves, someone who won't mis-order or nmr, someone you think you can trust, to get you out of the starting gate and into someone else's supply centers. You need to begin cultivating an alternative or secondary ally, someone who can help once you have eliminated your first target or in the event you are stabbed. You need to know what's happening on the other side of the board; what trends will help you and which ones will haunt you. You need to know who has the ability to rally the beleaguered troops and keep you out of your 18th s/c. Once you have made same judgments about your six opponents, then it is time to...

CHOOSE A STRATEGY BASED ON THAT EVALUATION. There's plenty of them out there, in zines such as Dip World, the several Novice packets, Peery's Dip World anthologies, and the letters you have received from your opponents. Now, you say that the German is being very obstinate about Belgium and that the Frenchman sent you really nice pictures of his trip to Africa. So let's pick an anti-German opening. It's personal, get it? They are not computers computing the optimum set of moves. They may not even be very smart. They may haunt you from their grave (with a $20 bribe to one of your remaining opponents) or they may fold their tents so fast you won't have enough home s/c's for all your new builds. It's important to always remember and never forget, your six opponents are people, not countries. But before you begin to believe your own press clippings about world domination...

MAP OUT YOUR 18 CENTER WIN. Okay, Mr. Queen of England, school's in session. Sit down there at that desk. Here's a blank map. Grab a royal blue pencil. Yes, the one that is the same color as the uniforms worn by your soldiers. We need to find 18 centers. Start by coloring your own three s/c's. Color in NWY and BEL next. France will consider supporting your army into BEL as part of an EF alliance and attack against Germany. Next, color in DEN, HOL, KIE, and BER. You are planning to attack Germany first, right? Next, color in SWE and STP. If you can get these, you can secure your northern flank and never again have to worry about an attack from that part of the board. How many s/c's do you have colored in blue so far? That's right, eleven. Kinda looks like we might have to consider attacking France at some point, if you want to rule the world. Ease your conscience with this thought. When you are guiding the destiny of so many millions of people, you have to make some tough decisions. So let's color in PAR, BRE, MAR, SPA, POR, and MUN. Count up all those blue s/c's now: 17. Where can you pick up an 18th center? This world domination thing is tougher than you thought, isn't it? Let's say you catch a break along the way and pick up TUN. Go ahead, color it in. Now you have 18 s/c's, but only in your dreams. Keep this map in the front of your file for this game. Use another blank map to show the results of each season's moves. Put both maps side by side as you make and adjust your plans, and as you...

KEEP WRITING NEARLY EVERYONE. Those 18 blue-colored s/c's are going to be hard to achieve. Russia isn't likely to hand you STP just because you sent him pictures of your kid sister in the shower. But the Russian armies might all march south if you can convince the Austrian and the Turks to attack SEV. Those French s/c's are even harder to reach. But if you tip the Italians about the upcoming French move into the Med (I don't know if it's true, make it up, the end result may be the same), the Italians just might send their fleets west. Of course then the French may have to send their fleets east. Before you know it, you could be popping Champagne corks in Brest. "But Master, why did you say to keep writing nearly everyone?" Come closer. I don't want to say this too loudly. See, some people will crucify you for saying the truth, even a truth they believe in, if that truth is not politically correct. If the German has never responded to any of your letters and you are midway through your campaign to eliminate him, it may not hurt your chances if you choose not to write him. If the Austrian is down to two units and they both appear to be in imminent danger, the most you need to do is send him a sympathy card with wishes to meet again under more favorable circumstances. Yes, sometimes it's okay not to "do it". And in time, when you and your royal consort have been together for many years, you will come to understand that even two people who are in bed together don't always "do it" every night of the week, and yet they manage to survive and grow together. But whether you "do it" or not, and especially if you don't, always...

LOOK FOR MURPHY. He is an evil warlock constantly on the lookout for a means to thwart your ambitions. He has a million disguises and supernatural powers. He can turn your RegDip game into a Blackhole variant, or a gunboat game, without anyone's consent. He can twist the words of your own letters to insult your allies and reveal your true plans to your enemies. He is the Begetter of nmr's, postal snafus, and mis-orders. He is the older brother of Satan, and inexplicable. But there are three rules whereby you might know of him. He tends to appear wherever you are least vigilant. This is his most uncanny and baffling trait. He tends to appear wherever there is an absence of written communication. If the Germans don't write you in S'01, attack. And he tends to appear whenever you think you have the same won, whispering unimaginable lies into the ears of your opponents, making concert where stood centuries of Slavic discord. To account for Murphy, you must be flexible. If the Italians move the Sistine Chapel to Tunis and vow never to surrender, you may need to alter your pretty little map with the 18 royal blue s/c's, with the captions and arrows and a paragraph on the back describing each one...oh, excuse me.

Finally, when you are in the trenches, never forget to look up at the horizon. Remember, you are Queen of England, not Captain of Infantry. Keep these Seven Deadly Sins before your eyes. Ponder on each of them before you open the diplomatic pouches or make responses. Study your map with the 18 royal blue supply centers. Consider how each move (yes! of all 34 armies and fleets on the board) helps or hinders your plan. Never neglect the Austrian just because you are stuck in Flanders and know that he will not help you cross the Rhine.

If you follow the Seven Deadly Sins, you will rule the world. True, if the other six opponents followed the Sins as well, you will be thwarted. But take heart, experience has shown that far fewer than one in seven randomly chosen diplomats practices all seven Sins faithfully. I myself have rarely been entirely faithful to all seven Sins. But then I am not born to rule as are you. If you are not "doing it", then you will be left out in the cold. If you are not vigilant, Murphy will be "doing it" with your consort. And if the planets align and conspire to derail your ambitions despite a faithful observance of the Seven Deadly Sins, sit back, relax, thank the stars that it is just a game, and indulge in the Eighth Deadly sin: Pizza!

Caution - Used and Abused - Part II

by Brian Cannon

In my last article, we looked at an example of The Caution that Paralyzes" - when General George Brinton McClellan threw away the goals he most earnestly sought and his own career by being too afraid of losing to take the chances needed to win. [ As an aside, the dangers of this abuse of caution were recently brought home to me in a game when I hesitated in prosecuting an attack through fear of how my opponent would respond. That hesitation extended the game, allowed my opponents to formulate their defense and, but for some lucky guesses later on, almost cost me the win.] In this article I’d like to look at several others examples of the Use and Abuse of Caution - Through the Eyes of History.

On July 25, 1944, implementing Operation COBRA, the Allied forces in France staged a breakout from their Normandy beachheads through a corridor near the town of St. Lo. By August 1, US 12th Army Group (under General Omar Bradley) had advanced down the Western coast of the Normandy peninsula, unhinged the German defensive line from its flank anchor at the sea, and reached the town of Avranches at the base of the peninsula. Elements of the US Third Army had already turned the corner" and begun their dash for the Brittany ports while the US First Army was preparing to wheel left to head for Orleans, the Seine, and Paris. The German 7th Army, under General von Kluge, with its left flank dangling and exposed, was faced with a crucial decision. It could follow the prudent course, withdraw its left flank, reform on a north/south line, and withdraw slowly and in good order to the Seine hoping to wear the allies down with a long, slow, costly advance across France -or- it could attempt a dramatic recovery. As the allies sprinted into Brittany and began turning East, the supply line for large portions of both the First & Third armies ran through a narrow strip of land between the sea at Avranches and the left flank of the German 7th army near Mortain. If a successful attack could reestablish the German line on the sea, those allied forces, well over 80,000 troops, would be cut off and could be destroyed. If the attack failed, the German 7th army could find itself unable to reform for an orderly withdrawal.

Strategically it is often necessary to forgo the "prudent" course of action as dramatic victories are often won by the bold and the daring. Tactically, however, every good general must always weigh what is possible and what is merely a nice dream. In one game a Turkish player, faced with a choice between allying with Italy (following an Italian stab of Austria) decided it would be a piece of cake for him and his Russian puppet (with German help) to destroy the upstart Italians and become master of the Med. It was a nice dream, but one which relied upon England & France (currently at war) staying out of matters until it was too late. In the event, with Italy helping France defend against England, it quickly became apparent to both E & F that Germany & Russia were ripe for the picking (with THEIR backs turned) and it would make more sense to give up a fruitless fight in favor of rich takings to the East. And Turkey's bright dreams quickly became tactically quite beyond his means to accomplish.

Back to our story. The German commander understood the risks and possible rewards of his choices. He also understood that, however enticing the rewards, it was unlikely he had the strength to pull it off. Unfortunately, the decision was made by decree from Berlin and the attack was launched toward Mortain & Avranches on August 7, 1944 at 1am. Within 12 days portions of the US Third Army under General Patton and raced along the southern edge of the German line to a position Behind" the German lines of retreat and closed the trap meeting with British General Bernard Law Mongomery's forces at Chambois, capturing some 70,000 troops in the pocket, and annihilating the encircled German army. Because of the German abuse of Caution the Allies were able to speed across all of France, liberating Paris only 6 days later on August 25, and set up Winter lines in Luxembourg, Belgium, and the Ardennes ...but that's another story of Caution Abused.

Both McClellan & Hitler's general staff abused caution in battle settings - McClellan hesitating, through fear of failure, when he should have been bold; and Hitler making a foolhardy attack when prudence was called for - and both paid the Penalty for (their) Lack of Vision!.

On December 7, 1941, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor destroyed the bulk of the US Pacific Fleet reducing the US presence in the West to little more than Four Aircraft Carriers: Hornet, Lexington, Yorktown, and Enterprise. Facing this was a fully formed Japanese fleet which included over 10 Carriers and numerous other Battleships, Destroyers, and more. In May of 1942, following the battle of the Coral Sea in which the Lexington was sunk and the Yorktown badly damaged, intelligence revealed that the Japanese were planning their next stroke at the Island of Midway over 1000 miles north-west of Honolulu. The Japanese goal was to establish a perimeter of fortified bases which the Americans could not breach, destroy the remnants of the American fleet if possible, and force America to a negotiated settlement leaving them in control of the Pacific. Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, like Hitler's General von Kluge, was faced with a difficult decision. Knowing the Japanese naval strength (Yamamoto had some 8 carriers and numerous support ships at his disposal for his Midway operation) and the American weakness (only two healthy carriers as Yorktown was expected to take some time to get back to 100%) he could husband his strength, concede Midway, and defend Hawaii & the US Western coastline against invasion, the "prudent" course, or he could send everything he could scrape together to Midway to contest the strategically important island.

Unlike McClellan, Nimitz was a bold man willing to take calculated gambles to achieve the goal" (victory, not just a negotiated settlement). Unlike Hitler's general staff, he calculated the chances before deciding. In a naval carrier engagement, as seen at Coral Sea (the first naval battle where the opposing surface fleets never sighted each other), great superiority of aircraft and carriers is of value only when the enemy location is known. Nimitz understood that, with a solid search plan implemented from Midway, and the knowledge that the Japanese may reveal their location when they attacked the island itself, it was entirely possible that the smaller American fleet may be able to strike hard against the enemy without their knowing where the American carriers were in return - and to emerge victorious. The full details of this battle need not be repeated here (though interested readers are encouraged to rent and view the excellent 1976 movie Midway" starring Charlton Heston & Henry Fonda). At Nimitz's command energetic & motivated crews worked around the clock to get the Yorktown battle ready (thought still less than 100%) and on June 4th, with search patterns out, the three American carriers engaged the main Japanese strike force of 4 heavy carriers (Akagi, Kaga, Soryu & Hiryu) under Admiral Nagumo, gained tactical surprise by locating the enemy first, and destroyed all 4 carriers at a cost of only the damaged Yorktown which was hit several times and finally sunk. A brilliant victory which stemmed the Japanese advances, and signaled the turn of the war in favor of the US, gained thanks to bold daring and willingness to take a nicely calculated gamble. A victory which set the stage for US advances in the West and, ultimately, Victory.

And, after all, isn't that what the objective of the game is, Victory? But to earn that victory, the ambitious general must be willing to risk losing, willing to take calculated risks, and not afraid to throw his or her last reserves into a battle. All the while being careful to calculate the chances of success and failure with a calm & clear eye and willing to hold off an attack when the odds don't warrant the risk. Let Caution be a tool you use, not abuse, on your road to conquest. Good luck.

We Don't Need No Steenkin' Rules!

by Jim Grose

When I first learned Diplomacy in the 60's with some friends, we skimmed through the rulebook once and only referred back to it to resolve disputes. This led to three fundamental misinterpretations of the rules. As a result the fleets had an inordinate amount of firepower, could move very slowly in one fashion but very quickly in another.

First, we somehow concluded that a fleet in port not only occupied the land area but also the sea area adjacent to it. This meant, for example, that a fleet in Rome prevented fleets from occupying Tyn, Tus(Tyn), Nap(Tyn) and Tun(Tyn).

"Tus(Tyn)? What on Earth is he talking about?" you ask. Somehow we concluded that since Bulgaria, Spain and St. Petersburg each had two unique coasts, this meant that any land area which bordered more than one body of water had more than one coast, even if they were adjacent. Thus Nap had two, Tun had three and so on.

The above led to the second misunderstanding: a fleet could only occupy one coast at a time. Under the real rules a fleet can make it from StP(n.c.) to Swe in two moves (F StP(n.c.) - Nwy, F Nwy - Swe) but under our rules it took five (F StP(n.c.) - Nwy(Bar), F Nwy(Bar) - Nwy(Nwg), F Nwy(Nwg) - Nwy(Nth), F Nwy(Nth) - Nwy(Ska), F Nwy(Ska) - Swe(Ska))!

The third misunderstanding, which was actually consistent with the first, was that a fleet in port could, in one turn, move to an adjacent body of water. This allowed, for example, France to move F Bre(MAO) - WMe in the spring and F WMe - Nap(Tyn) in the fall!

These misunderstandings led to some bizarre situations, heated arguments and repeated referrals to the rulebook until we realized the mistakes we were making. For starters, which bodies of waters did F Nap, F Bre, F Lon and F Edi occupy in Winter 1900? We reached the consensus that they started as F Nap(Ion), F Bre(MAO), F Lon(Eng) and F Edi(Nth). More difficult to resolve were F Sev(Bla) and F Ank(Bla) since by our interpretation of the rules two fleets could not so "occupy" one body of water. Our solution was to completely ignore the rulebook and start Turkish F Smy(Aeg)!

Armies could be used to help clear out bodies of water: for example, Italy with F MAO supported by F NAf(WMe) would be forced to retreat (but not to Eng) as a result of France ordering F Bre(Eng) - F Bre(MAO), A Par S F Bre(Eng) - Bre(MAO), A Pic S F Bre(Eng) - Bre(MAO)!

If, say, Germany occupied Nth then England could not build F Lon(Nth) or F Edi(Nth)! Similarly, standoffs were possible on Winter moves if, for example, France built F Bre(Eng) and England built F Lon(Eng)!

The height of absurdity must have been our misunderstanding of the Kie/Den/Swe region. We naturally assumed Swe had two coasts. We argued at length as to just what Den was, since part of it is a collection of islands which, by definition, are surrounded by water, suggesting a fleet could pass through, yet part of it is an extension of the European mainland. Because the rulebook mentioned that both armies and fleets could move through Con and Kie, but said nothing about Den, we reached the consensus that it was a land mass with four coasts, similar to Spain and its four (by our interpretation) coasts. Armies could move from Swe to Den to Kie and vice versa but more importantly fleets could not move through Den when moving from Bal to Hel, Nth or Ska or vice versa. Neither could fleets move through Den when travelling from Swe(Bal) to Swe(Ska) or vice versa. Thus the only way to get in or out of Bal was via Kie. Imagine how this influenced Russo-German relations!

Moral of the story: read the rules carefully.

The "Bait and Switch" in Diplomacy

by Mark Fassio

Well, it’s Friday at 1500 hours (3 pm to you civilians). Army plays Lafayette tomorrow (we’re 7-0!) and we have a promotion ceremony coming up in one hour (read: beer, chips, and work cessation). Given the choice between trying to cram two hour’s worth of reading into one hour, or writing an article for the 'zine, I have chosen the latter. I’ve acceded to the plaintive requests of our esteemed Dip World Editor and decided to try my hand at producing more garbage, oops, I mean, "crafting definitive S&T articles on how to play the game."

One would assume that there would only be "so much out there" to write about without being repetitious. However, just like variety in rock and roll (7 million artists all singing about the same basic thing, albeit in different ways), so too is there still variety in Dip writing. At least I hope you think so, or you won’t even read this thing!

I’m going to write about double-stabbing, or baiting and switching. This term applied to the old shell games (a con artist favorite) where they "bait you" with seemingly 'easy win' situations, then pull the ol’ switcheroo and hook you with deviousness. This is a common tactic for us Dippers, too: you stab, re-ally, then stab again when the time is better and you’ve "thrown off the scent" of your previous bad behavior. I find this tactic works best with (1) a game that already has your alliance progressing well (i.e., advancing toward a viable stalemate line, or perhaps beyond it) against a strong foe and (2) an alliance structure that allows you to be "behind" a good part of your ally’s line (such as Eng in an E/F, Tur in an A/T, etc).

Here’s the applicability in Dip: you ally with a nation (or nations) and go along your merry way. Somewhere down the line you make a stab move, and, for whatever reason, it doesn’t work.. Perhaps board dynamics had other stabs/shifts of polarity at the same time, and the stab has proved counterproductive in the new environment. Quite possibly you--like me--just make occasional bonehead moves and your timing is off (i.e., the premature stab). So what do you do?

Well, a lot depends on the board situation (as well as the personality of who you stabbed). If the board is clearly aligned against you and the stabee can exact revenge in a "benign" environment, you’re on your own: take your lumps. However, in many cases, some enemy coalition will still remain, threatening both you and your former partner(s). If you can tread water for awhile, it helps to maintain constant communication with the guys you just tried to hose, pointing out the danger in continued fighting among "ourselves." If the other countries against you are still dangerous to all, and if you’re a smooth diplomat, then you have a chance of "baiting" your former partner(s) into rejoining a National Front. Make some tactical concessions--give up a center you took from him/her (making sure you can’t have it used against you later). Get this re-energized coalition moving forward against the enemy. Not only does this shock the enemy (who thought he had your former pal(s) in his pocket), but it also provides increased security among your re-allies. (Why? Because you can probably assume that, once you stab your ally, he/she will try and link up with the former foe and get back at you. The former foe now has an extra puppet/satellite that he feels is ‘secure", never expecting a rapprochement. Ah, but that’s where good Dipping comes in now, doesn’t it?!! Imagine the enemy’s shock and anger if your ally rejoins you when all seemed well!) With the "bait" initiated for re-alliance, you proceed along for awhile, having them advance far from home along with you, and then you pull stab #2 (the "switch") at a more opportune time.

History buffs will see a possible similarity in this approach to that of Manstein’s recommendations regarding the upcoming Kursk offensive in 1943. Rather than do a "forehand" slap of the enemy (stab head-on and take your chances), Manstein wanted to let the enemy (in this case, your re-allies and future stabees) overextend themselves, and then strike a counterblow when timing and force balance favored them (the "backhand approach"). Let your allies retake a center or two that you took from them in stab #1 -- lull them into more security. Work out "corseting" strategies (where you and your partners have interlocking units in the forward area) to let them see your "sincerity" in working through a "no-kidding" alliance. With them back in your camp, you can propose far-reaching strategies that will have them advance along with you. Then, as England, let’s say, allied with France vs the rest of the board, you try for France to be in NAf and Ruh. You, of course, are "corseted" along the sea lanes up front (and behind!) him, to provide that interlocking security coverage and advance along the line. (AND to fall "backward" into Iberia, Tunis, or the coastal provinces.)

For then comes Stab #2. Hopefully by this time, the foe you’re fighting against will be enraged at seeing his presumed ‘satellite puppet’ re-ally with you, thus throwing him into a "revenge at all costs" rage against your re-ally. This will aid you later, for it gives you a proposed strawman to offer up, diverting attention from you while the foe turns on your re-ally. Your ally is then in a real "hurt box," because, once you stab again, is he REALLY going to get a fair and impartial look from the foe he’s attacked not once, but twice????? Hence the "switch" part of the "bait and switch." And, with our pal Manstein’s analogy, your re-ally is far from home and vulnerable to cut supply lines, and being chopped up by you and/or your foe(s). Overextension leads you to let him advance, then you backhand when least expected and when you set the tempo and timing.

Again, timing is everything, and a lot of variables obviously have to be in your favor before you try this. The ally may never feel totally secure again after Stab 1, meaning stab #2 (may also prove unworkable (that’s where unceasing diplomacy should be applied, to prevent such possibilities). The board position has to be right, the timing is critical, and the foe must be strong enough to re-attack your re-ally (when he rejoined your alliance), yet weak enough that you can still push ahead after stab #2 of your allies.

I make no claim that this is an earth-shattering new idea, or that it even has utility for 99% of the games being played. But somewhere, and at sometime, the opportunity will either present itself for a "bait and switch", or you yourself can set the agenda and try it. If for no other reason, a well-prepared Dipper will ensure it’s in his/her 'toolbox of options,' should you ever need to fix your Dipmobile. 'Nuff said!

Duh! Diplomacy

by David Partridge

Seems my life is often made up of adjusting to a series of mistakes. For example, I recently rashly read an email without first checking to see who it was from. It was a very nice missive from our esteemed editor requesting that I provide him with an article for Diplomacy World. There was a touching little story about how disappointed the Sicilian backers of Whining Pig Enterprises would be if there weren’t enough articles for the next issue, but even before I read that I found myself cancelling my plans for the weekend and sitting down to crank out something. All because I didn’t take the time to check the sender’s address and file the note away in the "What note? I never got a note" file.

That mistake being on my mind as I searched for a topic, started me thinking about how often mistakes have played a part in my gaming. I used to groan and moan when I made a silly mistake, gnash my teeth a bit and go on to lose the game. Then came my conversion as I began to master the techniques of Duh! Diplomacy. The defining moment was when I made a silly mistake on the Spring 1901 moves. It was a face to face game, and it was obvious from my ally’s expression that he had already pegged me in the "too stupid to be anything but cannon fodder" category. Spending the whole game trying to convince him otherwise didn’t sound like fun, but I certainly wasn’t ready to write the game off either. Then came the epiphany, maybe stupid moves could work to my advantage! I quickly made a firm secret alliance with our original target, including setting the date of the stab two years down the road. Then I bungled along for the next 5 moves, letting my ally make all the decisions, making a few suggestions that wouldn’t quite work out, and blowing one more move in the backfield that kept one of my armies lagging behind where I needed it. He was happy to use me to further his own ends, secure in the knowledge that he’d take me out with virtually no effort when the time came. Then came the coordinated stab. There were no mutual supports but my secret ally knew my armies would be turning around and used that knowledge to the fullest. The stupification on our victim’s face was wonderful to see, after all, he knew I was dumber than a stick, and I hadn’t even talked to the other player in over 2 game years! (I had carefully stayed at the table in plain view during all the negotiating sessions.) Unfortunately, I didn’t go on to win the game, but I certainly had fun, and a new respect for the power of Duh! Diplomacy.

While it’s rare that you get a chance to convince someone to view you as completely harmless until you have a chance to stick the knife in, there are still many uses for an apparently dumb move in most Diplomacy games. Take, for example, the use of a "mistake" to pre-position for a stab. A classic example occurred as an I/F alliance was pushing against Russia. In an apparent miscommunication, France’s army Berlin and Italy’s army Silesia each supported the other to Prussia. With Prussian support uncut, the Russian army in Warsaw marched into Silesia forcing Italy to retreat. Nothing much else moved on the board and it seemed a setback, but hardly a disaster as Silesia fell back to Munich. The next turn however, Munich was in Burgundy, Bohemia was in Munich, Tyrolia was in Piedmont and Italian fleets were heading West. Berlin, expecting support from Munich, fell to the Russians and the French position imploded. A massive stab that could have occurred anyway, but here it got a big leg up as the most damaging offensive move was masked as a defensive retreat. The well defined DMZ, designed to give each power that vital turn of warning was breached without a flicker of concern.

The use of Duh! Diplomacy need not to be limited to setting up stabs. Often it is a good way to provide a little bit of protection against an ally that you are not one hundred percent sure of. For example, as an A/F alliance moved towards the end game, the Austrian began to have some doubts about the commitment of the French player to their alliance. Their forces in the Med were balanced, but France had fleets in the north that could be quickly swung south while Austria had no such reserves. Austria also recognized that his doubts could well just be the paranoid ravings of someone who played Diplomacy too much. He knew that France was just as paranoid as he was, and if he did anything overt, France might well take it as a prelude to a stab, triggering the confrontation he was trying to avoid. His solution was to "accidentally" leave only one center open for the two builds he had coming. A non-offensive, mildly silly mistake, one that hardly drew a comment, yet one that greatly strengthened his position. He could hold any French stab for a year, and now there was the option of a fleet build if it came. Perhaps there never was a threat, or perhaps it was the extra deterrent, but the alliance moved held and moved forward. The same result could have been achieved by simply waiving one of the builds, but look at the difference in the two approaches from the French point of build. Why hold a build? Only because Austria was contemplating a fleet build obviously. Why? Either because he did not trust France, or because he was planning a stab of his own. Either way, a strain would have been placed on the alliance. Much better to just appear a little bit absent minded!

Duh! Diplomacy is not for everyone. You need to find yourself in situations where an apparently dumb move is both available and beneficial. And you need to be able to convince the other players that you really are dumb enough to have made the move by accident. You’ll find though, that the more often you achieve the first goal, the easier the second becomes. Of course, now that I’ve bared my soul, I’ll not be able to use my strategy of calculated stupidity any more. I’ll get some compensation though from watching my opponents scrambling to figure out what devious plot I have up my sleeve as I bumble along. For you however, the possibilities are endless, so get out there and do something dumb!

Dippy Double Talk

by Mark Berch

The words are staring at you on paper or on the screen. But what do they really mean? Here's a handy guide.

• I've always wanted to try this opening: I've never found anyone gullible enough to go along with this opening.
• The plan involves some really major risks: I might lose a Supply Center.
• This plan involves some fairly minor risks: You might lose a supply center.
• Which ever plan you choose, let me know: I can stab you either way.
• France told me over the Phone: France told me nothing of the sort.
• Your letter didn't get here in time: I didn't want to do what you asked.
• He's an awfully strong player: Hey, attack him, not me.
• A 17-17 draw is a very satisfying conclusion: I can't figure out any way to get my hands on an 18th center.
• I get only short term benefits: I get to build immediately.
• You get the long term benefits: You'll build on the 12th of Never.
• I'm sure your luck against Italy will change next season: I'm not going to send him your moves this time.
• Let's make Tyo a demilitarized zone: I don't have the strength to attack Tyo yet..
• I had completely forgotten that Belgium was yours: You forgot to defend Belgium.
• We can sort out the SCs later: My bargaining position will be much stronger later.
• It was so obvious that I neglected to mention that: I knew you wouldn't like it.
• The general gist of your letter was that... I only skimmed your letter before pitching it.
• My fleet-to-army ratio was getting unnaturally low: I need fleets to stab you.
• My misorder was accidental: It was deliberate.
• My misorder was deliberate: It was an accident.
• I think we trust each other enough to skip the arranged standoff: I'm finally ready to attack you.
• The tactic you mentioned hadn't occurred to me: I was hoping you wouldn't think of that plan.
• Since you picked the tactics last season, it's my turn: It didn't matter what we did last season.
• I'm sure you analyzed this very carefully, but... I can't make heads or tails of what you wrote, so I'm going to do what I want.
• I've heard that rumor too: I made up that story two weeks ago.
• I don't play for ratings, I play for fun: I'll do whatever it takes to win.

The Iberian Gambit

by Chris Warren

The history of French openings reads with two sets used overwhelmingly, both set for A Par-Bur and F Bre-Mid. One is the "Maginot" opening A Mar S A Par-Bur, and the other is known simply as the Burgundy opening with A Mar-Spa. Both these openings offer defense against a German strike into Munich and the easy opportunity to pick up both Iberian supply centers in 1901.

The third opening provides A Mar-Spa, F Bre-Mid, and A Par-Pic, known as the "Picardy Opening." This is subtly pro-German, as it hints to an accomodation over Burgundy while still giving the French player a voice in Belgium. This can be a very good thing, as F/G alliances, while hard to set up early, can offer wonderful late-game stability, and explosive growth once England is dispatched. However, the French player is often caught declaring his intentions in the fight for Belgium in Fall 1901.

By this time, England knows how to position its build for defense, and the lone French fleet is away in Iberia, a full 2 years from an English supply center. I propose an opening known as the "Gascony Opening", but that I like to call the "Iberian Gambit." The Iberian Gambit opens A Par-Gas, F Bre-Mid, A Mar-Spa. While leaving Burgundy open, this is no weaker defensively than the Picardy Opening, as Gascony borders all three home centers. Of course, this is best used with good German relations. In Fall 1901, A Spa continues on to Portugal and A Gas goes to Spain, capturing both Iberian centers, and leaving the French fleet free to move. Anti-English options are to move the fleet to the English Channel, Irish Sea, or North Atlantic, while the threat of going to the Western Mediterranean as an Italian blitz also exists. While not as devastating against Italy as England, the opportunity to do so is very important. It means that the Iberian Gambit can be promoted as a strong Western Triple to England, or as just an Italian blitz, pushing England toward Russia (and ideally, a fleet in the Barrents Sea at the end of 1901). With a fleet already in English waters, and a second fleet built in Brest (and possibly a third in Marseilles) the French can get a quick early leg up in the fight for the British Isles.

Of course, a "gambit" entails risk, and this is of course true. While this opening is as safe defensively for 1901 as the Picardy opening, it is not as strong as the Burgundy or Maginot. Of course, if you have a strong German ally, this is hopefully not a problem. What can be a problem, however, is the fact that both your armies are in Spain and Portugal come 1902. Even a good German ally can only take so much temptation. This is why I recommend 1901 builds of F Bre and A Par. A fleet in Marseilles, while more immediately useful, will have to work its way around Spain to get to a useful position in the Atlantic, trapping the Portuguese army for yet another year. Of course, in the case of friction with the Italians, or an Italian who will acquiesce to you moving F Mar-Lyo, this becomes more palatable.

In short, the Iberian Gambit is France's best method for immediately projecting naval power north, and probably the most potent weapon a Franco-German alliance has against England. Its defensive shortcomings are minor, especially when compared to pro-German variations, and it's a surprising move. Furthermore, it doesn't get bogged down in the fields of Belgium. If only Napoleon had known.

The Tactics of Diplomacy

by Allan Calhamer
with an Introduction by Larry Peery

Originally written in 1961, well before the postal hobby came into being, this article was first published in August of 1965 in Graustark, when only a handful of PBM games had been started. In 1986 Rod Walker reprinted it in the Postal Diplomacy Library.

This is a discussion of opening strategies and tactics for all the Great Powers. The true significance of this article is that it shows that Allan could not only design a game like Diplomacy, he could also play it. As if anyone needed reminding about just how good a player Allan was, Calhamer played a FTF game at the Fredericksburg, VA DipCon in the mid-1980's and achieved a win by concession with an 11-center (about to be 15-center) Germany.

The first two moves, of course, are usually devoted to the capture of supply centers which are not occupied at all at the start of the game. Typical results are as follows:

• England: Norway
• Austria-Hungary: Serbia
• France: Spain and Portugal
• Russia: Sweden
• Germany: Holland and Denmark
• Turkey: Bulgaria
• Italy: Tunis

Belgium, Greece, and Rumania fall variously depending on the situation.

The game tends to reach a balanced state in which players continually shift their weight against the strongest: therefore, it is unlikely that any game will actually continue until it produces a winner. Normally we play for three or four hours, then discuss what we think would have happened if we had continued.

There have been many opening variations, as well as other concepts, developed in the course of play here. Normally, England and France will agree to leave the English Channel open on the first move. England will then play A Lvp-Yor, F Edi-Norwegian Sea, F Lon-North Sea. If France violates the agreement, the Army drops down to London on the Fall move. Norway can still be attacked with one support. If France does not enter the Channel, the Army may be convoyed through the North Sea to Norway. The Norwegian Sea Fleet may support. If this action is unnecessary, the Norwegian Sea Fleet may go to the Barents Sea to prepare an attack on St. Petersburg. If France should move in to the Channel on the Fall move, England raises a fleet, based on the capture of Norway, in London.

If Russia wishes to play an anti-England game, she will order F StP-Bot and A Mos-StP. The other two pieces will be deployed according to purely southern considerations. On the Fall move, the Fleet is ordered to Sweden and the Army to Norway, which adjoins St. Petersburg at the top of the map. This action compels England to tie up two pieces in the attack on Norway. If Russia occupies Sweden, she then repeatedly attacks Norway with either Army or Fleet, supported by the other. This ties up two English pieces. Now if either Germany or France attacks England, she may collapse.

If Russia prefers a southern game, the Moscow Army goes to Ukraine on the first move. The northern Fleet still moves to Sweden.

Normally Russia and Germany agree that neither will move pieces into such spaces as Livonia, Prussia, Silesia, and the Baltic Sea. Then if either should attack the other, he would have to enter those areas first. The areas are not supply centers; so at no material loss the attacked party gets warning, and may move the appropriate pieces or scramble back into defensive positions, as the situation permits. Such a "self-enforcing" agreement has a tendency to last a long time but you cannot count on a player accepting realities and playing accordingly in the absence of an agreement. He may not understand the situation. Also the mere absence of such an obvious agreement may raise suspicions which may provoke an attack. If these two countries get into an early war with each other they usually get tied down, without either accomplishing anything, and then they are both very vulnerable to attack by other countries.

A typical German deployment is F Kie-Den, A Ber-Kie. The Munich Army may do various things. If the Russian A War has not attacked in the rear, the Army in Kiel occupies Holland in the Fall. If the Russians should attack in the Fall, Germany would simply raise units in her path. The Fleet in Denmark may be used to attack Sweden in the Fall. This costs Germany nothing, since she will win either Denmark or Sweden but not both, in any case; but it can prevent Russia from taking Sweden. Germany may use this threat as a bargaining lever to secure the neutralizing treaty with Russia. In any case, if Russia attacks Germany on the first move, Germany will certainly play the attack on Sweden on the second move, to keep Russian strength down and to keep Russia away from Denmark.

On the southern Russian frontier, a fleet in the Black Sea exerts a great deal of influence. Occasionally an alliance succeeds in which Russia and Turkey agree to leave this space open. The Russian Fleet is ordered to Romania, to pick up the supply center. A Turkish Army is ordered from Constantinople to Bulgaria, and the Fleet to Constantinople. Thereafter the fleet proceeds to the Aegean Sea. Often this alliance is offered by an experienced player to a beginner, however, and then promptly broken. Other experienced players should warn a beginner against this during the first diplomacy period. Russia and Turkey can often make a sound alliance in which both order their fleets to the Black Sea move after move, thus assuring that it will remain empty, while their armies attack Austria-Hungary.

In this situation it is sometimes possible to pretend that each country has stabbed the other in the back, and mask the fact of alliance for a few moves, after which both countries may be much strengthened by spoil from the Balkans and Austria-Hungary. Russia may request that Turkey raise fleets primarily or entirely, to insure that, after Austria-Hungary is beaten, she will expand against Italy rather than Russia.

If Turkey wants an anti-Russian game, she may order her Smyrna Army to Armenia on the first move.

Italy normally spends the first two moves with her Fleet in the acquisition of Tunis. She may proceed through either the Tyrrhenian or Ionian Sea. Normally she chooses the Ionian, because this gives her the option of foregoing Tunis for a couple of moves and attacking Greece or supporting either Austria-Hungary or Turkey into Greece.

If Italy wishes an anti-Austrian game, she may play A Ven-Tyr and A Rom-Ven (the "Obrieni Attack"). If those moves succeed, in the Fall she has the option of single attacks on Vienna and Trieste, or a supported attack on Trieste alone. Austria may gamble on some such Italian deployment, and leave Trieste undefended on the first move, in order to dash into the Balkans. If this gamble succeeds, however, she must in any case send sufficient defense back to Trieste on the Fall move, as an open supply center next to an enemy piece is an invitation to attack. If Italy has an inkling that Austria is going to make this gamble, she may order A Ven-Tri on the first move. If this move succeeds, then with normal follow-up play Austria-Hungary will collapse quickly.

Also, if the Obrieni Attack succeeds, Austria will normally collapse quickly, because of her surrounded position and wide-open landward frontiers. The trouble with this result, for Italy, is that she cannot ordinarily hold her gains in Austria. With the Adriatic separating her advance forces from her newly raised forces, she is quickly dispossessed by two other Powers which have been strengthened by the downfall of Austria-Hungary: Russia and Turkey. Turkey particularly, due to her secure corner position, rapidly becomes a menace to all Europe. Therefore, the player of Italy usually does not attempt to bring Austria-Hungary down.

An early Italian attack on France, however, usually doesn't work. Italy sometimes plays a waiting game with her armies, to see which side will weaken. Occasionally she has made a tenuous attack on Turkey with Fleets, or a picaresque invasion of Germany through Tyrolia. This last, though seemingly unsound, on one occasion succeeded in recreating the Holy Roman Empire in toto.

An alliance between Austria-Hungary and Italy is often very strong, because it cannot be taken in the rear, unless other Powers, particularly France and Turkey, recognize it at once and make a very strong naval commitment in the Mediterranean. It is, however, subject to internal problems, because of the vulnerability of Venice and Trieste to the ally, if these are left undefended.

Austria-Hungary normally agrees with Germany that each will stay away from the other's frontiers. They commonly agree that neither shall enter Bohemia or Silesia. If these two Powers fight early in the game, both are likely to be taken in the rear and destroyed. Austria has a difficult game at the outset, but if she gets off to a good start she often gets a strong game. Usually she will play A Bud-Ser in the Spring of 1901. This piece may attack Rumania, Bulgaria, or Greece in the Fall, without fear of failing to be in a supply center in the Fall, and if she gets a stand-off she will slow the growth of another Power. There are a variety of ways of playing the other two pieces. Often the Fleet goes to Albania and the Vienna Army goes to Trieste. This permits F Alb-Gre with support from Serbia in the Fall. If Italy and Russia have not invaded in the North, Austria will raise two Armies and get a good game. If the Russian Warsaw Army has invaded Galicia, the Trieste Army may be ordered to either Vienna or Budapest, leaving the other open, and hoping to outguess the Russians. Shading one's guess can become psychologically and technically a deep proposition.

If Austria suspects that Italy will attack Tyrolia, she may order A Vie-Tyr, F Tri holds. Now if the Russians invade Galicia, the Austrian Army which is still in Vienna (due to a stand-off in Tyrolia) and the Army which moved Bud-Ser in the Spring, may both be ordered to attack Budapest. They stand each other off, which keeps the Serbian Army in place, so that Austria may build after the move; they also keep the Russian Army in Galicia out of both Vienna and Budapest. Austria has substantially no chance of capturing Greece, however, if she elects these Spring moves. Also, if Italy does not attack Tyrolia, the Vienna Army unexpectedly flies into this province, after which it is out of position to make the self-standoff in Budapest. Thus, if the Serbian Army is ordered back to Budapest in the Fall to keep the Russians out, it may unexpectedly move there, and Serbia will not be occupied after the Fall move. Thus Austria cannot raise a new unit.

A solution to this dilemma is for Germany and Austria to agree both to attack Tyrolia in the Spring. They stand each other off, neither moves out of position, and Italy is kept out of Central Europe entirely. If Germany and Austria agree to do this, they should notify Italy during the first diplomacy period. Italy will be more likely to choose an anti-French deployment if she knows that the roads to both Germany and Austria are blocked.

A normal French deployment is F Bre-Mid, A Par-Bur, A Mar S A Par-Bur. If England has not played F Lon-Eng, the French Fleet proceeds in the Fall to Portugal. An Army is ordered Mar-Spa. If Italy has not entered Piedmont, the order is A Bur-Bel. Generally France would like to prevent a German thrust into Burgundy, which ties most of the French pieces down to defense of supply centers. If France wants an anti-Italian development, she may play the above Spring 1901 moves, except A Mar-Spa. On the Fall move, the Spain Army occupies Portugal, and the Fleet moves F Mid-Spa(sc). If Italy did move to Piedmont in the Spring, the Burgundy army must be told to go to Marseilles. If the result is a stand-off, again a Fleet may as raised there but if the result is a move to Marseilles, raising a new unit there is not allowed.

There are other interesting first move developments which arise from time to time, and choosing among early developments is often based on positional considerations which flower later in the game. Strategy is still evolving, too, because no idea cannot be anticipated and adapted to in a subsequent game. In any case, diplomatic considerations can override the technical. Alliances sometimes hold together in situations in which neither ally is adequately defended against the other. Sound technical alliances founder on distrust, or are pulled apart by false advice or tempting offers from the outside. A country that has "lost the diplomacy" and finds itself fighting superior numbers can rely on tactics only to delay the issue while it tries to save itself diplomatically.

On the Play of Postal Diplomacy

by Allan Calhamer
with an Introduction by Larry Peery

This article first appeared in Graustark in October, 1966; and was reprinted in the Postal Diplomacy Library of 1986.

This article is mostly about correspondence in postal play, using 1963B, in which Calhamer played Germany, as an example. It includes a GM review and a supply center chart.

Two hobby truths were evident, even in 1963B. First, "Winsome Losesome." Allan went to 14 centers in 1908, but ended the game in 1918 with only 2 centers (having dropped from 10 in 1914). Second, little about the play of the game has changed. You could take a PBM Dipper today and put him back in that 1963 game and he'd have no problem. The reverse is also true. Well, there was one difference. Back then the victory criteria was a "majority of the units," not "18 supply centers."

In postal Diplomacy, there is no time for discussions back and forth between two parties; consequently, when an offer of alliance is sent, possible objections to it and questions about it should be anticipated and answered beforehand.

Over-the-board play shows that even alliances which are genuinely good for both parties are frequently questioned by the offeree. Frequently he 1) wants to know the exact variations visualized by the offerer and 2) wants to know what the alliance will do at very long range, that is, after they have knocked out their first Great Power target. Thus enough exact variations should be included to give the other player some feeling of security that you won't attack him, that you have a real intention of attacking the named enemy, and that the two of you have the capability to defeat the named enemy. The long-range request is probably not a reasonable request, but nevertheless it is a frequent request, so some reasonable long-range plan should be included, if there is one.

The result of all this is quite a lot of work on the first move. Later, however, the simplest notes serve to hold alliances together. Only occasionally is it necessary to write something lengthy, to a single player later in the game (then you want him to make a major change of policy and have a reasonable case for it in terms of mutual interest).

In the RURITANIA game, 1963B, I wrote messages of the following lengths to different countries in the first move (I played Germany. The messages were single-spaced):

• Austria-Hungary: 1/2 page
• Italy: 1 page
• Austria-Hungary & Russia: 1 1/4 pages
• England & Italy: 1 page
• Austria-Hungary, Russia, & Italy: 2 pages
• France: 1/2 page
• Turkey: a few lines
• Russia: 1 page

The message to Russia, Italy, and Austria-Hungary asked for a four-way alliance ("RIGA", from the initials of the countries). The message to Russia and Austria-Hungary asked for a three-way alliance, calling for the same neutralized zones as the four-way alliance, in case Italy did not join. The message to Russia called for a two-way alliance consistent with the three-way alliance, in case Austria-Hungary did not join; similarly, the letter to Austria-Hungary alone.

These messages laid the basis of my intended policy: alliance with Austria or Russia, preferably both, still better the three in one alliance; still better Italy, too. The remaining letters discussed minor points, opened channels of communication, hopefully lulled suspicions, laid the basis for other alliances if the eastern alliance misfired, and so on.

Russia and Austria-Hungary accepted; Italy did not. It would have been silly to offer the four-way only, because then I would have been left with nothing. There would have been no time to come forward with a three-way after learning Italy's intention, and he might decline by just not writing. As it was, England and Italy misplayed, and we swarmed over them. Turkey was overwhelmed, too, leaving four countries. I attempted to win by blitzkrieg against France and went up to 15 supply centers; but I miscalculated and had to cover my homeland to hold it against Austria-Hungary and Russia, so could not raise beyond 12 pieces. Eventually, Austria-Hungary and Russia prevailed against Germany. It was still a pretty successful game for Germany, and the serious mistakes were not in the opening.

It is well to remember that players who live closer together can communicate back and forth faster, they can then iron out more difficulties between them. Consequently, they are more likely to ally at the start, and much more likely to drift into alliance later, even if they oppose each other at the start, than players who live far apart.

In 1093B, Germany was in Boston, Austria-Hungary and Russia in Los Angeles, and the other four in New York. I felt certain that the New York four, connected by ten-cent phone calls, would drift together eventually; hence I mobilized the other three, which were well-placed for an alliance on the board anyway. As it was, I had hoped to fool England into a German-English-Italian attack on France, without telling him that the RIGA alliance was in the background. Before I sent the letters, I realized that Italy would spill the beans to England, because they both hailed from a place called East Paterson, New Jersey; they couldn't talk about the game day after day without sooner or later telling each other all they knew. Consequently, I should have rewritten the letter to Italy to remove references to formal alliances with Austria-Hungary and Russia but seven pages of letters are enough, so I let the matter ride, and Italy rejected the four-way alliance, and England and France allied instead of fighting.

The press releases can be used for propaganda value. In general, I think they should be used to attempt to justify one's actions in terms of the realities of the situation, to assure allies that you are with them (in the language of a statement to the world, of course), and so on. For example, Boardman, as Turkey, tipped me off that Bruce Pelz was playing Russia under an assumed name and described Pelz as a "Germanophile." Consequently, I sent in releases full of Teutonic clichés about Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia building a new order in Eastern Europe, destiny, culture, etc. These releases became especially mysterious and beautiful around 1904, when it became necessary to attack Russia by surprise, in order to seal the upper reaches of the Baltic before I wheeled against France.

I do not believe that releases taunting or belittling the other players are diplomatically wise.

Where players play many games, it might be wise for them to save copies of their best first-round letters and copy or even duplicate them in other games. Amendments can be written in, stuff can be stricken out, blanks can be filled in, and so forth. In due course, one might have more than one set of letters for each country. If as Russia you want to attack Turkey first, you send out the "Russia A" letters; if you want to attack Austria-Hungary first, you send out the "Russia B" letters. If you like letters you receive, you copy them in later games. (Thus, perhaps, "I sent him my version of Calhamer's RIGA letter. He sent me Smythe's ITA.") This "canned correspondence" would apply only to the first move, of course, but it is precisely there that you need long letters.

[Allan's letter doesn't touch on one of the most salient points in the game: that the Austrian player, Diane Pelz, was the wife of the Russian player, Bruce Pelz (who played under the name of "Adhemar Grauhugel"). In Graustark 87, John Boardman (who played Turkey and eventually became GM for the game, gives the following review:]

This second postal Diplomacy game was organized by Dave McDaniel, and included many of McDaniel's fellow Angelenos and members of the Los Angeles Science Fiction Society. The Russian player entered under the name of "Adhemar Grauhugel", but it soon became common knowledge that he was actually Bruce Pelz - husband of Austro-Hungarian player Diane Pelz. The Pelzes cooperated with Diplomacy inventor Allan Calhamer, playing Germany, in a very effective Dreikaiserbund. Weak play by Tom Bulmer as Italy, and lack of coordination among the other players generally, led to the triumph of the Dreikaiserbund. By 1905 Calhamer concluded that he would be the next victim of the Family Compact, and anticipated this development by attacking the Pelz forces. An ill-timed double-cross of his sole remaining ally, Jock Root's France, started the German Kaiser downhill, as France promptly joined the combine against him. In 1910, McDaniel ceased publication of Ruritania, and it passed to my management. Calhamer and Root also decided to withdraw, and their countries passed to Roland Tzudiker and John McCallum respectively. These two, in alliance, fought a well-played resistance against the Pelzes until Tzudiker was called up by the Air Force in 1916. (The game year 1916, of course.) McCallum, eliminated as France, carried on as Germany for two more years. The failure of Austria-Hungary to build a unit to which it was entitled at the end of 1917 meant that at the end of 1918 only 33 units were on the board. Of these, Russia had a majority, and hence was declared the winner.

[Prior to the Revision of 1971, the Rulebook's victory criterion was "majority of units", not "18 supply centers".]

Diplomacy and Star Trek

or How I'd Kick Spock's Pointy Butt any Day
by Warren Goesle

I was reading the commentary on the Diplomacy World Demo Game written by Brian Cannon in DW #81, and noted his interesting opening remark: "As an old hero of mine once said ... 'Fascinating!'", an obvious reference to Mr. Spock of "Star Trek" in its original form. Since I'd had several beers at this point, it got me to thinking, "How would Spock actually do in a Diplomacy Game?". I don't believe this to be a trivial question. Well, ok, maybe it is, but it was cheaper than writing to allies that weren't writing back (and we're not naming names here but you DO know who you are) and much cheaper than dialing 1-900 numbers, which were the only other options after 8 beers on a Saturday night.

But I don't believe that it's a trivial question to Diplomacy players. Check out "Maniac's Paradise", Doug Kent's fine monthly, and you'll find several pages of subzine dedicated to Trekmania. I suppose it started as filler material, but it has certainly taken on a life of its own. More than once Dip players have sent me messages with "live long and prosper" or "make it so" written in the margins. I actually find it a little strange that this marriage hasn't yet been taken to this logical conclusion before. So let's speculate...

How would Spock approach a Diplomacy game? Logically I suppose, he'd approach it logically...I suppose. But do logic and Diplomacy mix? Well...

So Spock goes on liberty and can either sign autographs at the Star Trek convention, or head down the block and check out DipCon. Looking for something new, and noting that the Diplomacy crowd appears a little saner, or at least doesn't dress alike, he wanders in and looks for a game. He's read up on the rules, checked a few strategy articles on the net, and feels ready to go. He draws the country card and gets...Austria. A tough draw for a first-timer. But the strategy articles say it is doable, so Spock doesn't get discouraged. Well, it's not like it's in his nature to...

He looks at the board. Italy is the first concern of course. Trieste and Venice must get along if either is to survive. Russia and Turkey are already talking, and England, France and Germany are in their own world for now. Let's get an alliance with Mr. Italy, as it is only logical. Talks go well, no hostility is detected, phasers are holstered. Italy is worried about Turkey, and is very concerned that Turkey and Russia are chatting. Lepanto is suggested, and planned for. Mr. Italy heads for Mr. Turkey, while our resident Vulcan decides that a talk with Mr. Russia is in order. Must break up the R/T.

Mr. Russia, of course, vehemently denies the R/T exists, and says that he was only trying to delay the invasion he expects from the South. He'd like help slowing down the Sultan. Logically, of course, this is in Spock's plans anyway. Russia will take Rumania from Sevastopol in the Fall, opening it up for a build to force the Black Sea, and take out his southern neighbor. So far, Spock is definitely in control. Italy and Turkey are still in conversation, so Spock heads for a chat with Mr. Germany.

A DMZ in Tyrolia and Bohemia is quickly agreed to, and a non-aggression treaty is mutually accepted. Spock looks forward to a good mid-game ally. Let's see, do we need to talk with Turkey now?

The Sultan appears a little down. This seems logical, as he has three neighbors coming for him. But no, he says it's because Russia and Italy have apparently decided to squeeze out both Austria and Turkey, with German help, and France and England aren't going to interfere. Austria and Turkey's only chance is to ally quickly and break up Russia and Italy. Spock's eyebrow raises. Could all that conversation actually have taken place already? Turkey says that Russia has vetoed the R/T for now, but might do it later...if Turkey is still around. Turkey says he wants none of that, and wants to hit Russia now. Can he at least get Austria to lay off while he tries talking England and Germany into helping again? Maybe Austria can even get in on it, and get a couple of SC's out of it?

So our hero goes back to the table to write his moves. What to do? Someone has obviously lied to him. That's part of the game, and is logical. Turkey's story is the least believable, but how much can Russia actually be trusted? A quick move to Galicia would be bad. Does that have to be defended? And what of Italy? Even if Turkey falls quickly, will Austria be next, squeezed between the Pope and the Tsar? And Germany, France and England all do seem to be getting along, could all three be heading this way? Paranoia doesn't translate well into Vulcan, but it's starting to.

Spock's Austria falls quickly of course. Russia stabs Austria immediately, and the Juggernaut forms. Italy, lured by the possibility of a stab of Turkey by Russia, gets his share of Spock rather than launch a Lepanto he really didn't care to do anyway, with an ally that was completely unsure of his footing. Spock's only sympathy comes from England, who was getting pummeled as Spock left the board.

Spock thinks. It wasn't logical for Russia and Turkey to ally. All the others would ally against them. It wasn't logical, once the Juggernaut formed, for Italy to attack him. This game isn't logical. Game theory doesn't work. There is no way to maximize the minimum gains, and get a plus out of it. One has to hope that someone has a common interest, and there is no guarantee of that. This isn't like 3-D chess, where a logical Vulcan mind could go up against a mere human like Kirk, and make game theory work. Of course, every now and then Kirk's illogical moves worked too...

Spock enters another game. His France doesn't last long either, as Germany doesn't care that it is illogical for him to invade France with Italy and England, as he'll just get squeezed between them. Spock watches the game progress from the sidelines, and sees that he is correct on this point. So the game does have logic to it. Spock leaves the board as England, Italy and Russia are deciding the game among the three of them.

Spock draws Russia in his final attempt. Six potential allies. Four potential first victims. 108 possible first moves. Which is the best? And Spock's brain latches on to the answer: it depends. Specifically, it depends on what the other six are going to do. It depends on what six illogical humans decide to do. Six illogical humans with their quirks, their foibles, their fallibility. Six illogical humans who might tell you nice things and then invade you because they don't like the shape of your ears.

Spock's Russia falls to a very illogical Austrian-Turkish alliance. Spock watches for awhile afterwards, and watches the A/T sweep most of the board. Fascinating. Illogical, as Austria must wonder when Turkey will attack from behind. Illogical, as England should not have let Turkey out of the Med in the first place, even though it got him a short-term build. Illogical, as France should have seen that taking out Italy with Austria would only lead to England invading from behind. Illogical...

Spock heads back to the Enterprise. Kirk notices that Spock spends a lot of time playing 3-D Chess with the Ship's computer.

I fear that Spock would not do well in Diplomacy. It has nothing to do with his diplomatic skills. It has nothing to do with his grasp of game theory. It has everything to do with the fact that our beloved game really isn't logical. Seven Vulcans in a Diplomacy game would probably be pretty tedious to watch. No one would get eliminated, as that would be illogical.

Diplomacy and Star Trek. There are lessons to be learned here. I suspect that Kirk or Picard would have different approaches to the game. After all, they're human. Let's put them in a game with six Vulcans and see how they do. Fascinating.

Winter 1901: The Three Build Opening

by Scott Morris

You have just started another game of Diplomacy. Your fix of lies and deception is on the way. Sure, you can start the game conservatively, slowly make allies, and build your coalition. THE HECK WITH THAT! You want builds and you want them NOW! The population of your country is in the middle of a fascist frenzy and they need new Supply Centers to pay the bill for expansion.

Can you achieve the elusive three build winter of 1901? The first question you ask is, "Can you get three builds?, and the second, what does it do to your chances of victory?

I went back and reviewed 56 games in the Diplomacy archives of American on-line. Of those 56 games 28 games had one or more countries with three builds in 1901. A very nice round 50%. So maybe the three build winter is not so elusive after all! In those 28 games three countries never got three builds (0/28). Lets look at them.

The Have Nots

ENGLAND - Forget it. If you can get three builds for England by the winter of 1901 you are not playing Diplomacy you are working for the CIA! England gets Norway easily enough. Just ship over one of your fleets to the North Sea and then sail on in to Dock. The Prime Minister has a shot at Belgium and Holland via Convoy or with your other fleet but where will the third build come from?

The only way I can see England getting a third build is for England to talk France into putting it's fleet in the English Channel and then forgoing a build to convoy across your Army to Holland. NOT AN EASY TASK!

ITALY - It is possible for Italy to get three builds, but just barely. Tunis is yours, there's one. Italy would then have to take both Marseilles and Trieste to get three builds in the first year stabbing France AND Austria. Even if Italy could pull that off, good luck with negotiations in 1902 with two very agitated neighbors!

TURKEY - The Sultan gets Bulgaria with a flick of his wrist. The second center HAS to be a stab of Russia by your fleet in the Black Sea taking Sevastapol. Russia would probably notice that army in Armenia. The third build has your army in Bulgaria roll either north to Rumania or south to Greece with your army in Smyrna moving Constantinople to Bulgaria. NOPE! I'm sure it has happened but not more than once or twice.

The bottom line here is that if you draw any of these countries you have to have a long term view of the game. It is very hard to set the world on fire in the first year. Two builds is a Major victory for any of the Have-Nots.

The Have's

GERMANY - If you want that three build winter the Kaiser can get it done! He has easy access to Denmark, Holland and Belgium. With some savvy negotiation you are there. Germany had a three build opening in 8 out of the 56 games studied. Unfortunately, of those eight games Germany went on to win BUTKUS! ZIP. NADA. The Kaiser closed the deal zero of eight games after a three build opening. This tells us that Germany, more than any other country on the board, is susceptible to early leader syndrome. When you have five neighbors and you expand quickly your odds of being noticed are greater.

AUSTRIA - Austria got three builds in 4 out of the 56 games. All with Serbia, Greece and Rumania. While Austria was only half as successful as Germany in the first year, Austria went on to victory an impressive two times out of four. One of them that rare jewel a solo win! A victory as Austria is a must have for any Diplomacy player who stakes a claim as "expert".

FRANCE AND RUSSIA - If you want three builds in 1901 you want either of these super starters. Both of them built three times in 10 out of 56 games played. That is nearly 20% Of those 20 three build openings they went on to partake in the win 8 out of 20 games. Russia earning five wins and France three. Most impressive. It is not surprising that these two countries have a higher ratio of wins in much more scientific studies than mine! (see last issues great article by Thaddeus Black) France and Russia clearly win more games than the other countries.

In the final analysis of my sample games (admittedly a small sample) we can learn a few things. First in 50% of the games some country gets three builds in 1901. of the 28 times a country DID get three builds they went on to win or partake in the win 10 out of 31 times. (in a few of the 28 games more than one country got three builds) So if you connive and struggle your way to three builds you now have improved your odds of winning to about 33% Unfortunately this means the others gang up on you and beat you down the other 67% of the time. However, these odds sure look better than the 8-12% percent chance of victory you had in Spring 1901. So get out there and Build!

Safe Openings

by Dick Schultz
with an introduction by Larry Peery

This letter/article first appeared in Graustark in March, 1964. It suggests 1901 moves for the Great Powers and discusses alternatives. Unfortunately, most of his ideas are now old-fashioned and inflexible. Still, better safe than sorry!

I've been doing a lot of thought about Diplomacy lately. And I've come up with a series of moves for each country which are the best possible. At least they are, as far as I can tell.

England:

F Lon-Nth; F Edi-Nwg; A Lvp-Edi. Next: A Edi-Nwy; F Nwg C A Edi-Nwy; F Nth-Bel. (This presupposes an arrangement with France allowing Belgium to England for this year at least).

France:

F Bre-Mid; A Mar-Spa; A Par-Bur. Next: F Mid-Por; A Spa H; A Bur-Mun. It would take more than two moves for an English army to reach Paris. Brest is in danger if the London fleet moves to the Channel. (A calculated risk, if England is presumably an ally.) France should hold out Belgium as a bribe to keep England in line for the first few moves.

Reasoning:

Norway is out of reach for both Russia (F StP) and Germany (F Kie) since they cannot reach it in less than three moves. F Nth might be attacked, therefore convoy the army using the F Nwg to insure the supply center. Germany should try to gain Denmark and Holland, therefore England should try for a supply center that is probably Germany will not try for. Spain and Portugal are unprotected (so they are easy targets for France). By moving A Par-Bur, Munich is threatened. If Italy threatens Marseilles, the army may be moved to cover Marseilles or at least to contend with an Italian army in Piedmont for it, therefore leaving it unoccupied. If the army in Munich attempts to move to Burgundy on the first move, A Par-Bur keeps this army at bay. In Fall 1901, attempt A Par-Bur once more. If this is unsuccessful, the army is in a position to attack Ruhr and Munich and defend Marseilles, not to mention covering Paris. If unsuccessful, A Mun is also stopped once more, meaning stalemate while France gathers forces.

Germany:

F Kie-Hol; A Mun-Bur (alternately, A Mun-Ruh); A Ber-Kie (alternately, A Ber-Sil). Next: F Hol holds (alternately, F Hol S A Ruh-Bel); A Bur-Par or Mar (Germany should attack Paris if Italy threatens Marseilles); A Kie-Den (alternately, A Sil-War).

F Kie might also move to Denmark, leaving A Ber-Kie, thence to Holland. Then, according to whether the French have moved into Picardy or Burgundy, the Ruhr army may support A Kie-Hol or return to Munich. A return to Munich might be dictated as inadvisable if Italy menaces Marseilles with an army in Piedmont. The fleet in Denmark would then hold. A Ber-Sil should be played only if Germany and Russia are definitely at war. If A Ber-Kie and Russia moves A War-Sil, Germany can still move A Kie-Ber.

Germany has more enemies on both sides of her, and the other frontiers are not secure. At all costs make Russia friendly, therefore. But in any case take and hold Denmark as early as possible, and engage in a contest for the Low Countries, both to deny them to the enemy and to gain supply centers. I do not think that under any circumstances can Germany be holding more than four supply centers by Fall, under pressure of a concerted Franco-Russian attack. Therefore, gambling is in order.

Italy:

Under all circumstances attack Trieste immediately with A Ven-Tri; F Nap-Ion; A Rom-Tus. Next: A Ven-Tri or A Tri H; F Ion-Tun; A Tus-Ven if Ven is free and otherwise A Tus-Pie. There can only be war between Austria and Italy. Therefore Trieste is to be gained at the earliest. Seek alliance with France, for with armies moving into northern Italy a French drive from Marseilles is impractical. If the Austrian fleet is not in a position to take Greece, F Ion-Gre instead of to Tunis might be considered.

Austria is forced to defend Trieste. Make a secret alliance with Austria to facilitate the seizure of Trieste. If Trieste is taken, Austria cannot obtain and hold more than four supply centers. Italy will have five. If Trieste is defended, Austria's Russian and Turkish frontiers are in danger, and Austria will probably not have more than five centers all told in any case.

Austria:

F Tri-Alb; A Vie-Tri; A Bud-Ser. Next: F Alb-Gre; A Ser H; A Tri-Ven. The fleet moves to contend for Greece. The army of Vienna contends for Trieste. The army in Serbia can support A Vie-Tri. If a Turkish army in Bulgaria attacks Serbia, the army in Vienna still contends for Trieste. Better yet is A Ser-Bul. That way a Turkish attack on Rumania would be spoiled, or at least leave Bulgaria neutral and Serbia in Austrian hands.

Austria must move south to the Balkans and defend Trieste. Do not trust an Italian treaty. If Russia moves A War-Gal and the army in Vienna still contends for Trieste, move A Ser-Bud. At worst, the move will be legal. At best, A Ser-Bud cancels A Gal-Bud; Trieste and Budapest are free of units, and Serbia is still held. It might be wise to have A Bud hold on the first move and go to Serbia on the second. But the Turkish threat to Serbia must be considered. Austria, like Germany, has no safe flank and must try to contend with all comers.

Russia:

F StP-Bot; A War-Sil (or A War-Gal); A Mos-Sev (or A Mos-Ukr); F Sev-Rum. Next: F Bot-Swe; A Sil-Ber or Mun; A Sev-Arm or A Sev S F Rum H. Alternatives: A Gal-Vie or Bud, depending on which is undefended; A Ukr S F Sev-Rum.

Move A Mos-Ukr only if an immediate contention with Austria over Rumania is believed possible. Let the move by the army in Warsaw be governed by political considerations. If a working alliance with France exists, A Bur can support A Sil-Mun.

Russia and Austria must fight sooner or later; it's best to weaken or frighten Austria into ill-considered moves if possible.

If F Sev-Rum works in the first move, try F Rum-Bul(ec). Since Turkey will most undoubtedly defend Bulgaria, the move will have the effect of a hold order. If A Con-Bul, then A Bul-Gre, the Russian move F Rum-Bul(ec) will make Bulgaria a neutral and thereby out of Turkish control. Result? Scratch one supply center for Turkey.

Turkey:

A Con-Bul; F Ank-Bla; A Smy-Arm. Next: A Bul-Rum; A Arm-Sev; F Bla supports one of these moves. It is impractical to try for Greece, sure to be contested by one of the other powers. But A Bul-Rum pins down the Russian fleet in Rumania, which will probably be supported by an army in Ukraine, Sevastopol, or Galicia. If Russia is engaged in Austria in 1901, F Bla S A Arm-Sev just might succeed. Otherwise, it's a forced draw with Bulgaria firmly in Turkish hands.

If an Austro-Russian alliance is apparently in effect, it might pay to order F Bla S A Bul H. In any case, order A Arm-Sev, if only to cut Russian support of Balkan moves.

General Notes:

It pays Germany to attack the Low Countries if it's at all possible, with A Mun-Bur. France therefore must move into Burgundy herself, ally herself with Italy, and let England contend for the Low Countries at first.

Therefore, it behooves Russia to make alliance with Austria and Germany, and immediately break it. Simple, yes? In any event, avoid conflict with England until forces are built up heavily. England should contend for the Low Countries and take Norway and, if allied with France (watch out for those fleets in Brest) attack Germany's northern flank, avoiding overextending herself into Russia until built up. At any event, England should be well established in the Baltic and Scandinavia before attacking Russia.

To avoid being trapped, Turkey should seek alliance with Austria or Russia. Turkey might agree to split the Balkans, with Russia at least, and promote a Russian trend into central Europe.

Austria and Italy should be at each other's throats immediately. If they are not, it is a diplomatic masterpiece by someone. Naturally, Italy will attack Trieste whatever treaties she may have signed.

France, England, and Russia should at all costs avoid fratricidal warfare until forces are built up at the expense of neighbors. Russia, England, and France could in fact sweep the board. Take advantage of the fact that in real life these alliances did exist, just as German and Austrian players take advantage of historical alliances to promote one from flank anyway.

Alliances: The Russian/Austrian Alliance

by Marc St Rose and Marcel van Vliet

INTRODUCTION

This article is about the dynamics of a Russia/Austria alliance. We'll discuss the 'why' questions and leave you with a framework within which anyone can play a successful R/A alliance. One should remember that 'rules' are never unbendable, but the following will give you good understanding of the ins and outs. Use them as you like.

We'll be presenting the perspectives of both Russia and Austria. We've experienced it in a game and both of us have won a solo victory with Austria after successfully stabbing our Russian ally in the well-respected Compuserve dip-community. The R/A alliance can work well for a long period of time and, as is the case with any alliance, a stab is not necessarily the best course of action. Game-events should always direct your course of action.

In any case, our main point is, with or without a Stab, R/A is a far more powerful beast than the universally dreaded R/T.

THE OUTSET - AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

The first goal for any Archduke must be to survive and just that. If Austria survives the first onslaught of the Russian/Turkish hordes, his chances will be good. The stats prove Austria to be a high win/elimination country, like Germany. Logically, this is due to their central place on the map. The essential attribute for the Austrian player is to be a good diplomat. Strategy and tactics, important as they are, are secondary to diplomacy in making it possible for Austria to survive the first couple of seasons.

From the outset of a diplomacy game, no Austrian position has any hope of short-to-medium term prosperity without at the very least a state of peace with Italy over the Venice-Trieste border. This is obvious. Without peace with Italy, there is no Austria. Fortunately, the same holds true for Italy, for Italy will pay dearly if the Austrian player is a bad loser and/or decides to go suicidal on Italy. Both Italy and Austria are well advised to pursue the 'Anschluss' - the three-way peace agreement (or DMZ) with Germany over Tyrolia, Bohemia and Silesia. At least in the beginning...

However, Austria's prospects for achieving a dominant position in the medium to long term are closely linked to the Austrian ability to forge an early alliance with Russia. The strongest argument in favour of this course of action is that it prevents the formation of a R/T alliance (which is Austria's worst nightmare).

Forming this alliance may be the most difficult task for any Archduke. However, it can be done. Be communicative, friendly and keep pointing out that Turkey is very difficult to handle once it reaches five or six centres. Raising the spectre of Turkish hordes in the Balkans and the Mediterranean should also help the Archduke gain a sympathetic ear from his Italian neighbour. Stay friendly to Russia in your messages but be fierce in defending your home soil. Let him know that he should expect you to take no prisoners.

Turkey will always be looking to damage the prospects of either Austria or Russia (or even both) at the start of the contest. If the Turk initially focuses on Russia, chances are good he will be successful in taking the Black Sea and Armenia. If the Turk aims his forces towards Austria, the Archduke must then use any means necessary to entice the Russian Czar to help in his defence. If necessary, bribe him - offer to support Russian gains in the Balkans (Bulgaria is an obvious carrot).

The Russian Czar will often prefer to try sniff out who is the best tactician or player between Austria and Turkey and decide based on this who to ally with in 1902. A solid Austrian defensive game in the east might just bring Russia to the Archduke's side if the Czar feels Austria will not crumble quickly. An Archduke has good chances of gaining this nerve-wracking goal if Rumania is held by a Russian fleet. This fleet is absolutely harmless and useless in a Russian ground attack on Austria. If you're looking at RF Rum in Fall 1901, you're almost there.

THE OUTSET - THE ICE QUEEN RUSSIA

Playing Russia is difficult to do well. As a Russian you're the only power with a possible two-front war in different triangles in 1901. With access to both the Northern Atlantic and the Black Sea (and the Med) Russia's corner and four starting units are justified. Russia is a potent country and has access to both the Northern supply centres of Scandinavia and the attractive Balkan knot. So out of the four neighbours Russia faces he needs at least one close friend _ and, just as essentially, no more than two determined enemies.

In the south Turkey is most attractive to combine with. The Russian armies and Turkish fleets can rule the Med and keep Russia's belly safe. The indestructible Sev Fleet does wonders, when talking to Turkey, in keeping an ally honest. The most outstanding advantage of the Russian power in the South is that both Austria and Turkey will want to ally with Russia. A Turkish/Austrian alliance, though not impossible, is usually highly unlikely (we've never seen one survive past the early years).

Russia's typical course of action is to maintain at least an initial surface friendliness with Turkey. It is, after all, necessary for Austria to prove a capable player. No Russia should ever ally with an Austria which does not appear able to conduct a strategically sound war. You are better off allying with Turkey and looking to share the easy spoils. In such an alliance, Turkey will tend naturally to bear the heavier cost of the fighting - but this is good! There is a good chance that as a result, the Sultan will open up somehow, perhaps by moving that TF Ank towards the Aegean to prevent Italians from raiding Eas. The quick stab that follows: 1) Moving your fleet into Bla 2) Building an army in Sev (-> Arm-> Ank) is almost sure to succeed. What remains of Austria will not be likely to form common cause with Turkey.

The other possibility is allying with Austria. This can be very rewarding in the short and medium term (if only by default). For example, if Austria is looking strong defensively and the prospects for a successful ground attack look poor, the Russian Czar may be 'forced' to be friendly. No matter, a forced alliance is as good as any other. In our opinion, the early R/A alliance is as good as its players, but far more powerful than R/T in the mid-game and endgame situations.

The sheer numbers of a R/A alliance after Fall 1901 means that Turkey will inevitably crumble. The Black Sea offensive described above will make impossible any Turk dreams of expanding beyond Bul. The naval forces should be balanced (2 Turk fleets vs. 1 Russian + 1 Austrian fleet) but the R/A armies will both outnumber and outflank the 2 Turk armies many times.

OPENING GAME SUMMARY:

A "check-list" for a R/A Alliance:

Russia:

1. Establish, if not friendly, at least mutually non-aggressive relations with England and/or Germany. And if possible, with both.
2. Encourage English/German conflict.
3. Do not allow a war to break out with Turkey in 1901.
4. Balance your builds between the North and the South (preferably A Sev and F StP(sc))
5. Seek friendship with Germany, your second build (from Swe) is VITAL.

Austria:

1. Secure Anschluß _ a demilitarized zone with both Italy and Germany.
2. Encourage Italy to look to his west.
3. In Fall 1901, build armies _ Do Not Build Fleets!

Russia & Austria Together:

1. Do Not allow the other players to catch wind of the alliance. The "Galician Bounce" (RA War-Gal; AA Vie-Gal) is not a bad idea.

MID-GAME _ WHAT TO PREPARE FOR IN A R/A ALLIANCE.

From 1902-1905, the R/A game plan should be fairly straight-forward. The interests of both parties are common and if both sides are careful the foundations of a solid long-term alliance will be built.

The first main goal has to be the quick elimination of Turkey. After a quick stab Turkey won't be able to do much harm, but the R/A alliance will quickly become obvious to the other players. The idea is to destroy Turkey, secure that common border, and build the resulting armies (and fleets) before anybody has time to do anything about it. The chief dangers lie in Italy sensing danger and attacking Austria and in England/Germany spotting the Russian build-up and allying to stop Russia from securing the northern border.

Second main goal is crossing the Mun-Ber line. If Germany is let down by its Western brothers, this task should not meet with too many problems, especially as Russia will have the momentum of the Northern game, above all if England decides to swallow some German SC's before the German collapse. Crossing the Mun-Ber line is the more difficult of the two main tasks. But if the line can be crossed, either by Austrian occupation of Ruh/Bur or Russian occupation of Kie/Den, little can go wrong in terms of opposition from any other power - the chief dangers becomes disintegration of the R/A alliance itself. The goal of crossing the Mun-Ber line must be achieved as quickly as possible, again in order to make the other players recognise R/A's supremacy before a defensive alliance can be forged.

KEEPING THE PEACE

Russia must be aware that Austria will expect Russia to do the heavy battling against Turkey as Austria is in a poor position to access Con and the rest of the Turk homeland. The interests of both powers agree then with Russia reaping most of the early rewards. However, the easy mistake for the Czar to make is forgetting to leave some sort of defensive line across War-Ukr-Rum-Sev. Removal of too many forces in that area will prove too powerful a temptation for the Archduke to resist!

To maintain a solid long-term foundation for the R/A alliance, the war in the centre should be a mirror image of the Turkish campaign. Austria should be expected to bear the brunt of the fighting and receive the resulting gains) with Russian forces in support. This will create a window of vulnerability for Austria which matches that of Russia in the south: Neither the Archduke nor the Czar can then reasonably expect to undertake a stab without facing the immediate loss of Supply Centres himself.

THE ENDGAME - STALEMATE IN SIGHT

Here is a real difficult goal for the Alliance: preventing the stalemate lines from forming. The down side of the alliance is that it's sure to be short of concentrated Naval power. On the land, R/A is unbeatable; at sea, however, it can be a whole different ballgame. Austrian and Russian fleets are in different areas and cannot help each other's breakout into the North Sea/Norwegian Sea and the Western Med/Atlantic.

The likely result of the R/A alliance is the destruction of Germany and the growth of a healthy England and a strong France. This means the North Sea/Norwegian Sea and the Western Med/Atlantic are likely to be well defended - unfortunately, because they are very strategic areas and at least one of the two must be captured to secure a 17/17 draw. If Russia can break England in the North or Austria can effectively capture Italy (while building Fleets) things are looking good. Good luck!

CONCLUSION

While much is traditionally made of the power of the Russia/Turkey alliance when it emerges, a Russian/Austrian that quickly conquers Turkey and survives into the mid-game has far more potency than the feared R/T. The R/A has the same advantage of a secure corner of the map that the R/T enjoys, but is not slowed by the disadvantage of the distance of Turkey's home supply (building) centres from the centre of the mid-game action. In our experience this advantage might cause R/A alliances to be somewhat unstable and subject to naval harassment by the other powers. On the other hand, the alliance is unbeatable on the land, with its vast numbers of armies. If any of you readers encounters us as Russia or Austria we'd encourage you to join us and watch this fast-moving steamroller sweep the board!!

Napoleon's Mistake

by Stephen Agar

Napoleon almost won his own personal game of Diplomacy, yet despite dominating much of Europe he eventually came a cropper because he did not rule the waves. This article will suggest that the same is true of Diplomacy, that the French player who takes control of the seas and neutralises England can win the game, while those who head eastwards without first tackling London will merely be repeating Napoleon's mistake.

Rather than spend an article looking at various options on French opening strategy (you know the sort of thing, what to do about Belgium, should France take Portugal with an army or a fleet etc.) let's look one step beyond all that. France usually gets two builds and is not usually attacked in the first year. Of course there are exceptions, but by and large the western triangle does not resolve into open warfare until 1902. Therefore, let's take 1901 as read and consider France's options in the following years.

Where Are The Next Builds Coming From?

When you think about it there aren't that many options. Either France invades England, attacks into the Low Countries and Germany itself, or develops a Mediterranean strategy and heads east. After 1901 only Belgium is likely to be still neutral, so any expansion will bring France into conflict with a neighbour.

1. England

I don't have any ready statistics at my fingertips to back this up, but my feeling is that in practice the attack on England is probably the most common approach. Partly this is because France finds it difficult to live with the many fleets that England will build early on, partly due to a quite reasonable fear that as England needs to get in to the Mediterranean to win conflict is inevitable, and partly because it is easy. The unit which starts off as F(Bre) often ends up in Por or Spa sc by the end of 1901. To develop an attack on England will also require a build of F(Bre), something which, to an experienced English player, should start alarm bells ringing. That said, France will obviously explain it away on the grounds that it could equally well be said that the other build of A(Par) is anti-German and anyway F(Bre) will head south.

Whether it is better to attack in S02 or A02 depends on the strategy that England has adopted in 1901. Provided that France is confident that England herself is not going to attack in S02, it seems sensible to me for France to attack in S02 if England has not built a F(Lon) in A01, but to postpone the attack until in A02 if she has. My reasoning is that it is very likely England will have a F(NTH) at the end of 1901, therefore a build of F(Lon) gives England the leeway for a supported move to ENG if necessary (it may not even be a stab - she may want leverage on Belgium and cannot be confident that a move of F(Lon)-NTH will succeed). Of course, France should try to dissuade England from moving to ENG, but if there is a real likelihood of such a move it is probably better to allow it to succeed, than to shoot your bolt by ordering F(Bre)-ENG and having a stand-off. That would disclose your intentions for no immediate gain. Instead, move F(Bre)-MAO, F(Spa)sc Std. and if you're concerned about a possible English move to ENG, then protect Bre with A(Par)-Pic. All that is very plausible and to the unsophisticated eye does not necessarily appear anti-English. Come A02 your orders would be F(MAO)-NAO, F(Spa)sc-MAO - in through the back door. This attack can be devastating if England doesn't get another build in 1902, as it leaves Lpl wide open in S03. Therefore, diplomatic activity should be centred on encouraging English activity in Scandinavia but ensuring that none of it is successful.

As you would expect this strategy requires at least an accommodation with Germany. There is no point in putting fleets into the North Atlantic if there are German armies in Burgundy. However, it is a brave Germany who launches an all-out attack on France in 1902, as France will probably have three armies with which to defend herself - and if you do find yourself the victim of such an attack it is odds on that England will be joining in anyway. In my opinion the optimum line to sell to Germany is that he should concentrate on Scandinavia and the North Sea, while you attack England via NAO. Hopefully, England will have insufficient units to defend against everyone and will crumble in 3-4 moves.

Once England is subdued, French forces need to turn on Germany/Scandinavia, with an excursion into the Med. if resources permit. At this point an alliance with Russia could be helpful. I believe that it is at this point of the game that some French players spoil their chances by being unwilling to attack their German ally. However tempting it may be to build F(Mar) and send your fleets into the Mediterranean, the pickings there are not good and will never replace the centres available in central Europe.

2. Germany

If, for whatever reason, you are not minded to take on England at this stage of the game, the other serious alternative is to consider a push into Germany and the Low Countries. This is a more difficult plan as Germany's defensive position is far better than England's from the point of view of defending against a French attack. Germany is able to present a narrow three-space front to a French aggressor, which can be very difficult to crack. The danger is that England may have more to gain from an immediate attack on Germany, as it may allow her to make gains in Scandinavia. On the other hand, if it is possible to ally with Russia to co-ordinate an attack on Germany then it may be possible to use Russian armies to cut any support being given to units in Ruh and Mun. The pros and cons of this strategy differ depending on the fate of Belgium in 1901, so if this is your preferred line of attack this may be an instance when it is better to plan accordingly from the beginning.

A northern opening of A(Par)-Pic and A(Mar)-Bur will ring alarm bells in Berlin, unless it is part of an agreed stand-off over Bur. If such a stand-off is arranged, this would leave only two or three units with a claim on Belgium - F(NTH), A(Pic) and(maybe) F(Hol). If England supports a German F(Hol)-Bel then the prospects for an Anglo-French attack on Germany are not good anyway. Probably, the best solution would be to convince England to support you into Belgium, but if you can't guarantee it for yourself (and what England will help France to 3 builds?) I would caution against supporting English F(NTH)-Bel as giving two builds to England in 1901 opens up too many uncertainties. A further agreed stand-off with Germany or England over Belgium in A01 (if applicable) at least keeps the position open without allowing your neighbours to have too many builds in 1901.

Assuming a northern opening for England and a southern opening for Russia, a typical situation in this sort of scenario after 1901 builds would be:

			  ENGLAND: F(Lon), F(NTH), F(NWG), A(Nwy).
			  FRANCE: A(Pic), F(Bre), F(Por), A(Spa), A(Par)
			  GERMANY: A(Hol), F(Den), A(Ruh), A(Mun), F(Kie)
			  RUSSIA: F(GoB)
			

The three German armies in Mun, Ruh and Hol provide a formidable barrier, and even on the assumption of an all-out Anglo-French attack there will be no instant breakthrough. It is likely that Germany will occupy Bel in S02, but possible that he could be thrown out in A02 provided there is English support for a French attack. If Germany builds F(Kie) and moves to HEL then the situation is complicated further. As I see it, there is only one way for France to make quick gains against Germany in 1902 is to enlist the help of either England or Russia in A01. If Germany has opened F(Kie)-Den, A(Ber)-Kie then in A01 she is vulnerable to a Russian F(GoB)-BAL and/or an English move of F(NTH)-Hol. Both would be best. Failing that it will be a slow process and you should be resigned to it taking some time.

Once Germany cracks it may be too difficult to take on England, who will have too many fleets to be an easy target. If Russia has joined in as well it may be difficult to take the attack any further. If this happens a Mediterranean strategy may be the only alternative, but will still leave France vulnerable to a stab from England. Richard Sharp has discussed the idea that France may surrender Brest to England to reduce the likelihood of conflict between them. This strikes me as good news for England (who can build armies one autumn and convoy them into France on the next move), but not in the long-term interest of France (who is precluded from building the western fleets needed to take on England).

3. Italy

Is this really a serious option? I have seen some powerful E/F/G alliances in FtF games, but they are few and far between in postal games. If you do try a E/F/G alliance, the pattern would be for England to go north through Scandinavia, Germany to turn east into Russia, while France pushes into the Med. The principal problem with a Mediterranean strategy is that you're unlikely to make any quick gains, and in the interim you are vulnerable to a stab in the back from England. If you use your two builds in A01 to build F(Mar) and F(Bre) then you may well leave yourself open to an all-out attack from Germany in S02 as only two of your five units will be armies (and one of them may well be stuck in Por) and it is very likely that Bur could be forced immediately. Therefore, it may pay to be a little cautious.

Assuming a build of two fleets in 1901, in S02 France can order F(Bre)-MAO; F(Spa)sc-WMS; F(Mar)-GoL, followed up by F(MAO)-NAf; F(WMS) S F(GoL)-TYS in A02. But it is difficult to see how an attack on Italy can result in a build in 1902, as Tun will presumably be covered. A more flexible tactic may be to build A(Mar), F(Bre) which has the advantage of not signalling an immediate invasion of Italy, and then ordering A(Mar)-Pie, F(Spa)sc-WMS, F(Bre)-MAO. If Germany can be persuaded to order A(Mun)-Tyr then there is a possibility of a supported attack on Venice, while the build of A(Mar) at least provides some disincentive for Germany to stab you.

Any France who attacks Italy first isn't going to be sufficiently strong to make things happen on the Diplomacy board, her mid-game strategy will be about defending her home centres from her neighbours.

Conclusion

If you imagine that Switzerland is the pivot around which French fortunes will rotate, France will have to reach Mos at one extreme or Trieste at the other in order to win the game. Supply centres on the French target list break down into the following groups: .Core centres: Home centres and Iberia; England; Low Countries; Germany = 13 Plus five from: Den, Nwy, Swe, War, StP, Tun, Rom, Ven, Tri, Nap

It is very unlikely that France can win a game without taking the English and German home centres. This means that if Turkish or Italian fleets manage to seal the entrance to the Mediterranean then France needs to get into Russia to win the game. The more that France is able to push into the Mediterranean, the less centres needed in Scandinavia and Russia. If France can get as far as ION then she could win without any Scandinavian or Russian centres.

All things being equal (and they rarely are) it would seem easier and more efficient for France to dispatch England first among her neighbours. In this enterprise, Russia would seem a natural ally, partly because she can weaken England by taking Scandinavia, and partly because Russia and Germany are natural enemies, and so an alliance with Russia will keep Germany in check. Once England is broken, France should use her fleets to take control of the coastal centres around the North Sea and make an incursion into mainland Europe. A strike into the Mediterranean is worthwhile and may bring in a few much needed centres, but the game will be won or lost in Germany and Scandinavia.

The Too Great German Empire

Or how to get three builds in 1901 without getting bumped off in 1902
By Thomas van Dam

Originally Appearing in Diplomacy World #88

One of the very unique things about Germany is that it can get three builds in the first year without foreign support. It's attractive to do. In one blow you'll have as much armies as Russia on the map. As all things in life, it has a 'dark side'. England, France, Russia and probably every other power on the board will be frightened to death, and therefore join with the other powers to get you off the board as soon as possible. Of course there are times it CAN work.

Willy & Nicky

Once upon a time (no, this is true, not a fairy tale) I played a FtF game with some friends. I drew Germany, a friend of mine which I have known for a very long time (we always played dip together) drew Russia. One of the best things that can happen in a diplomacy game is me drawing Germany and he drawing Russia. As I was always assured that he wouldn't attack me, I could fully concentrate on the west. As he was sure that I would never attack him, he could fully concentrate on the south (Turkey). So I opened A (Mun) -> Ruh; F (Kie) -> Hol and A (Ber) -> Kie. Because I was assured of Russia's friendship, I could easily do that. The game went on and finally we got to a two-way draw.

Reality

In reality, or even in PBM or PBEM games, people don't know each other. If a German player wishes to use this opening, be sure of Russia's friendship. If he sees your fleet not entering Den he will be friendly, as you have clearly showed him that you are not going to contest his gain of Sweden. The psychological effect should not be underestimated. The Russian player must be very wicked if he chooses to stab you. He never will, because he has to deal with the Sultan and the Archduke first. Another advantage is that you have a fleet in Hol ready to enter the NTH. Even if the English hold the NTH with all their force, you can still play a role in the naval theatre because you can support or bounce from Hol. France will be very alarmed at first. There actually isn't any reason, because France can still get Spa and Por. But it is the psychological effect that matters. You are very close to him and his country and he won't like it. After all, would you like it when a six-centre France was breathing down your neck in autumn 1901? Of course you won't. You'll probably smash your head against the wall from pure frustration and the idea that you have no chance to even get Hol. In this case, a six-centre France is worse for Germany than vice versa.

Loneliness

When you have six units everyone is scared, and wants to attack you. Face it, six German units are weaker than four English and five French units operating together against you. This opening is a way of making sure you are not attacked in the east, but you'll need all your force in the west.

Sitzkrieg

Your fleet in Hol also has another important role, together with the units in Mun, Kie, Bel, and if you can in S'02 also another unit in Ruh (you can move A (Mun) -> Ruh and A (Ber) -> Mun). If you order all your units to support each other, no Brit or Frenchman will ever come through that line. You should use that time to negotiate, negotiate, and you should also save some time to negotiate. With England, of course. France would never join you, and what's the point of all those armies if you attack England? Right, so you need to get along with England. Give him Iberia, keep France for yourself. You can always make a move for Italy then, although it's time then to put a bearskin in front of your fireplace. As I've already said, negotiate with England. You can use your fleet in Hol to put some pressure up.

Other Side of the Coin

This looks like a powerful Germany in 1901, and like you'll reach 18 in no time. But don't be fooled. To get Russia as far not to disturb him by the not-to-Denmark move is quite simple. To get your three builds, just make sure England and France are divided. But after you've done that, it will be very, very tough. Don't expect easy talk with England, as he is also shocked by your move. And you can also expect France talking to England, and it doesn't require a lot of imagination to know what they're saying..

The Moves

First of all, in case you missed the moves, I have them here:

			  SPRING 1901
			  A (Mun) -> Ruh
			  A (Ber) -> Kie
			  F (Kie) -> Hol
		  
			  AUTUMN 1901
			  A (Ruh) -> Bel
			  A (Kie) -> Den
			  F (Hol) -> supp. A (Ruh) -> Bel
		  
			  Build: A Kie, A Mun, A Ber.
		  
			  (Don't build fleets. It either gets you into trouble with Russia, or you'll have an even harder task to get England on your side.)
			

Conclusion

This opening is a way of getting rapid growth in 1901. You probably won't get builds in 1902. You need to do some very, very considered negotiating for it to succeed. In case you fail, you'll be standing in the trenches until the Russian comes from behind. Use this opening, but only if you are prepared to face the consequences.

The Caesar Opening

By Edi Birsan (With thanks to Andy Marshall for EDITING)
From Diplomacy World #94

In a recent game, an upcoming young player did everything he could as Italy to convince my Austria that I should give him Trieste so that he could build two fleets to attack France. The classic flaw in the approach was that there was absolutely nothing in it for Austria and, in fact, it meant giving Italy something that would weaken Austria and replace a potential Austrian army for an Italian fleet, for nothing strategically or diplomatically useful. Additionally, knowing that he had already agreed with the French to bounce in Piedmont added an element of incredulousness to the plan. Diplomatically, there were no indications that Russia and Turkey would be fighting and, in fact, they had agreed to leave the Black Sea open without any talk of attacking the other. Nevertheless, youth sometimes persists in casting its own illusions around itself and its would-be targets.

Openings do not exist as a strict tactical exercise. They rest within a strategic plan and a diplomatic framework that must be aligned to make everything work. One of the basic problems with new players is that they ignore those dynamics when they decide on their opening moves and thus will take, for example, a Lepanto approach to things when Austria is NOT on board and there are serious worries about time constraints and Russian intentions.

Diplomatic Background

Absolutely critical is that Italy and Austria have to be reliable to each other and of sufficient mutual comfort that they are willing to try to pull this off. Two experts playing the alliance against a group of mixed veterans and average players is the best background for the play styles that will be needed. Lacking equal expert status then, the Austrian in particular needs to have the highest diplomatic skill for his anticipated dealings with Turkey and Russia.

Further, the relations between the three western powers have to be brought up to a level of chaos-minimally, Germany opening against France directly into Burgundy either as part of the Spring 01 attack or at the least as part of a Fall 01 follow through. England being in the Channel with hostile intent can also replace the German role in the west. Both of them going after France is ideal.

In the east, Turkey needs to be engaged with the Russians. Going to Armenia and bouncing in the Black Sea may appear ideal, but as you want the Turks to build an army and go slow, then having them move Smyrna to Constantinople is probably the real ideal. Slipping into the Black Sea with Russia moving to Rumania may be tempting if there is an I-A-T triple alliance, but a slow deliberate moving Turkey is much better for this plan than an explosive one.

Russia needs to be a reactive player in that he is willing to switch sides, and be encouraged or even directed to change his role in the balance of power as the opening game shifts. This will be critical to the Austrians if they plan to dominate the East as Italy goes to dominate the west.

The integration of the Austrian fleet in the western campaign and the Italian army in the northern campaign also opens up a lot of diplomatic options for causing chaos amongst the remaining players as time goes on and for causing the alliance to be considered as less dangerously linked than it is.

Strategic Concept

The idea is to destroy France in the West and get allied fleets into the Mid as soon as possible. Russia is to be weakened in the East by the Turkish attack, so that the Austrian has the option to put the game into the middle period, by turning on the Turks and bringing the Russian on board (after his southern fleet and Rumania have been lost), so that the Russians become the northern fleet builder and secondary alliance member (alias puppet).

This will tip the western front wars combined with the Fleets breaking through the Mid Atlantic. Russia could also provide the one or two critical armies in the center when the Austrians join in a mass attack on Germany from the east and the Italians move through France to the lowlands and then to England (just as Caesar did).

Strategically, the Turks can be brought in by the Italians as a triple alliance (an unknowing client state), being sold on the idea of building armies with the classic division of efforts of Fleet (Italy) vs Army (Turkey) powers, and that, in the middle game, the Austrians will be between them. This of course gives the Italians a flexible fallback plan if the relations with Austria are not as smooth as hoped. However, this is what the superior diplomatic skills of the Austrian player are relied on to prevent.

Tactically

Overview

The Italians give up the idea of going to Tunis in order to get a fleet into the Gulf of Lyon in the Fall of 1901. This is why the Italians get Trieste. Also, in the Fall of 01, the Austrians move their fleet to the Ionian and shift their armies to the south. The Austrian fleet then goes from there to Tunis to make up for the loss of Trieste and becomes the third alliance fleet able to force the Western Med in the Fall of 02, under most circumstances. Additionally as the alliance advances, the Austrian fleet becomes a vital support unit and an alliance insurer just as the Italian army in the East moves up along the German border to the Russian front doing more or less the same sort of thing. Options: Italy must be in Piedmont in the Spring and has to decide how to play the Fall 01 response to the French opening depending on what it is. With full hope of getting Trieste, Italy can (if the French are in both Spain and Burgundy) support Spain to Marseilles in the Fall of 01 for the hysterical pulled offsides trick to defeat a self-bounce.

If the German is in Burgundy in Spring 01, the Italians could support the Germans into Marseilles with the knowledge that he will be ejected by the Italians in the next move, or he could try for two builds and go for Marseilles himself. If Italy gets two builds then he builds Fleet Rome and Fleet Naples and plays Fleet Rome to Tuscany in the Spring of 1902.

The Details

			  Spring 1901
			  Austria - Fleet Trieste to Albania, Army Vienna to Trieste/Budapest, Army Budapest to Serbia
			  Italy - Fleet Naples to Tyrrhenian, Army Rome to Venice, Army Venice to Piedmont
		  
			  Fall 01
			  Austria - Fleet Albania to Ionian, Army Trieste/Budapest-Serbia, Army Serbia to Greece
			  Italy - Fleet Tyrrhenian to Gulf of Lyon, Army Venice to Trieste, Army Piedmont (deals with Marseilles however)
		  
			  Winter 01
			  Austria - Build Army Budapest
			  Italy - Build Fleet Naples
		  
			  Spring 02
			  Austria - Armies Greece/Serbia/Budapest deal with the East Fleet Ionian to Tunis
			  Italy - Fleet Naples to Tyrrhenian, Fleet Lyon/Army Piedmont deal with Marseilles
		  
			  Fall 02
			  Austria Fleet Ionian support Fleet Tyrrhenian to Western Med
			

The Dangers

There are mutual periods of danger here. At the first step the Italians in Fall of 01 could go to Tunis and take Trieste, moving Piedmont to Tyrolia. However, this would be done at the expense of having to face the Austrians in the Ionian with an army potentially in Greece that could be convoyed into Apulia and other rude places. Likewise, the Turk, who was on board at the start, has to be clued in that if the Italians double cross the Triple alliance then they have to build a fleet in Smyna and move so that if the Austrians land an army in Apulia or are bounced out of the Ionian they can follow up. There is also a danger that Turkey will go vulture on Austria rather than balance the power relations; this is another reason why Austria has to have a high diplomatic skill.

The second critical phase is the Spring of 02 when the Austrians can deliver a devastating stab on the Italians by convoying Army Greece to Naples and moving on Trieste, as the Italians move Army Trieste to Tyrolia. This has the potential to cripple the Italians, but again, the Turk can play the critical balance role, moving on Greece from Bulgaria and trying to cut a deal with the Russians for peace against an explosive Austrian set of gains. This is also where the fact of a ‘reliant’ Austrian player is critical to the survival of Italy.

The third period of danger is when Austria must decide either to make this a real Triple alliance with Turkey, swinging north and around to Germany (which might work best in a tournament game that ends in 1907-09), or as probably the preferred plan, to attack Turkey while Russia is still around and will become the secondary ally of the Austrians. Bad timing by the Austrians and Italy is in the driver’s seat.

The fourth period of danger is the transition in the west. The Austrians need to avoid having their fleet stuck in a front line corner for too long, such as North Africa, and tempt the Italians to stab as the West collapses faster than the East. The Italians may be getting substantially more builds than the Austrian, in which case the Austrians have to retake Trieste to even things out; this returns the border to an occupied zone of tension.

Maybe because of the dangers and the unusual aspects of the opening and its restrictive diplomatic framework, Caesar’s March may be as rare as the original brilliant campaign in Gaul, but there you have it, one more opening for the arsenal.

Least Favored Nations - Italian Openings in Diplomacy

By Douglas Kent

You’re all set to go. This is it, the Diplomacy gamestart you’ve been waiting for. Gone are the haunting memories of your last game, where that bastard France convoyed into your England’s London in 1902 and set off your rapid demise. Between that, and Russia supporting himself into Norway, you were lucky to make it to 1904. Well, not this time. You’ve got your map board ready, your opening emails pre-written and needing only minor modification, your mental card catalog of strategies indexed and prepared. You sit, waiting for the game start announcement to arrive in your inbox.

Oh, look, you’ve got mail! Your mouse hovers over the subject line in anxious anticipation. You click, and wait as the message opens.

Suddenly, your entire body slumps in the chair and a huge sigh can be heard by anyone within a three-mile radius. You’re doomed: you’ve drawn Italy. Might as well start writing your end-game excuses now, right?

We’ve all been there, believe me. Italy is probably the most difficult nation on the Diplomacy board to master. True, it doesn’t generally suffer immediate dissection the way Austria sometimes does, swarmed by three neighbors before you can say “F Trieste to Albania.” But the narrow routes out of its territory, as well as only having one neutral supply center within its grasp in 1901 commonly considered fair game (Greece having been claimed by either Turkey or Austria), keep Italy’s rate of growth limited early in the game. To make matters worse, by the time you’ve gotten a second build and started to devise a plan of attack on a neighbor other than Austria, you often have a fortified France of Turkey (or both) hungrily eyeing your dots like Pac Man after taking a few bong hits.

So what is a Diplomacy player to do? In my experience, the key to Italian success lies in thinking outside the box. Aside from the obvious anti-Austrian opening of A Ven-Tri, A Rom-Ven, let’s take a look at some of the other options available to the Italian in Spring 1901.

The Hammer

A Ven-Pie, A Rom-Ven, F Nap-Tyn (or F Nap-Ion). This is the most neutral of the Italian openings, in that you can easily defend your actions to both Austria and France. You’ve stayed within your borders, attacked nobody, and at the same time if Austria tries a move on Ven (or France a rare march into Pie) you’ve successfully bounced either move without incident. In this scenario you have plenty of options left for Fall 1901 if your moves succeeded, and if not you know from which side the attack is coming from. In the meantime, Tunis is yours and your first build can be determined by the results of the Fall move. Even if Austria has gone all-out, ordering A Vie-Tyr and F Tri to Ven or Adr in the Spring, you are able to direct two units to defend Venice in the Fall.

The Lepanto

F Nap-Ion, A Rom-Apu, A Ven H. This opening is the classic anti-Turkish Lepanto, but only if in the Fall we see the A Apu convoyed to Tunis. Otherwise it protects the Italian against immediate Austrian aggression (the A Apu available to support A Ven if necessary in the Fall) while displaying pro-French inclinations. I’ve used this opening both as anti-Turkish, or on occasion as an arranged opening when allied WITH Turkey to hide my true intentions. Then, if the Austrian is convinced by my Spring orders to leave himself open, in the Fall I slide into Trieste. Once in a while the Italian may choose to skip the Tunis build in 1901 here if he is sure of the taking of Trieste. In that case he would either convoy into Greece with Turkish support, or even perhaps convoy into Albania to set up a very powerful invasion force for 1902.

The Sneak

A Ven-Tyr, A Rom-Ven, F Nap-Ion. This is a rather common opening, generally used as blatantly anti-Austrian. You’re left with two units bordering on Trieste, allowing for a supported attack in the Fall. If Austria tries to get cute and order F Tri-Ven, you’ve denied him the center. And if it looks like there will be a full-scale battle for Trieste, you have the option of trying to sail into Greece in the Fall with or without Turkish support. However, one strategy I like to employ every now and then is arranging this opening with Austria in advance. Especially in the face of a suspected F/G alliance, the idea is to make the board believe you and Austria are at war. Then in the Fall you try the sneak, ordering A Tyr-Mun and A Ven-Tyr. If you’ve convinced Russia to help out, you can see a rapid collapse of the German interior.

The Piedmont Shuffle

A Ven-Pie, F Nap-Ion, A Rom-Apu. This is an odd opening I played recently, for a change of pace. The plan was for a central A/G/I alliance. I didn’t want to order A Ven H because it would signal distrust of my Austrian neighbor, so instead I vacated the center for a quick vacation in the Piedmont mountains. The A Apu/F Ion combination left my options open for the Fall turn. I could go Lepanto with a convoy to Tunis, defend myself if Austria tried to stab me, or leave it for future use. In the Fall I chose to convoy to Tunis, while at the same time making use of the “fake arranged bounce” in Mar; France and I agreed to bounce there for defensive purposes, and instead I held, denying him the use of that SC as a build location. I wasn’t planning on attacking France, and in fact never did. This particular strategy requires quite a bit of Diplomacy on the part of the Italian player. But I did find the opening interesting nonetheless.

Look, I’m no expert…I’ve never had a solo win as Italy. And there are other openings available to Italy. Hopefully this brief article will simply get you thinking about the different possibilities, instead of falling into a routine of the same Italian openings over and over again. I’d love to hear comments, or better yet, why don’t YOU write up some of your own ideas for an article? Now THAT would be thinking outside of the box, wouldn’t it?

Is A/T Broken?

By Charles Roburn

As fans of Diplomacy, I'm sure we can all agree that part of its charm is the vast assortment of alliance combinations that can arise in the game. Age cannot wither this game, nor custom stale its infinite variety. The geopolitical realities of the board mean that some combinations are more likely than others, and players may have their own preferences when playing a given Power; but ultimately it's diplomacy and personal relationships that determine what happens. As a result, no long-term pairing of two Powers in an alliance is unworkable.

Except...

Except that in the time I've played Diplomacy, I have never seen a long-term alliance between Austria and Turkey in the standard game. Sure, I've seen them work together temporarily — usually against Russia, or a very large power occupying Russia — or to stave off another Power's solo at the end of the game. But I've never seen Austria and Turkey get together in a victorious game-long alliance from the very beginning.

If Austria and Turkey ally against Russia early on, one of them will almost certainly stab the other once the Tsar is defeated. If they are reluctantly forced together to stop-the-leader, they will either secure the stalemate line and go for the draw — or again stab one another once the danger is past. There just doesn't seem to be a way for them to work together in a lasting partnership. Admittedly my experience in Diplomacy is less than that of many; still, I don't think I'm alone in this observation.

And on some fundamental level, it just seems wrong. Diplomacy is a game of possibilities, and no alliance should be impossible. It's also unbalancing; if Austria and Turkey are inevitably destined to fight, that gives an unfair advantage to their neighbors.

So are they destined to fight?

Conflict

Well, there are a few factors that generally lead Austria and Turkey into conflict:

• Neutrals: The Balkans represent the largest single grouping of neutral supply centers on the map, and they're located right in between Austria and Turkey. So naturally they both head in that direction in the first year. And once started in one direction, it's easy to continue that way.
• Overlap: When you count the nearest eighteen centers to each country's home SCs, there's a great deal of overlap between those needed by Austria, and those needed by Turkey. This naturally makes for a great deal of friction.
• Lack of Turkish options: The overlap problem is even more pronounced because Turkey has nowhere else to go. The closest eighteen only just fall within a four-move radius of Turkey's home centers. In an AT alliance, the Sultan has to go even farther afield to find centers to make up for those he cedes to his ally.

Together, these reasons make a strong argument for the position that Austria and Turkey are going to have to fight each other, and that sooner rather than later.

Conciliation

In spite of the natural friction between Austria and Turkey, they do have some powerful motivation to work together:

• Fear of Russia: When you look at the distance between home centers, Russia is actually in a better position to invade Austria and Turkey than those two are to invade each other. Vienna and Budapest are within two moves of Warsaw, while all three Turkish home centers are that close to Sevastopol. For Turkey in particular, Russia is the only other Power able to sail a fleet on the key Black Sea space; and it also blocks Turkey's quickest route to a center on the other side of the main stalemate line (St Petersburg).
• Fear of Italy: This other mutual neighbor can be a headache for both Austria and Turkey. The Venice/Trieste border is a constant worry for Austria, while Italy's natural naval bent can be a huge obstacle to Turkish ambitions. And when Italy works together with Russia — which is not uncommon — the IR alliance can crush first one and then the other between them.
• The stalemate line: Both Austria and Turkey are on the same side of the main stalemate line. No Power can win without crossing that line, and it's generally a good idea to do so as early as possible. The more time AT spend fighting each other, the more difficult that becomes. If on the other hand they make peace and work together, they should be able to slam into Munich and Marseilles before the western Powers realize what's happening.
• Inland boundaries: Inland boundaries are very useful in creating a demilitarized zone between allies, and AT should be able to use this fact to reduce tensions between them. Turkish fleets in Greece and Bulgaria offer no threat to Serbia, for example. Conversely, an Austrian army in Sevastopol can't sail onto the Black Sea; a single Turkish unit in Armenia will block its only route south.
• Novelty: In the original Gamer’s Guide to Diplomacy, this was the one point listed in favour of an AT alliance. It’s so completely unexpected that it should take everyone by surprise, and leave them convinced that it can’t last. This can, of course, be a huge diplomatic advantage for the two allies.

These are all very fine in theory, but in practice they don't seem to offset the natural Austro-Turkish tendency to fight. But can they? Is there hope for a game-long AT alliance?

A Hopeful Model: England-Germany

When you think about it, England and Germany are in a roughly analogous position to Turkey and Austria. Like Turkey, England is a corner Power that must go a long way to reach eighteen centers; and like Austria, Germany is a central Power that stands in the way of England's shortest route to victory. Both of them can clash early on in the Low Countries and Scandinavia. And yet, the EG alliance is generally considered to be as workable as any other.

So it seems to me that a good place to start is by looking at the factors that make for a functional EG alliance, and try to adapt them to the Austro-Turkish situation.

• Army/fleet division: England is clearly a naval Power; Germany is more balanced, but more strongly oriented toward building armies. In AT, Austria is very clearly a land-based power while Turkey can afford to build either type of unit. So a successful AT alliance could have Austria focus on land, while Turkey builds only fleets. This should let the allies proceed with minimal fear of a stab, and make it easier to demilitarize areas by using inland borders.
• Long-term prospects: They say that in politics, it's important to have an enemy; and this is certainly true in Diplomacy. A mutual foe can be the glue that holds an alliance together.
• Mutual understanding: It's important for any alliance to make sure that each partner is treated fairly. This doesn't necessarily mean exact equality. In an EG alliance Germany may prosper more initially in terms of growth, but the Kaiser can also be attacked from more directions. Later on in the alliance, England may need to grow in order to build more fleets for use in the Mediterranean. As two very different countries, England and Germany must be able to appreciate each other's point of view.

Making it Work

So what does all of this mean in practical terms? What do the Archduke and Sultan have to do in order to set up a firm alliance?

I'm afraid I can only speculate; I've never yet had a chance to try it myself with a willing partner. However, I would like to try it someday; and I've thought of a few points to start from based on the reasoning above.

• As with an EG alliance, I think AT would have to be divided along fleet/army lines, with Austria providing the vast majority of land power, and Turkey providing the fleets. This is complicated by the fact that Turkey already starts with two armies, but I think that could be worked around. Perhaps one Turkish army can be sent north against Russia, or attacked and disbanded to permit construction of another fleet, while the other is used for convoys as Turkey heads west.
• There is also the question of how to divide the Balkans. Greece falls naturally within Austria's sphere in 1901, but if Turkey is to follow a westward strategy, the Sultan may want to claim it, and certainly won't want the Austrian fleet there. Austria, on the other hand, will want Turkish help against Russia, but not want to see Turkish armies circling north. So it seems to me that one possibility would be to have the Austrian fleet act in the vanguard of the push through the Mediterranean, while a single Turkish army serves on the eastern front. This unit exchange may have some dangers; but if handled well it could help to stabilize the alliance.

Conclusion

I may be wrong, of course. It may be that these two Powers really do have irreconcilable differences. But I’m not prepared to accept that yet! It seems to me that there is indeed some common ground that can, with enough goodwill on both sides, lead to an alliance just as effective and prosperous as any other. After all, that is what the game is all about!

In the real world, the Habsburg and Ottoman Empires were indeed bitter enemies throughout most of their mutual centuries-long history. But at the end, in the Great War at the beginning of the twentieth century, they were on the same side.

So who knows? Perhaps now at the beginning of the twenty-first century, it’s time for them to start working together in the game of Diplomacy as well.