Dip Game 1 Spring 1919 Orders Due Thursday 11:59 PM EST

Cesare · Post by **Cesare** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 11:46 am

Remus West wrote:You guys can do all that if you want but I was playing around with realpolitik and having you send me your moves I can make them and post shots of the various screens. If you want me to create a single .txt file from a group of them you are going to need detailed instructions on how to do that.

Okay, to start with, ensure that all players use the following format when submitting moves. Here's an example of first turn moves:

EXAMPLE wrote: Austria:
A Budapest - Serbia
F Trieste - Tyrolia
A Vienna Supports F Trieste - Tyrolia

England:
F Edinburgh Supports F London - North Sea
A Liverpool - Clyde
F London - North Sea

France:
F Brest - Gascony
A Marseilles - Spain
A Paris Supports F Brest - Gascony

Germany:
A Berlin - Silesia
F Kiel, no move received
A Munich Supports A Berlin - Silesia

Italy:
F Naples - Tyrrhenian Sea
A Rome Supports A Venice - Apulia
A Venice - Tyrolia

Russia:
A Moscow - Livonia
F Sevastopol - Black Sea
F St Petersburg(sc) Supports A Moscow - Livonia
A Warsaw - Silesia

Turkey:
F Ankara - Black Sea
A Constantinople - Bulgaria
A Smyrna - Syria

1. Open a text editor (for example Notepad), copy in the current set of moves, and save the file as 01Spring_Moves.txt

2. Open your Diplomacy software, go to Orders --> Load Text. Find the textfile you just created, and load it. This will bring up everyone's current move. Go to Orders --> Resolve. This resolves the current set of moves, tells you the results, and gives you the current status of dislodged units.

3. Go to File --> Save Results, and save it as 01Spring_Results.txt.

4. Go to Orders --> Commit. You will now either be in the retreat phase or the fall phase. Following our example, we're now in Fall of 1901.

5. Go to File --> Save As and save the current file as 01Fall.dpy.

6. Go to File --> Save As BMP, and save the map as 01Fall.bmp.

7. Post the following files:

- 01Spring_Results.txt
- 01Fall.dpy
- 01Fall.bmp

For my example, it would look like this:

EXAMPLE wrote: Movement results for Spring of 1901. (Example)

Austria: A Budapest - Serbia.
Austria: F Trieste - Tyrolia (*Fails*).
Austria: A Vienna Supports F Trieste - Tyrolia.

England: F Edinburgh Supports F London - North Sea.
England: A Liverpool - Clyde.
England: F London - North Sea.

France: F Brest - Gascony.
France: A Marseilles - Spain.
France: A Paris Supports F Brest - Gascony.

Germany: A Berlin - Silesia.
Germany: F Kiel, no move received.
Germany: A Munich Supports A Berlin - Silesia.

Italy: F Naples - Tyrrhenian Sea.
Italy: A Rome Supports A Venice - Apulia (*Void*).
Italy: A Venice - Tyrolia.

Russia: A Moscow - Livonia.
Russia: F Sevastopol - Black Sea (*Bounce*).
Russia: F St Petersburg(sc) Supports A Moscow - Livonia.
Russia: A Warsaw - Silesia (*Fails*).

Turkey: F Ankara - Black Sea (*Bounce*).
Turkey: A Constantinople - Bulgaria.
Turkey: A Smyrna - Syria.

Unit locations:

Austria: A Serbia, F Trieste, A Vienna.
England: A Clyde, F Edinburgh, F North Sea.
France: F Gascony, A Paris, A Spain.
Germany: F Kiel, A Munich, A Silesia.
Italy: A Rome, A Tyrolia, F Tyrrhenian Sea.
Russia: A Livonia, F Sevastopol, F St Petersburg(sc), A Warsaw.
Turkey: F Ankara, A Bulgaria, A Syria.

Ownership of supply centers:

Austria: Budapest, Trieste, Vienna.
England: Edinburgh, Liverpool, London.
France: Brest, Marseilles, Paris.
Germany: Berlin, Kiel, Munich.
Italy: Naples, Rome, Venice.
Russia: Moscow, Sevastopol, St Petersburg, Warsaw.
Turkey: Ankara, Constantinople, Smyrna.
Unowned: Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Greece, Holland, Norway, Portugal,
Rumania, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Tunis.

Austria: 3 Supply centers, 3 Units: Builds 0 units.
England: 3 Supply centers, 3 Units: Builds 0 units.
France: 3 Supply centers, 3 Units: Builds 0 units.
Germany: 3 Supply centers, 3 Units: Builds 0 units.
Italy: 3 Supply centers, 3 Units: Builds 0 units.
Russia: 4 Supply centers, 4 Units: Builds 0 units.
Turkey: 3 Supply centers, 3 Units: Builds 0 units.

The next phase of Example will be Movement for Fall of 1901.

01Fall.dpy (pretend this is a file)

Fall 1901:

(this map will look a lot bigger if you use a proper host. Myspace ftl..)

I looked a bit at the other software, and it looks to mostly use the same functionality. The above is just a step-through of Realpolitik, because I'm more familiar with it, but you could probably retrofit the above instructions for jDip as well.

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 1:50 pm

PMs sent requesting the orders I am missing. I would really not like to have nations hold the first turn so I am going to give them some extra time, I do not think there is much strategic advantage to be gained by waiting on the first turn.

Kelric · Post by **Kelric** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 1:54 pm

Slackers.

Crux · Post by **Crux** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 4:18 pm

I must have missed a post somewhere that included a deadline

Working on it, but might not get anything in until tonight

Kelric · Post by **Kelric** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 4:23 pm

Crux wrote:I must have missed a post somewhere that included a deadline

Must have.

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 3:08 am

All orders have been recieved update coming soon. Comments/suggestions on the map and presentation would be welcomed and appreciated as I have never done this before so anything you guys think will make the game better for you let me know. I decided to use jDip as suggested in the other game thread. I think the map is a bit easier to read. If you do not agree I can switch to realpolitik.

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 3:16 am

Results for Spring, 1901 (Movement)
General Notices:
No retreating units; retreat phase skipped.
Order resolution completed on 05-Jul-2007 at 03:04:00 GMT-05:00

Order Results:
Austria:
No order for unit at Trieste. Hold order assigned.
Austria: A bud -> ser
Austria: F tri Holds
Austria: A vie Supports F tri

England:
England: F edi -> nth
England: A lvp -> edi
England: F lon -> eng
Bounced with bre (1 against 1).

France:
France: F bre -> eng
Bounced with lon (1 against 1).
France: A mar -> spa
France: A par -> pic

Germany:
Germany: A ber -> kie
Germany: F kie -> hol
Germany: A mun -> ruh

Italy:
Italy: F nap -> tys
Italy: A rom -> ven
Italy: A ven -> pie

Russia:
Russia: A mos -> sev
Russia: F sev -> rum
Russia: F stp/sc -> bot
Russia: A war -> ukr

Turkey:
Turkey: F ank -> bla
Turkey: A con -> bul
Turkey: A smy -> arm

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 3:20 am

Order for Fall 1901 due Monday by 11:59 PM EST

From here on out I shall be trying to maintain a Monday/Thursday schedule for this game. Build/Remove orders and Retreat shall be given 24 hours from time of last update.

If I have any errors in the moves please alert me ASAP, I have saved the PMs with the orders but will only be saving one turn back. The rest will be stored in the game results rather than as PM.

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 1:39 pm

When submitting orders please be sure to put "Diplomacy Game 1" in the subject line.

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 2:52 pm

Just a bump to remind people that orders are due Monday at 11:59 PM EST. There will be NO extensions.

Kelric · Post by **Kelric** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 3:28 pm

I hope I don't have to resubmit my orders, I'm lazy.

BTW, please check that rule question I asked ya.

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:24 pm

Kelric wrote:I hope I don't have to resubmit my orders, I'm lazy.

BTW, please check that rule question I asked ya.

My first thought was wrong. I sent you another PM just now with the quote from the rule explaining your question.

Unless you want to resubmit after the clarification you do not have to. I have the old ones. You may choose to alter them at any time before the deadline should a particularly juicy offer come your way from another nation.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:48 am

Kelric wrote:I hope I don't have to resubmit my orders, I'm lazy.

BTW, please check that rule question I asked ya.

To answer your question: No, you cannot actually order North Sea to Picardy.

Kelric · Post by **Kelric** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:21 am

El Guapo wrote:
Kelric wrote:I hope I don't have to resubmit my orders, I'm lazy.

BTW, please check that rule question I asked ya.
To answer your question: No, you cannot actually order North Sea to Picardy.

Can too!

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:52 pm

Results for Fall, 1901 (Movement)
General Notices:
No retreating units; retreat phase skipped.
Order resolution completed on 09-Jul-2007 at 22:50:50 GMT-05:00

Order Results:
Austria:
Supply centers were gained. Units that may be built: 1.

Austria: A ser -> gre
Bounced with bul (1 against 1).
Austria: F tri -> alb
Austria: A vie -> bud

England:
Supply centers were gained. Units that may be built: 1.

England: A edi -> nwy
Convoy path taken: edi→nth→nwy.
England: F lon -> eng
Bounced with bre (1 against 1).
England: F nth Convoys A edi -> nwy

France:
France: F bre -> eng
Bounced with lon (1 against 1).
France: A pic -> bel
Bounced with hol (1 against 1).
France: A spa Holds

Germany:
Supply centers were gained. Units that may be built: 2.

Germany: F hol -> bel
Bounced with pic (1 against 1).
Germany: A kie -> den
Germany: A ruh -> hol
Failed because Germany: F hol -> bel failed.
Italy:
Supply centers were gained. Units that may be built: 2.

Italy: A pie -> mar
Italy: F tys -> tun
Italy: A ven Holds

Russia:
Supply centers were gained. Units that may be built: 2.

Russia: F bot -> swe
Russia: F rum -> bul/ec
Bounced with bla (1 against 1).
Russia: A sev Holds
Russia: A ukr Supports A sev

Turkey:
Supply centers were gained. Units that may be built: 1.

Turkey: A arm -> sev
Bounced with sev (1 against 2).
Turkey: F bla -> bul/ec
Bounced with rum (1 against 1).
Turkey: A bul -> gre
Bounced with ser (1 against 1).

Build Orders due Tuesday July 10th by 11:59 PM EST

Chaosraven · Post by **Chaosraven** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:36 am

Allow me to say this seems to be the MOST F'eD UP FIRST TURN OF DIPLOMACY I HAVE EVER WITNESSED

Kelric · Post by **Kelric** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:18 am

Chaosraven wrote:Allow me to say this seems to be the MOST F'eD UP FIRST TURN OF DIPLOMACY I HAVE EVER WITNESSED

Seeing as how I'm almost as new as Austin... why is that?

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:03 am

Oh, I've seen much stranger first turns. What's unusual is how light it seems to be on the Diplomacy aspect. Or maybe it's just that nobody wants to talk to me.

Chaosraven · Post by **Chaosraven** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:29 am

Jeff V wrote:Oh, I've seen much stranger first turns. What's unusual is how light it seems to be on the Diplomacy aspect. Or maybe it's just that nobody wants to talk to me.

Chaosraven · Post by **Chaosraven** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:33 am

Kelric wrote:
Chaosraven wrote:Allow me to say this seems to be the MOST F'eD UP FIRST TURN OF DIPLOMACY I HAVE EVER WITNESSED
Seeing as how I'm almost as new as Austin... why is that?

Classic allies strategy just seems to have gone right out the window.
England and France banging heads?
Turkey attempts an invasion of Russia?

and France is already under invasion?

AND THERE ARE STILL SUPPLY POINTS AVAILABLE???

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:02 pm

Chaosraven wrote:
Kelric wrote:
Chaosraven wrote:Allow me to say this seems to be the MOST F'eD UP FIRST TURN OF DIPLOMACY I HAVE EVER WITNESSED
Seeing as how I'm almost as new as Austin... why is that?
Classic allies strategy just seems to have gone right out the window.
England and France banging heads?
Turkey attempts an invasion of Russia?

and France is already under invasion?

AND THERE ARE STILL SUPPLY POINTS AVAILABLE???

None of those are unusual in the games I've played. I've certainly seen all of those before (Turkey's opening isn't unusual by any means, nor is England and France bouncing in the channel at the start of the game. As to France being under invasion...well, in the last PBEM game I was in, I was Germany, and attacked France right away.

The number of supply centers is unusual. It's not uncommon for Belgium to be unowned in 1901, since England France & Germany can all reach it. But Greece? Not so much.

Kelric · Post by **Kelric** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:07 pm

Chaosraven wrote:
Kelric wrote:
Chaosraven wrote:Allow me to say this seems to be the MOST F'eD UP FIRST TURN OF DIPLOMACY I HAVE EVER WITNESSED
Seeing as how I'm almost as new as Austin... why is that?
Classic allies strategy just seems to have gone right out the window.
England and France banging heads?
Turkey attempts an invasion of Russia?

and France is already under invasion?

AND THERE ARE STILL SUPPLY POINTS AVAILABLE???

We all have a secret alliance to mess with your mind.

Cesare · Post by **Cesare** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:35 pm

El Guapo wrote:
Chaosraven wrote:
Kelric wrote:
Chaosraven wrote:Allow me to say this seems to be the MOST F'eD UP FIRST TURN OF DIPLOMACY I HAVE EVER WITNESSED
Seeing as how I'm almost as new as Austin... why is that?
Classic allies strategy just seems to have gone right out the window.
England and France banging heads?
Turkey attempts an invasion of Russia?

and France is already under invasion?

AND THERE ARE STILL SUPPLY POINTS AVAILABLE???
None of those are unusual in the games I've played. I've certainly seen all of those before (Turkey's opening isn't unusual by any means, nor is England and France bouncing in the channel at the start of the game. As to France being under invasion...well, in the last PBEM game I was in, I was Germany, and attacked France right away.

+10.

I've never played a game with these so-called "classic" strategies. I think there have been some weird individual moves, but none of the opening conflicts are unusual... in fact I've usually seen conflicts between Turkey and Russia over the Black Sea in the first year.

Mandeville · Post by **Mandeville** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:58 pm

Jeff V wrote:Oh, I've seen much stranger first turns. What's unusual is how light it seems to be on the Diplomacy aspect. Or maybe it's just that nobody wants to talk to me.

You too? I thought that everyone had decided to just knock off France!

And I held in Spain anticipating Italy trying to deny me a build. I have no idea what is going on.

Chaosraven · Post by **Chaosraven** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:16 am

Well if this game consists of New Players and people who are used to games without Cooperation or standard Alliances then *I*m the odd man out, I guess. Which is kind of cool, in a warped way.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:00 am

Chaosraven wrote:Well if this game consists of New Players and people who are used to games without Cooperation or standard Alliances then *I*m the odd man out, I guess. Which is kind of cool, in a warped way.

Why would you want to play a standard game? Seems to me this game gets its legs from not knowing what's going to happen.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:37 am

Austin wrote:
Chaosraven wrote:Well if this game consists of New Players and people who are used to games without Cooperation or standard Alliances then *I*m the odd man out, I guess. Which is kind of cool, in a warped way.
Why would you want to play a standard game? Seems to me this game gets its legs from not knowing what's going to happen.

And what is "Cooperation" or "standard alliances"? Is that the idea that you basically enter the game with set alliances? I think that would defeat the whole point of Diplomacy. The game isn't about military tactics (since those are incredibly basic in this game), it's about, well, diplomacy. Courting and choosing your allies - and deciding who to trust and when to trust them - is the whole point of the game. Having standard alliances...well, you might as well play Risk at that point.

The Preacher · Post by **The Preacher** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:43 am

Chaosraven wrote:Well if this game consists of New Players and people who are used to games without Cooperation or standard Alliances then *I*m the odd man out, I guess. Which is kind of cool, in a warped way.

In the single game of Diplomacy I've played, which was actually at GG with Grand Director iirc, as England I stabbed France in the first turn shooting into the English Channel (which we agreed neither of us would do) and laid the groundwork for a Brest landing. With Germany as my ally, it was not a happy game for France. I never wanted those damn Frenchies as an ally.

That was fun, although I found PBEM 'small "d" diplomacy' to be very challenging. I'm enjoying watching this game.

Mandeville · Post by **Mandeville** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:06 pm

The Preacher wrote:
Chaosraven wrote:Well if this game consists of New Players and people who are used to games without Cooperation or standard Alliances then *I*m the odd man out, I guess. Which is kind of cool, in a warped way.
In the single game of Diplomacy I've played, which was actually at GG with Grand Director iirc, as England I stabbed France in the first turn shooting into the English Channel (which we agreed neither of us would do) and laid the groundwork for a Brest landing. With Germany as my ally, it was not a happy game for France. I never wanted those damn Frenchies as an ally.

That was fun, although I found PBEM 'small "d" diplomacy' to be very challenging. I'm enjoying watching this game.

Ahh yes, I ran that game. It was the most explosive game I ever ran as a judge and the best to watch as well. good times. I'm sure I still have the files saved for that game.

Kelric · Post by **Kelric** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:41 pm

I ass-u-me that we get an updated map after build orders are in, correct?

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:22 pm

Results for Fall, 1901 (Adjustment)
General Notices:
Order resolution completed on 11-Jul-2007 at 13:21:57 GMT-05:00

Order Results:
Austria:
Austria: Builds A tri

England:
England: Builds F lvp

France:
Germany:
Germany: Builds F ber
Germany: Builds A mun

Italy:
Italy: Builds F nap
Italy: Builds F rom

Russia:
Russia: Builds A mos
Russia: Builds A stp

Turkey:
Turkey: Builds F ank

Orders for Spring 1902 due 11:59 PM EST Friday July 13th

Chaosraven · Post by **Chaosraven** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:29 pm

I'm not going to argue the point of view I came equipped with. It makes more sense to me now the mindset I have been dealing with behind the scenes if others have vastly different experiences in past games.

Just seems very wasteful to me.

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:22 pm

War IS waste, CR. War is waste.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:34 pm

Chaosraven wrote:I'm not going to argue the point of view I came equipped with. It makes more sense to me now the mindset I have been dealing with behind the scenes if others have vastly different experiences in past games.

Just seems very wasteful to me.

Oh, I didn't mean to argue your point of view or anything. I'm just curious what you mean by "Cooperative" or "standard alliance" play, since I've never heard of anything like that in Diplomacy, and it seems to me to be counter-intuitive to the game. What is it?

Chaosraven · Post by **Chaosraven** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:51 am

El Guapo wrote:
Chaosraven wrote:I'm not going to argue the point of view I came equipped with. It makes more sense to me now the mindset I have been dealing with behind the scenes if others have vastly different experiences in past games.

Just seems very wasteful to me.
Oh, I didn't mean to argue your point of view or anything. I'm just curious what you mean by "Cooperative" or "standard alliance" play, since I've never heard of anything like that in Diplomacy, and it seems to me to be counter-intuitive to the game. What is it?

I certainly wasn't singling you out here, as the others seem to not comprehend where I'm coming from either.

This game is DESIGNED to require Cooperation to a certain point as any two players can decimate a third player.

England and France make a powerful Alliance since they can crush Germany.

Russia and Turkey make a powerful Alliance since they can crush Austria.

Both of those alliances have the benefit of an edge that cannot be invaded (the former from the west, and the latter from the east)

This usually creates a Central Alliance of Germany and Austria fending off both sides and trying to weaken either alliance by encouraging backstabbing. And often adding Italy as third alliance member.

Italy is sort of the swing state as added to either the west or east faction gives control over the south of the board.

Cooperation is required to avoid exactly what happened here... why did France even try for Belgium/Holland coast?
France could have had 2 points this turn with no contest.
England and Germany could have done the same with Coordinated Cooperation. (Hey, you take Norway and Holland, I'll take Denmark and Belgium).
Funny thing is that under a cooperative environment, ITALY gets screwed as he only has One Point available to him without invading another player.

I've played this game Tabletop with groups drawn from about thirty players over the last twenty three years and I don't recall a game where England/France and Turkey/Russia were NOT opening turn allies. I do recall many games where Greed screwed up the opening twelve dispensation.

For example I could have simply bounced England from his move into Norway had I moved to StP from Moscow, costing him a unit on the board next year. I value his potential assistance for not doing so.

I guess it's comparable to a multiplayer chessgame and that my circle of opponents over the years have been of the same mindset. The main variable is WHEN you doublecross an ally or break a minor agreement.

For example, Remus West has traditionally been able to discern when he is likely to be vulnerable to my eyes and Backstab me the turn before it would make sense for me to do so

Austin · Post by **Austin** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:56 am

It's people though and people don't always let you do what you want to do. It only takes one person to disagree and you have to totally change your strategy. That ripples through the whole game board I'm sure.

Chaosraven · Post by **Chaosraven** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:14 am

Absolutely.

Cesare · Post by **Cesare** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:13 pm

Chaosraven wrote:
El Guapo wrote:
Chaosraven wrote:I'm not going to argue the point of view I came equipped with. It makes more sense to me now the mindset I have been dealing with behind the scenes if others have vastly different experiences in past games.

Just seems very wasteful to me.
Oh, I didn't mean to argue your point of view or anything. I'm just curious what you mean by "Cooperative" or "standard alliance" play, since I've never heard of anything like that in Diplomacy, and it seems to me to be counter-intuitive to the game. What is it?

This game is DESIGNED to require Cooperation to a certain point as any two players can decimate a third player.

Ah.. so that's what I've been doing wrong all these games.

I've played this game Tabletop with groups drawn from about thirty players over the last twenty three years and I don't recall a game where England/France and Turkey/Russia were NOT opening turn allies...

I guess it's comparable to a multiplayer chessgame and that my circle of opponents over the years have been of the same mindset.

That's likely the issue here. People playing within the same group tend to acquire insular playstyles and metagame habits. If you play with random people who's habits you aren't aware of, the Turkey-Russia clash over the Black Sea is incredibly common. In fact, in my last game as Turkey I made a deal with Russia to demilitarize the Black Sea, and of course we both attempted to move into it first turn. It's only "wasteful" in that you know the end result. Not knowing the end result, and not meta-knowing that Player X is trustworthy every time he promises to demilitarize the Black Sea, it would be negligent for a player to ignore the Black Sea and allow someone else take it on the first turn. Had I not "wasted" a turn bouncing out of the Black Sea in that game, my so-called peace partner would have taken it and I would have been in a bad place.

Mandeville · Post by **Mandeville** » Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:22 am

Chaosraven wrote:
El Guapo wrote:
Chaosraven wrote:I'm not going to argue the point of view I came equipped with. It makes more sense to me now the mindset I have been dealing with behind the scenes if others have vastly different experiences in past games.

Just seems very wasteful to me.
Oh, I didn't mean to argue your point of view or anything. I'm just curious what you mean by "Cooperative" or "standard alliance" play, since I've never heard of anything like that in Diplomacy, and it seems to me to be counter-intuitive to the game. What is it?
I certainly wasn't singling you out here, as the others seem to not comprehend where I'm coming from either.

This game is DESIGNED to require Cooperation to a certain point as any two players can decimate a third player.

England and France make a powerful Alliance since they can crush Germany.

Russia and Turkey make a powerful Alliance since they can crush Austria.

Both of those alliances have the benefit of an edge that cannot be invaded (the former from the west, and the latter from the east)

This usually creates a Central Alliance of Germany and Austria fending off both sides and trying to weaken either alliance by encouraging backstabbing. And often adding Italy as third alliance member.

Italy is sort of the swing state as added to either the west or east faction gives control over the south of the board.

Cooperation is required to avoid exactly what happened here... why did France even try for Belgium/Holland coast?
France could have had 2 points this turn with no contest.
England and Germany could have done the same with Coordinated Cooperation. (Hey, you take Norway and Holland, I'll take Denmark and Belgium).
Funny thing is that under a cooperative environment, ITALY gets screwed as he only has One Point available to him without invading another player.

I've played this game Tabletop with groups drawn from about thirty players over the last twenty three years and I don't recall a game where England/France and Turkey/Russia were NOT opening turn allies. I do recall many games where Greed screwed up the opening twelve dispensation.

For example I could have simply bounced England from his move into Norway had I moved to StP from Moscow, costing him a unit on the board next year. I value his potential assistance for not doing so.

I guess it's comparable to a multiplayer chessgame and that my circle of opponents over the years have been of the same mindset. The main variable is WHEN you doublecross an ally or break a minor agreement.

For example, Remus West has traditionally been able to discern when he is likely to be vulnerable to my eyes and Backstab me the turn before it would make sense for me to do so

I have very good reasons for what I did in the first year. Now is not the time to air them but I will draw up my sure to be brief AAR when the game is done.

Mandeville · Post by **Mandeville** » Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:27 am

Cesare wrote:
Chaosraven wrote:
El Guapo wrote:
Chaosraven wrote:I'm not going to argue the point of view I came equipped with. It makes more sense to me now the mindset I have been dealing with behind the scenes if others have vastly different experiences in past games.

Just seems very wasteful to me.
Oh, I didn't mean to argue your point of view or anything. I'm just curious what you mean by "Cooperative" or "standard alliance" play, since I've never heard of anything like that in Diplomacy, and it seems to me to be counter-intuitive to the game. What is it?

This game is DESIGNED to require Cooperation to a certain point as any two players can decimate a third player.
Ah.. so that's what I've been doing wrong all these games.

I've played this game Tabletop with groups drawn from about thirty players over the last twenty three years and I don't recall a game where England/France and Turkey/Russia were NOT opening turn allies...

I guess it's comparable to a multiplayer chessgame and that my circle of opponents over the years have been of the same mindset.
That's likely the issue here. People playing within the same group tend to acquire insular playstyles and metagame habits. If you play with random people who's habits you aren't aware of, the Turkey-Russia clash over the Black Sea is incredibly common. In fact, in my last game as Turkey I made a deal with Russia to demilitarize the Black Sea, and of course we both attempted to move into it first turn. It's only "wasteful" in that you know the end result. Not knowing the end result, and not meta-knowing that Player X is trustworthy every time he promises to demilitarize the Black Sea, it would be negligent for a player to ignore the Black Sea and allow someone else take it on the first turn. Had I not "wasted" a turn bouncing out of the Black Sea in that game, my so-called peace partner would have taken it and I would have been in a bad place.

Sometimes bouncing in the black sea is a planned move to keep both honest and maybe get Austria thinking that they are at war...