Diplomacy

[Set]

Recently my family has gotten back into the board game Diplomacy (we played a great game on father’s day), and I was wondering how popular the game is among CFCers. For those who don’t know Diplomacy is an old classic strategy board game. “A game of negotiations, alliances, promises kept, and promise broken”. It’s played by seven players, each in control of one great power in Europe in 1914 (Turkey, Russia, France, England, Austria, Germany and Italy) and the objective is to conquer 18 “supply centers” (each country’s homeland has 3 and many neutral countries contain them as well). The heart of the game lies in negotiation with other players, as no player can conquer another one without help. Players negotiate alliances against other players, they then sometimes go to the player they just allied against and agree to backstab the first player they talked too. There are no requirements in the rules about keeping alliances, this makes for an awesome and tense game.

Face to Face games are all too hard to organize as 7 players are required and 4-8 hours of time so the real heart of Diplomacy lies online. This year I started playing on a site called playdiplomacy.com. Orders are usually due every 24 hours and all contact is by a messaging system on the website. I’ve had some great games recently including one as Germany right now that’s proving to be a lot of fun.

The game strikes me as a CFC type of game so I was wondering how many people here have played it. Maybe we could have a game?

If you haven’t played diplomacy before (or if you have) This website makes good reading, especially this article.

 

[Nintz]

I've played it a few times. Very fun. The NES subforum runs games once in a while, whenever enough people want one I guess. I think IOT also has their own games sometimes, but I don't know for sure.

 

[Quintillus]

Diplomacy is awesome. I first played it about 5 years ago, and during the summer of 2009 I had plenty of free time in the evenings with several other Diplomacy fans living in close proximity, so we played a number of games that summer. Oftentimes we'd start a game one day, leave it set up on the kitchen table, and finish it the next day, or perhaps a few days later - usually taking it down and re-setting it up in that case. Being able to play on weeknights really helped, too. It really was great - I almost lost a friend once because he thought I was a secure ally but I sided with someone else instead.

I've played online once, and it was fun, too. Looking back, it appears that I played it on http://www.floc.net/dpjudge/ .

 

[Set]

Do you mean 1931? I've never played it but it looks interesting, although personally I can never get into variants for long before coming back to regular diplomacy. I like the simplicity.

 

[sophie]

One of my all-time favorite games. I had a group of friends freshman year in college who played nightly games of Risk and we quickly switched to Diplomacy when we found ourselves wanting something more complex. I've been trying to get my gf and her group of friends to play it with me for awhile now (my original group of friends from freshman year have since moved away) but we haven't had the time lately.

 

[Quintillus]

One of my all-time favorite games. I had a group of friends freshman year in college who played nightly games of Risk and we quickly switched to Diplomacy when we found ourselves wanting something more complex. I've been trying to get my gf and her group of friends to play it with me for awhile now (my original group of friends from freshman year have since moved away) but we haven't had the time lately.

Likewise, I played Risk first, but it rarely seemed deep. I've hardly played Risk since first playing Diplomacy. Though I also have the problem that I no longer live near my core Diplomacy group.

Side question, Set: Do you play Set?

 

[Set]

Diplomacy has likewise destroyed my taste for simpler games. Since my latest FTF game even Catan, a favorite, has been a little too dull for me. Not sure if that's goof or bad

@Quintillus: Do you mean this Set? I haven't ever played it but one of my friends is always trying to get me into it.

 

[The_J]

I thought we already had a thread for it somewhere .

We play currently a session at work, taking turns once a week. The board is stripped to a magnet plate, and all the pieces have magnets on it, so that we can just put the board away .
Got Turkey as nation. Tried to go against Russia and ally with Austria, but...uh...let's say that didn't work out, and as end result Russia is out as first, and I have 1 unit and 1 supply center left, means I'm also out in the next autumn turn, as second.
But was still fun .

 

[coanda]

I thought we already had a thread for it somewhere .

We play currently a session at work, taking turns once a week. The board is stripped to a magnet plate, and all the pieces have magnets on it, so that we can just put the board away .
Got Turkey as nation. Tried to go against Russia and ally with Austria, but...uh...let's say that didn't work out, and as end result Russia is out as first, and I have 1 unit and 1 supply center left, means I'm also out in the next autumn turn, as second.
But was still fun .

Yeah Turkey is rough. I've never seen a working alliance with Austria. Alliance with Italy is not that strong, and also likely to end up dissolving as soon as Austria collapses even if it does succeed. Alliance with Russia is the only good option, but it has it's own issues. The Black Sea is a betrayal waiting to happen, for both sides; only if you tie up a unit each bouncing there indefinitely can you avoid it. Russia does have other good alliance options - even if you can sell them on a Juggernaut, those other options will give them good leverage to ensure any alliance with Turkey is less likely to result in a successful Turkish backstab. And every other player on the board is watching out for a Juggernaut, and will often unite against you if they see it.

It's hard to be the first eliminated playing as Turkey, but it's also very, very hard to be one of the last players standing.

 

[Set]

I hate being Turkey as well, and I never see them do to well in my games. As far as I can tell (based on one game I played as Russia where Turkey did do well), the best idea is to avoid alliances and wars entirely. Profess Friendship to everyone, and denounce everyone's enemies publicly, but never, ever agree to an "alliance". Deliberate, Forget, Misorder, Ignore and do everything you can to avoid conflict until you are 100% sure of some small gain. Then take this chance to grab territory and pass it off as "a neccessary evil to defend your borders" or some such thing. The Turkey in my game managed to convince Italy that the army marching through his Supply centers were only there to "help against the Russians (me)". Italy kept on believing this right up until Turks marched into Rome and held(instead of leaving) 3 other Italian supply centers on the same fall turn.

 

[sophie]

Have any of you guys played the map variants. Some of them do a decent job at making Turkey's position more...ahem...viable:

http://www.variantbank.org/results/rules/e/egypt.htm

 

[Set]

I've only ever played one map only variant, Milan Diplomacy. Basically it adds a new province to northern Italy, Milan, and moves the supply center in Venice there, so as to strengthen Italy's defensive position. A few other changes are also made in Northern Italy to give Italy more attacking prospects. It was fun to play, but the change was too small to really dramatically affect the game.

The Cairo variant you're talking about looks interesting, although I'm not sure about connecting the Eastern Med and Mid-Atlantic. I suppose it helps break the stalemate lines, but I think it might make it too easy for a strong England to runaway with the game. Turkey being less boxed in is always a plus though

 

[Quintillus]

Diplomacy has likewise destroyed my taste for simpler games. Since my latest FTF game even Catan, a favorite, has been a little too dull for me. Not sure if that's goof or bad

@Quintillus: Do you mean this Set? I haven't ever played it but one of my friends is always trying to get me into it.

That's the Set I meant! I thought perhaps your CFC name had something to do with it. It's a good game. A quick one to play over lunch rather than a long, strategic game like Diplomacy, but good in its own way. I'm hopeless against some of the Set players I know.

I still enjoy Catan. It isn't nearly as intense, but it's a lot easier to plan for, and there still is an element of diplomacy and alliance.

I agree with the general sentiment about Turkey being difficult. The only game I can recall where they did well was one where they aligned with Russia, neither backstabbed, and the other countries didn't effectively try to stop them until too late.

 

[Nintz]

On the subject of Turkey, might I link this game?

Turkey took advantage of a weak Russia, an Austria that played about sides at once, and an Italy that was rather noobish.

Regardless, Turkey was the first place in the end when we called a draw.

 

[coanda]

I don't know that I'd say Turkey is difficult per se; it's just very, very limited. You're quite likely to survive the early game, because you're just a painful nut to crack. A solo victory is quite possible for Turkey, same as anyone else (I'd guess it's more likely than Italy, on par with Austria and Germany, and a bit less likely than France, England, and Russia... but that's just my guess); a stalemate that includes you is more likely than most other stalemates (see previous point about how hard you are to kill).

If you can avoid defending all by yourself against Austria-Russia, you'll be all right. If you want to actually expand, you've got one neighbor you might form a stable alliance with (Russia), and two players you might form very unstable alliances with (Austria, Italy), and one player you might form a tenuous long-distance alliance (England, against Russia - if you think you can keep Austria and Italy off your back while you do it). If you end up in a 3+-player alliance, odds are good you'll be a corner player - which is a safer position, because it means if you backstab you're fighting nearly 1-on-1, but if you are backstabbed you're probably fighting 2-on-1.

So it's not a bad position. It's just a boring one. I've seen games where Turkey could literally have not exchanged a word with Germany or France all game for all the difference it would have made. Nothing they could have said would have impacted his planning or thinking; they had no moves to coordinate, no shared interests, no friendly requests worth making. You have relatively few options.

England, for example, can and will start off allying and coordinating with anyone on the board. Same with Austria. But Turkey... just boxed in too effectively by its three neighbors.

 

[sophie]

I don't know that I'd say Turkey is difficult per se; it's just very, very limited. You're quite likely to survive the early game, because you're just a painful nut to crack. A solo victory is quite possible for Turkey, same as anyone else (I'd guess it's more likely than Italy, on par with Austria and Germany, and a bit less likely than France, England, and Russia... but that's just my guess); a stalemate that includes you is more likely than most other stalemates (see previous point about how hard you are to kill).

If you can avoid defending all by yourself against Austria-Russia, you'll be all right. If you want to actually expand, you've got one neighbor you might form a stable alliance with (Russia), and two players you might form very unstable alliances with (Austria, Italy), and one player you might form a tenuous long-distance alliance (England, against Russia - if you think you can keep Austria and Italy off your back while you do it). If you end up in a 3+-player alliance, odds are good you'll be a corner player - which is a safer position, because it means if you backstab you're fighting nearly 1-on-1, but if you are backstabbed you're probably fighting 2-on-1.

So it's not a bad position. It's just a boring one. I've seen games where Turkey could literally have not exchanged a word with Germany or France all game for all the difference it would have made. Nothing they could have said would have impacted his planning or thinking; they had no moves to coordinate, no shared interests, no friendly requests worth making. You have relatively few options.

England, for example, can and will start off allying and coordinating with anyone on the board. Same with Austria. But Turkey... just boxed in too effectively by its three neighbors.

England is considered to be one of the hardest if not the hardest countries to win with in Diplomacy.

 

[Set]

Really? I find that interesting, I usually think of them as an easy country. Either way though it doesn't matter to his point. England may be hard (as is Austria) but it's a lot more fun when you're negotiating with everyone on the board, as opposed to Turkey who can only Box himself up, hope his neighbors kill each other and wait for the right moment to strike

 

[sophie]

Really? I find that interesting, I usually think of them as an easy country. Either way though it doesn't matter to his point. England may be hard (as is Austria) but it's a lot more fun when you're negotiating with everyone on the board, as opposed to Turkey who can only Box himself up, hope his neighbors kill each other and wait for the right moment to strike

It kind of falls into the Turkey category but in an even worse way. It is exceedingly difficult to explicitly lose as England - i.e. lose all your SCs and have to bow out. Successfully invading the isles is so absurdly difficult a prospect that the England player in nearly every case would have to have seriously mismanaged themselves for it to happen. However England's prospects at winning are not particularly good, largely due to the presence of the debilitating chokepoints of both the Channel and the Straits of Gibraltar. The early stages of the game push England towards expansion along Northern Europe and cooperation with France so as to not be stymied in the early stages in the Channel. However the layout of the board makes it mathematically impossible for England to win on Northern Europe alone. In other words, England is going to have to go into the Mediterranean sooner or later or risk becoming an also-ran. The problem is that Gibraltar is laughably easy to seal off meaning that if England does not establish a presence in the Mediterranean within the first 5 or 6 turns their chances at winning the game outright have become essentially nil.

 

[coanda]

It kind of falls into the Turkey category but in an even worse way. It is exceedingly difficult to explicitly lose as England - i.e. lose all your SCs and have to bow out. Successfully invading the isles is so absurdly difficult a prospect that the England player in nearly every case would have to have seriously mismanaged themselves for it to happen. However England's prospects at winning are not particularly good, largely due to the presence of the debilitating chokepoints of both the Channel and the Straits of Gibraltar. The early stages of the game push England towards expansion along Northern Europe and cooperation with France so as to not be stymied in the early stages in the Channel. However the layout of the board makes it mathematically impossible for England to win on Northern Europe alone. In other words, England is going to have to go into the Mediterranean sooner or later or risk becoming an also-ran. The problem is that Gibraltar is laughably easy to seal off meaning that if England does not establish a presence in the Mediterranean within the first 5 or 6 turns their chances at winning the game outright have become essentially nil.

I would agree that an outright win for England is quite hard (although I suspect it's still harder for Italy, and about as hard for Turkey). Although it does quite respectably overall due to its penchant for surviving into stalemates, same as Turkey. There are definite parallels between Turkey and England. The difference is, Turkey is dull. There aren't many options, and there's less stuff you need to keep track of.

Just for reference - consider Turkey opening moves.
You go F ANK - BLA, A CON - BUL, and A SMY - ARM or A SMY - CON. That's it - 2 openings that cover 90% of diplomacy games. There are other possible openings, but they all rely on a very, very rare level of trust between Russia and Turkey (I happen to be of the opinion that it's rightfully rare; letting one of the two of them establish F BLA is just begging for a Russia-Turkey war, even if neither player is planning one initially).

And that tends to be how it progresses. Each turn, you have maybe two or three options to seriously consider, at least for the first few years of the game.

By contrast, England can focus on Scandinavia, Iberia, or France proper in their opening moves, and there are several good ways of doing each. Once you've picked one though, your naval dominance often lets you shift your point of attack quickly to an entirely different part of the board, which means you continue to have a lot of options as the game goes forward. Both start in corner positions that make them secure and likelier to survive, but distant and unlikely to win solo. One does so in a boring manner, the other in a fun manner.

 

[Set]

Thought I'd share a turn I played in a live game last night. I usually don't share anything about games still in progress but this turn was pretty amazing, it involves a stellar Turkey double cross and a successful invasion of England.

North: Germany has been allied with me against England for a while now who managed to get the (almost) dead France to support him. I'm really putting a lot of trust in Germany with the convoy, but it basically spells doom for England so I risked it. I anticipated a French move to Norwegian Sea (to cut my support if I attacked Edinburgh) and moved around it. I'm assured Liverpool and the French are now far away from where they need to be.
Norway MOVE Yorkshire -> resolved
Norwegian Sea MOVE Clyde -> resolved
North Sea CONVOY Norway to Yorkshire -> resolved

South: I botched a stab against Turkey the turn before this (I lost Budapest and got nothing). But I convinced him to go for a truce in light of my failures and he sent me his withdrawal moves. With Italian support I'm trampling him. With my fleet in Armenia I can endlessly bounce him out of Ankara which traps his other fleet in Bulgaria. His armies are way outnumbered in the Balkans so he he'll lose there. Credit to Turkey though, he's a very pleasant persona to stab, wished me luck and said communications were still open in case I changed my mind (despite me stabbing him twice in 2 turns).
Sevastopol MOVE Armenia -> resolved
Rumania SUPPORT Trieste to Serbia -> resolved
Galicia MOVE Budapest -> resolved
Ukraine MOVE Sevastopol -> resolved

Playing a Live game (orders due every 10 minutes for the first 2 hours, then go to 12 hour orders) online is an interesting experience. I don't think there's nearly enough time to type out messages to other players and would prefer a 20 or 30 minute time limit. It's great fun though, and it's an entirely different game as I can't take the time to plan things too throughly or consider every possible move. You have to put a lot more trust in people as a result.