Best country?

[Enderson]

Say for example, everyone is the same skill level in a game with 7 players, what would be the best country to be? I say Turkey....

[David E. Cohen]

Say for example, everyone is the same skill level in a game with 7 players, what would be the best country to be? I say Turkey....

That would depend on the particular players involved. I enjoy playing all the Powers, since each presents unique opportunities and challenges. I always answer that question with 'The best country is the one I am playing right now.' :^)

[RuHurt]

I've always loved Italy and Austria (Italy more so, and in fact I'm playing Italy in two games now. One I've almost one, and the other just started. That's SCD36, for you, David), because they provide such a great challenge. Germany, Turkey, and France are good too. The only country I don't like is England.

[RuHurt]

England and Russia, that is.

[sking500]

I've always been particular to Germany and Turkey. I've had pretty good success with both, but prefer Turkey since most of the Western powers completely ignore you until it's too late.

[David E. Cohen]

I've always loved Italy and Austria (Italy more so, and in fact I'm playing Italy in two games now. One I've almost one, and the other just started. That's SCD36, for you, David), because they provide such a great challenge. Germany, Turkey, and France are good too. The only country I don't like is England.


I just eyeballed the roster for SCD 36. You have some very good opponents. It should be quite enjoyable (both playing and watching).

[Enderson]

The only problem with Germany is if France and Austria-Hungary, or Russia ally against you, you're right in the middle, more of a challenge that way though....

[RuHurt]

I just eyeballed the roster for SCD 36. You have some very good opponents. It should be quite enjoyable (both playing and watching).

I'm enjoying it. And, I'm feeling rather good about my ability, as I just soloed as Italy in another game. I seem to recall many of these player's names; looks like they're rather famous players. Hope I can make a good showing :).

[David E. Cohen]

The only problem with Germany is if France and Austria-Hungary, or Russia ally against you, you're right in the middle, more of a challenge that way though....

Have you really seen that many Austrians attack Germany early? The other Kaiser is usually busy elsewhere. In addition, if France and Russia ally, England usually comes in on the side of Germany, and it has been my experience that, more often than not, if the players are roughly equal in ability, that the E/G can handle th F/R. Of course, Germany may have big problems with England afterwards, but that is what the Italians are for. :^))) Seriously, a smart German might negotiate some strong DMZs, and make sure England agrees that Germany will end up bigger than England at the time both go after the southern Powers.

[Edi Birsan]

Best Country depends very highly on:
1. What do you consider as a Best performance:
example is a country that wins 1 in 7 but is eliminated in the other 6 better than a
country that is in a 7 way draw all the time?
2. What is the framework of the game: best in a tournament with draw as a scoring system or best in a tournament with supply center count as the scoring or simply (though in many way much more complex) best in a non tournament setting in person.
or best in a setting by email or postal play?
3. Best with all the original players or best with just results measured (draw or supply center count or just looking at wins) regardless of player drop outs?


In the postal days of the hobby 1963-1990 or so using wins and draws as a measure regardless of the drop out rate the so called best countries were TFERGAI
with TFE very close. If you looked at just wins the order became REFTGIA.
the variation between the top and bottom was about 15%

In face to face play that is recorded by NADF (about 3000 games) which includes both social and tournament play I believe the country order is RFETGAI with a 20% variantion between top and bottom.

If you took at supply center count system with time limits as played in a tournment system typically the C-Diplo European system. I do not have the stats at my finger tips but going off of the various World Championships and European Championships the preference of the top board players it would look like: FGAEIRT

As a personal choice Best for me involves what is the most fun to play and I have shifted around a lot over the last decades. Currently I would say that the best overall country results regardless of system in a TOURNAMENT setting would be FETGRIA
where as my preference lis these days is FGEAITR

[David E. Cohen]

Hello Edi. Statistical analysis is all well and good, but once the play begins, it can and should be thrown out the window, as the Powers are not *that* far apart. The playing styles and relative strengths of the players at the board matter *far* more.

[jadedaemon]

I've always been particular to Germany and Turkey. I've had pretty good success with both, but prefer Turkey since most of the Western powers completely ignore you until it's too late.

Instead, what you get stuck with is the inevitable battle with Russia over the stupid body of water between the two of you.

[Enderson]

Unless you make the Black Sea a DMZ...than break the agreement, but only if you NEED the zone badly, don't take it just to **** Russia off.

Enderson~.

[Buz Eddy]

David Cohen is certainly correct that players are a more important factor to results than countries. Still the numerical results by countries have stayed fairly stable over the last 500 games in the NADF records (about 2825 games total to date). Scoring is by Calhamer points. 1 point for solo, 1/2 for two way draw, 1/3 for a 3way...1/7 for a 7 way.

England 16.7%
France 16.6
Russia 15.8
Turkey 15.0
Germany 13.2
Austria 12.2
Italy 10.5

[David E. Cohen]

David Cohen is certainly correct that players are a more important factor to results than countries. Still the numerical results by countries have stayed fairly stable over the last 500 games in the NADF records (about 2825 games total to date). Scoring is by Calhamer points. 1 point for solo, 1/2 for two way draw, 1/3 for a 3way...1/7 for a 7 way.

England 16.7%
France 16.6
Russia 15.8
Turkey 15.0
Germany 13.2
Austria 12.2
Italy 10.5

As opposed to David Cohen points: 1 point for solo, 0 for two way draw, 0 for 3 way...0 for 7 way.

[DY]

I understand that when using David Cohen points, Russia and France are ahead of the pack. The location of England and Turkey's home SCs keeps them fairly low with Italy at the bottom (ps I once got a solo in a PBEM game as Italy)

[RuHurt]

I don't understand why Italy is so disliked. It's my favorite country, and, I find, one of the easiest to do well with. And well done, DY; welcome to the club. I soloed Italy in a PBEM a couple weeks ago :D. It's actually easier than you'd think; in fact, it's interesting to note that Italy is becoming more and more popular in the tournament games.

[David E. Cohen]

A good number of people like Italy, especially, it seems, when playing against good opponents. As to the popularity of Italy in tournaments, as far as the PBEM variety goes, the first tiebreaker is often "worst country" (the Worldmasters being an example), so perhaps people figure if they pick Italy, and have a good game, they have a better chance of advancing.

[Buz Eddy]

A solo, as David has emphsized, is the objective. There seem to be less in FTF than in other forms because of the fatigue factor. I have the solo records in the NADF tournaments since 2002, and its generally no more than 1 in 10. The actual results probably are not enough to be statistically meaningful yet, but Italy is trailing badly as one might guess.

England France Germany Italy Austria Russia Turkey
12 9 10 3 6 10 12

The reason that I suspect the statistical significance, is that by common sense and by every other compilation I've seen Russia has generally led the list of solo wins. And Germany???

[DY]

Yes I always understood that Russia was the best in terms of solos and this mainly came down to 2 things:

1) 4 home SCs (ever gained 4 SCs with another country and had to wait another 2 moves to gain your extra piece?)

2) Coastal SCs north and south

I agree about Italy Ru. Your home SCs are in a reasonable mid-game position all of which have coastal access. You aren't considered a huge threat by your neighbours which can often be an advantage.

The game I soloed was a few years back (I don't think I've played since early 2002) but I had a solid Alliance with Austria and Germany and I think I got England to help me early also. I went straight after France, convoying into Tunis via Tyherrian sea and then going into GOL and Tyn in S02, with Mar falling to A Pie on F02 (probably with German support from Bur as well). Spain and Portugal went soon after that with my fleets in WMed and GOL.

I seem to remember my Austrian ally getting into the Ionian ahead of Turkey and we worked together to kill him (I convoyed into Syria at some point). From memory Germany and I turned on England once France fell and once I was in Liverpool I did a major stab on Austria while he was busy with Russia.

I think I had to stab Germany for 1 or 2 SCs to hit 18 and get the solo. Generally though I think I'd go the Lepanto strategy, but killing France and taking control over MAt gave me excellent prospects. The problem is an early France campaign is only going to work if there is no R-T. From memory we avoided R-T by Austria initially agreeing to help Turkey into Rumania.

[David E. Cohen]

A healthy Russia (let us say 12 or more units) normally has crossed several stalemate lines. The same is usually true of a healthy France. It is often not true of healthy Austrias, Englands, Germanys, Italys or Turkeys. Russia and France are therefore somewhat easier to solo with, from a purely positional point of view. It is, of course, easier said than done, but players of the other Powers would be wise to attempt to cross over a stalemate line early and in force. Basically, you should always be counting to 18 mentally. 17 dots and a draw isn't almost as good as a solo. In fact, it stinks. Better to be eliminated trying for a solo than skulking around behind a stalemate line.

[DY]

Agreed. Better to be a 1 SC survivor for a draw than a 17 SC survivor for a draw. In the former you struggled on to take part in a draw from a hopeless position, whereas in the latter you'll be bitterly disappointed that you couldn't find a way to nut out that final SC.

[RuHurt]

I agree totally. Of course, in tournament play, it may be that you get more points with a 17SC draw than with a 1SC draw. Although, I've never been in a tournament, and don't really have any idea how they're scored, so...

[BuzEddy]

In both my involvement in organizing chess and in organizing FTF Diplomacy I have obseved that in practice the objective of "winning" has a corollary "don't lose". The chess term "Grandmaster draw" reflects the aversion to risk that is present in the higher reaches of that sport. One of the encouraging factors of avoiding risk in chess was the prize structure which pooled the money for results of the same score. Say 1st - $1,000,
2nd - $500, 3rd - $300. If two players are tied for first in final round, and are playing each other. The situation is draw $750 apiece. If I win I get $250 more, if I lose I get probably 1/3 of 3rd or so or $100. So, I'm risking $650 to gain $250.

Happily we don't use cash prizes in FTF Diplomacy. The game is brutal enough without that overlay. Still the "don't lose" motivation is strong and the results of play seem to reflect it. I don't have the stats for PBEM but it feels like a solo occurs more frequently in that venue than in FTF play.

[David E. Cohen]

In both my involvement in organizing chess and in organizing FTF Diplomacy I have obseved that in practice the objective of "winning" has a corollary "don't lose". The chess term "Grandmaster draw" reflects the aversion to risk that is present in the higher reaches of that sport. One of the encouraging factors of avoiding risk in chess was the prize structure which pooled the money for results of the same score. Say 1st - $1,000,
2nd - $500, 3rd - $300. If two players are tied for first in final round, and are playing each other. The situation is draw $750 apiece. If I win I get $250 more, if I lose I get probably 1/3 of 3rd or so or $100. So, I'm risking $650 to gain $250.

Happily we don't use cash prizes in FTF Diplomacy. The game is brutal enough without that overlay. Still the "don't lose" motivation is strong and the results of play seem to reflect it. I don't have the stats for PBEM but it feels like a solo occurs more frequently in that venue than in FTF play.
I disagree about the "don't lose mentality" correlating to winning in Diplomacy. Most of the time, that just becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy, in that staid play results in players not availing themselves of the limited windows of opportunity that the game affords, and therefore they are left grasping at a draw.

The "don't lose" mentality is one reason draws are so common. :^( Rating systems which reward draws are another. (I have actually written fairly extensively about this, both in an article in the Pouch, and in various discussion groups.) This is a trait Diplomacy does not share with most "normal" war games. In those, you have a winner and a loser (or more than one of each).

If there was a progfessional Diplomacy league, then people would play to maximize their monetary return. There is not, and since we all play for the love of the game, I just don't see the point of going anything less than all out for victory.

[canuckdipper]

The only problem with Germany is if France and Austria-Hungary, or Russia ally against you, you're right in the middle, more of a challenge that way though....

HAHAHA

Germany is always in the middle, thats problem with that country. Also alot of Germans like to get big too quickly. ie. build 3 unit's in '01. Thats just inviting big troubles. Germany best bet to to make nice with France and go north. The stalmate in Burg,ruhr,holland is a big waste of time for Germany.


Mikey

[canuckdipper]

Agreed. Better to be a 1 SC survivor for a draw than a 17 SC survivor for a draw. In the former you struggled on to take part in a draw from a hopeless position, whereas in the latter you'll be bitterly disappointed that you couldn't find a way to nut out that final SC.


In tournament play being part of a draw is alot better then an elimination. You do not get points for not surviving. But a 17 centre country, as part of a draw is alot better then a 1 centre country, as most Con's awards points for the size of the draw and for the number of centres you have. In other words the more centres the better at all times. And the smaller the draw the better also. But as long as you are part of the draw that is...

Mikey

[David E. Cohen]

In tournament play being part of a draw is alot better then an elimination. You do not get points for not surviving. But a 17 centre country, as part of a draw is alot better then a 1 centre country, as most Con's awards points for the size of the draw and for the number of centres you have. In other words the more centres the better at all times. And the smaller the draw the better also. But as long as you are part of the draw that is...

Mikey
There is a fundamental difference between "regular" Diplomacy and tournament Diplomacy. In "regular" Diplomacy, the goal is to win the game you are playing, but in tournament Diplomacy, the goal is not to win in any particular game, but rather to win the tournament, and forgoing optimal play (maximizing the chance of soloing) in order to increase one's "score" in a tournament (playing to the point system), is sometimes a wise strategy. In "regular" Diplomacy, every game can be savored as an independent experience, and therefore forgoing optimal play is nonsensical, while there is any chance of a solo to be had.

[sking500]

(Doing best Kirk impression possible)

Analysis...appreciated...but...brain...hurting...

Just...want...to...have...fun...

[David E. Cohen]

(Doing best Kirk impression possible)

Analysis...appreciated...but...brain...hurting...

Just...want...to...have...fun...

LOL

Then play to win, all the time, every time. More fun for you and for the people you play against.

[DY]

Though I've never been in a tournament, I always understood the score associated with a draw was equally shared between all suriviving players no matter how many SCs they had and obviously the less players taking part in a draw, the more points received.

[David E. Cohen]

Though I've never been in a tournament, I always understood the score associated with a draw was equally shared between all suriviving players no matter how many SCs they had and obviously the less players taking part in a draw, the more points received.

That is not the case in the various PBEM tournaments I have been inolved in. Dot count mattered in each of them. I don't think it is the case in FTF tournaments either.

[DY]

OK my bad.

[Buz Eddy]

There are three major scoring philosphies used in FTF play in the world. North America is primarily draw based. Within that there are as many variations as there are tournament directors. Center count tie breaking is common. The country played that David mentioned in worldmasters email has some adherents for tie-breaking. If you are really interested at bottom of the site map of the site below is a link titled scoring, and there Edi Birsan has assembled all of the scoring used in North American FTF tournaments.

In Europe a system called CDiplo prevails. The games terminate after a set number of game years. 8 is common. The goal is to have the most dots. The scoring is 1 dot per center, 38 points for most dots 14 for second most and 7 for 3rd most. (That's not right because its supposed to add up to 100) but that's the basic idea.

In Australia/New Zealand. They use a system called detourf. There is some elaboration, but it is basically a sum of dots held at conclusion of play.

A solo in any system results is all the points available going to the winner.

Allan B. Calhamer wrote the rules to say the results are solo or DIAS (Draws Include All Survivers). There are always purists, but players in competition, especially American players want to see a winner, and think playing to a tie is sister-kissing. So the various scoring systems have evolved to produce winners, where by the rulebook there are none.

[sking500]

Is there much of a community for Internet-based Diplomacy play? I have a copy of the PC game at home, and would love to hookup "on-line" with a group.

[David E. Cohen]

Is there much of a community for Internet-based Diplomacy play? I have a copy of the PC game at home, and would love to hookup "on-line" with a group.

There are many thriving PBEM communities out there (in fact, there are probably more games played PBEM than FTF at any given moment--they just take longer!). It depends on what you want. Among hand adjudicated forums, Cat23, DipWorld and Redscape are probably the largest (links may be found at the links page on my web site), but there are others as well, and then there is also the "Judge" community, which you can learn about in the rec.games.diplomacy newsgroup, or at the Diplomatic Pouch. I would suggest checking out several different communities, and getting involved with the one you think suits you best.

[BuzEddy]

David, as usual, is right. PBEM is at least 5 times the size of FTF regarding the numbers. It is much more difficult to assemble 7 people at the same place with 6 or 7 hours to devote, than to get 7 people wired together, for intermittent discussions and move submissions.

[David E. Cohen]

David, as usual, is right.

I *knew* I liked him. :^)

[Enderson]

LOL David :)

Enderson~.