Some comments on Edi's new article

[RuHurt]

I just read your latest article, Edi, about Italy in Diplomacy, and must say I enjoyed it. But, in the spirit of Diplomacy, there are a few issues I have with some of your conclusions, and since Italy is my favorite power to play, I feel obligated to state my views on it ;).

1: You state that a bounce in the Black Sea is a good sign for Italy. In general, I agree, but it should be noticed that more and more, bounces are becoming acceptable truces between Turkey and Russia, and could just as easily be a sign of a forming Juggernaut, as it could an unfriendly relationship. Italy should be cautious either way.

2: This isn't so much a disagreement, as it is an addition. One four-on-two that should be considered is everyone ganging up on England and Austria. In this case (and this has happened to me) Italy is best off working with Turkey against Austria, and then turning on Turkey with Russia's (and possibly France's; see below) help.

3: You seem to dislike an Italy-Turkey alliance (which is not surprising, most people do). I agree that it is difficult to maintain, but I haven't found it to be the monstrosity it seems to be generally regarded as. In fact, I like it better than the Italy-Austria, because the IA is always expected, and very hard to get going. The IT, on the other hand gets going very quickly, and the powers can reasonably grow in different directions, with only a few units to hold a DMZ line.

4: I, personally, love the Italy-France (and, better, Italy-France-Germany); with enough trust between them, France can send units through Piedmont and Tyrolia, to help deal with Austria, and then guard Italy's back while the Duce moves on Turkey. If France allies with Germany against England (this is where everyone against England and Austria seems to happen the most often), then Germany has the ability to turn on Russia, while France and Italy mop up Turkey. For an example of this three-way alliance in action, see the DipPouch Judge game "regularflavor." It worked perfectly, and I, as Italy, was able to (after surviving a weak stab by France) turn he and Germany against each other, and take 18 centers. The IF is, at least, well worth looking into.

5: While Italy can effectively ally with England, I'm personally opposed to the alliance; it leaves Italy too open to an attack by Austria and Turkey, who tend to work together in that situation. Unless you can get Russia with you, you're walking a very thin line.

I feel a little silly bringing these things up, as you've played the game for probably around thirty years more than I, and have far, far more experience than myself, but maybe you won't just laugh at my ridiculous thoughts anyway :D ;).

[David E. Cohen]

I see Edi has slipped his long-held (multiple decades) "Odd Theory" in there (it is an old article of his). That is, a five on two alliance structure is to be aimed for (if you are in the five), followed by a three on two alliance structure (if you are in the three), following which the game probably devolves into a three way draw. How depressing.

If you are looking to *win*, as opposed to be involved in a draw, it would be better, unless it tangibly benefits you a great deal, to keep as many players in the game as possible, for as long as possible, especially if they are not out for your blood. This will help keep the player relationships of the game complex. Having a four on three, especially where the members of each group are not constant, seems more conducive to this sort of game.

By and large, simplicity encourages draws, by cutting down on tactical and strategic options. Complexity offers more opportunities to take advantage of the mistakes of others, and exploit miscommunication and mistrust among the other players. All things being equal, I'd much rather be at 14 dots facing a board where there are 5 other players at 4-4-4-4-4, than two other players at 10-10. Maybe I need to write an article about "Getting Even". LOL

[Edi Birsan]

Several different issues touched upon in the comments above...
1. an Italy-Turkish alliance is a rough one to make work to a good conclusion because of the complexity of development once Austria is gone.
2. Jumping on Austria when Russia and Turkey are going after them can pay off if in the next phase you are confident that it will be Italy and Russia against Turkey and that in the west there is sufficient chaos to allow you to pull that off.
3. The Odd Theory still remains very valid and in draw based face to face tournaments the 3 way draw is the most common result amongst experienced players. However, it is obvious that if you can accomplish a situation where you are at 14 and every one else is at 4 then you are in a better chance to go to solo in a well played game because of the difficulties in people getting together.

All of this depends on the enviornment. In classic email games where I think there is still around a 20% drop out rate then simply keeping people down and not out gives you the greater chance that they will simply drop out (NMR) or not pay attention.
The Odd Theory and many of the other approaches to play go on the basis that there will be a determined play throughout the game by veteran players who are determined to stop the leader.

Further it should be noted that in the classic Odd Theory of a game that comes down to three powers (or power blocks) then there is a chance of solo wherein two of the parties agree to race to the win and one develops a tactical advantage if the third party trys to fight each equally or a diplomatic advantage where the odd position out goes to throw the game to one side or the other. Because the game rarely get's that far in a face to face the result is a more stable inclination to end in the three way draw.

Now when the game dynamics are played in a tournament system which does NOT take into account draws as a means of recognition of achievement then there is a lot of different things that can happen depending on the nature of the scoring system and the player's awareness of it.

[David E. Cohen]

3. The Odd Theory still remains very valid and in draw based face to face tournaments the 3 way draw is the most common result amongst experienced players. However, it is obvious that if you can accomplish a situation where you are at 14 and every one else is at 4 then you are in a better chance to go to solo in a well played game because of the difficulties in people getting together.
Not just in that situation. In just about any situation, the more complexity, the more the chance of a positional/tactical breakout that can result in a solo.



All of this depends on the enviornment. In classic email games where I think there is still around a 20% drop out rate then simply keeping people down and not out gives you the greater chance that they will simply drop out (NMR) or not pay attention.
The Odd Theory and many of the other approaches to play go on the basis that there will be a determined play throughout the game by veteran players who are determined to stop the leader.
While I prefer to play in games where everyone is a dedicated expert, in the "real world" of the Hobby this is not often an option. Striving for complexity is even more beneficial in the "average" game, where there is a mixture of veteran/newbie, and dedicated/uncaring.



Further it should be noted that in the classic Odd Theory of a game that comes down to three powers (or power blocks) then there is a chance of solo wherein two of the parties agree to race to the win and one develops a tactical advantage if the third party trys to fight each equally or a diplomatic advantage where the odd position out goes to throw the game to one side or the other. Because the game rarely get's that far in a face to face the result is a more stable inclination to end in the three way draw.

Now when the game dynamics are played in a tournament system which does NOT take into account draws as a means of recognition of achievement then there is a lot of different things that can happen depending on the nature of the scoring system and the player's awareness of it.
Races to a solo are far more talked of than seen.

Tournament Diplomacy is a very different game than "regular" Diplomacy. In tournament Diplomacy, it is obvious that one should play to win the tournament, and of course this may well mean that playing for a draw may be an optimal strategy in any individual game, depending on the scoring system. In "regular" Diplomacy, however, the object of the game is not to get a share in a draw, but rather to win the game.

[Buz Eddy]

<< In tournament Diplomacy, it is obvious that one should play to win the tournament, and of course this may well mean that playing for a draw may be an optimal strategy in any individual game, depending on the scoring system.>>

Obvious to you and me perhaps, but I think not to a majority of my FTF compatriots. Most tournament results are posted round by round in other parts of the world, but Seattle is the only tournament to post scores as the tournament progresses. Edi doesn't post in the Bay Area, Mike doesn't post in Victoria, Dan doesn't post in Columbus.

The great expressed fear is that someone might not play the game at hand, they might actually play the tournament if they knew the tournament standings. Not posting scores strips the drama out of the competition.

[David E. Cohen]

In PBEM Diplomacy tournaments, there is often either an ongoing tally, or a way to view all the games as they are progressing, or both. Even if there wasn't, to ignore the quirks of the particular scoring system being used in a tournament seems foolish.

[Buz Eddy]

<<In PBEM Diplomacy tournaments, there is often either an ongoing tally, or a way to view all the games as they are progressing, or both. Even if there wasn't, to ignore the quirks of the particular scoring system being used in a tournament seems foolish.>>

In a collection of players attending an open tournament there is generally only 15% that have a shot at winning the event. That's 85% that have paid the entry fee and should be entiled to something beyond being tools for the contenders to manipulate.

The tournament that draw best have social diversions, Other gaming, poker tables, barbecue, group dinners. The tournament itself needs token awards for all levels and a way to track that competition. It needs ways to root for ones favorite top players, and against the guy that knifed you in the first round. It needs to be a visible field of competition to hold the interest of the non-contender.

But the accomplished players make the rules. And the thought of being the known tournament leader going into the last round is traumatic.

[Edi Birsan]

In PBEM Diplomacy tournaments, there is often either an ongoing tally, or a way to view all the games as they are progressing, or both. Even if there wasn't, to ignore the quirks of the particular scoring system being used in a tournament seems foolish.


The reality in the PBeM tournaments is the same as in the face to face tournaments that the overwhelming majority of the players have no clue as to what the tournament standings are and are not affected by them.

For example I just finished the second round to the World Masters tournament and no one in the game other than one player was even aware that there was a listing, nor did they care. Further email tournaments are grossly affected by drop outs and NMR's. Both my games had massive effects by Drops/NMR's and suddenly new players. The email games are not even a pale ghost of the value of the game as compared to face to face play.

[David E. Cohen]

The reality in the PBeM tournaments is the same as in the face to face tournaments that the overwhelming majority of the players have no clue as to what the tournament standings are and are not affected by them.

For example I just finished the second round to the World Masters tournament and no one in the game other than one player was even aware that there was a listing, nor did they care. Further email tournaments are grossly affected by drop outs and NMR's. Both my games had massive effects by Drops/NMR's and suddenly new players. The email games are not even a pale ghost of the value of the game as compared to face to face play.

Lack of commitment is a fact of life in a fair proportion of the PBEM world. Since, however, PBEM represents a large segment of the hobby, blithely discounting its importance would be inappropriate. Your comment may be generally true of open tournaments, or games in open forums, but it is certainly not generally true of invitational games or games in closed forums, and more committed players normally gravitate to those venues. Those games are easily just as intensely played (though over a longer period of time, of course) as any FTF game, and PBEM play at its best is certainly not a "pale ghost" of FTF play of any caliber. And just remember, no one ever had to end a PBEM game prematurely because players were getting tired and had to go to work the next day.


P.S. Just finished? The second round of WM02 ended months ago.