Lecture: Diplomacy as art

I'm going to make the remarkable assertion that every Diplomacy game is a potential work of art. A great Diplomacy game is art. The number of twists in the story of the game are potentially multiple. The plot and tension of a good game rise and fall. 

Listen to Kurt Vonnegut discuss the shape of stories and imagine a diplomacy game where the players are the author of the game. I used the term singularly because it is a singular story written by seven players together. (Link Here: https://youtu.be/oP3c1h8v2ZQ)

A good game of Diplomacy is a great story. A great story is a work of art. Students, you are the artists who write your own game. 

Imagine, if you will, the story of England. He starts out as an average boy. But Professor edouche says unkind things and England becomes unhinged emotionally unstable. Things go from bad to worse as England makes a series of wild accusations against professor edouche and everyone else involved the game too. England makes so many accusations, and so wild are they, he cannot sink much lower. All England's neighbors begin to imagine he is a pariah. England feels very sad and isolated from the community. The fortunes of England decline precipitously.

But England regrets his actions. He is sorry for what he said and did. He is especially sorry for his remarks about edouche, who he now recognizes as a benevolent savior of England. He repents. Makes conciliatory posts on global. Makes amends for the past wrongs inflicted upon partially innocent neighbors. A neighbor, or maybe two, forgive him. They forgive because that is what human beings do at their highest and greatest. England is redeemed! Restored to her rightful greatness! Praise for edouche! Could this be the story of England in School of War?

bump

bump post builds.

bump again. The forum is active and I keep losing this thread.

I thought I'd offer some quick thoughts on builds while there's still some time before the phase goes through. I'll mostly only comment on who the build affects and what it might show about their future plans or worries.

F Kiel: pro-France, anti-Russia.
Given that it not an army, France should be happy, since Germany can't mount any sort of attack on him. Russia should be more worried, however. Since Russia's looking for control over Scandinavia and the northern Atlantic, a German fleet build directly counters those plans. It's possible that Germany will send it into the Baltic to do something exciting, but more likely will head to the Atlantic side to challenge Russia for the North Sea. It's not all bad for Russia, though, since it's possible for him to keep all his centres from Germany this year.

English Channel, Irish Sea disband: Pro-survival
Pretty obvious disband here. England needs to keep the little Centre he still has, and keeping the units on the mainland is probably the best to do so. It also limits the leverage England has elsewhere, as he is jo threat to anyone. France will easily take England in the long run if nothing changes, so England should be looking to reverse those for fortunes as quickly as possible.

F Brest: pro-Germany, anti-England.
The fact that it's not an army should be comforting to Germany, since it means that France does not have the forces available to liable to mount an attack on Germany this year. It will make it harder for England to keep his centres, however, since it will likely go north. France should be looking to take England's remaining centres as quickly as possible, since the longer it takes, the more chances England has to make something else happen which would turn things around.

F Smyrna: anti-Italy, neutral for Russia.
Turkey's build primarily shows that they do not trust Italy. I think it makes it seem that an I/T is off the table, as it will almost certainly be hard sing to AegS, where it can threaten Ion. It does offer even better defence that before, since now its unlikely anyone will be able to attack Turkey successfully for the time being. I fear it may limit Turkey's ability to expand, however. A 5-centre Turkey is a good place to be, but 18 is what's necessary. I think the I/T was probably Turkey's (also Italy's) best chance for rapid expansion, since Italy is in a position where they could brutally stab Austria, and make gains into Russia as well. I think the Mediterranean fleet build makes that il unlikely now. The reason I say it's neutral for Russia is that an army in Ank or Smyrna would have boded a lot worse. Turkey, even if they continues to fight Russia, has other things to worry about and divide their focus over.

First of all apologies for the absence - I have been tied up with a number of things of lately. Fortunately my absence went pretty unnoticed as the contributions from the professors and the peanut gallery have been excellent both in quantity and quality.

I'll do a overview and some comments per player:

The situation in terms of alliances seems to change all the time - I think a bit more stability would help. In my opinion alliances change very frequently in top ranked games and in games with less experienced players - this is obviously the latter case.

In top ranked games alliances change when there is an overall need for them to change. Here I find they change because players don't have a well formed long term strategy. So my recommendation to everybody is to plan a long terms strategy and stick to it until circumstances require you to change it.

England:
The situation is not good, as a rule of thumb when you have a foreign army on the island it's an uphill battle. Where did it go wrong? Tactics need some improvement and so does the strategy.

Italy: my recommendation a few turns back was to pick a battle and stick to it. That is exactly what you haven't done, I struggle to understand your movements from east to west and back. To date F has been busy with G and E and T with A. Once they have sorted themselves out they will come after you and if you are not big enough you won't be able to resist it. It looks like you have a deal with T, that's good but he will stick to it to help destroying A and then you will run the risk of being squashed between F and T...

Germany: the war with R is going well, and it looks like you have a good relationship with F...a bit more incisiveness wouldn't hurt but you strike me as a player that gets on well with everybody and can end up winning because the other have all killed each other...it might be a personal train worth nurturing!

Austria: It's hard. I think Italy has proven way too unreliable, you seriously need to think about getting yourself a strong and long lasting ally which can help you out of the situation you are in. That ally will be one that benefits from it. I suggest you think fast and identify one!

France: you are in a very good position, thank to your good convoys and the fact that you are keeping your fleets at sea,m which is where they need to be. For you a new game has just started, so you have to devise a strategy and implement it. It's not going to be easy to identify the best one and it takes time. I hope you have spent a lot of time on this move as it is absolutely key.

Turkey. Good, it looks like you are coming out of the cocoon, i really liked the last moves. Don't overlook the diplomacy though, there is still a lot to be done.

Russia: You are spread way too thinly - again, press the reset button and think about a good strategy moving forward as you could not be around for much longer in spite of your 5 scs!

Djantani's comment about Russia being too thinly spread was remarkably prescient, after those latest Spring moves, with Russia being probably forced to disband fleet Sevastapol and Germany's moves, Russia looks extremely vulnerable in Russia's heartland.. Moscow and Warsaw look most at risk
It also looks like the player with England has given up.. 1 HR 30 mins before spring move deadline, no orders saved & when I looked in Archive orders saw two holds, so possibly an NMR ?
Understandable, down to two sc's & diplomatically isolated because of previous rudeness to other players. No hope, so no effort.
France's support for Russia's attack on Edinburgh looks like more good play from France.. Anticipating Germany's attack on Russia, France has moved to be able to attack Germany as well as being able to use an alliance with Russia to cause problems for Germany.
Further signs of at least a good working relationship between Italy and Austria.. Attacking a common enemy.. Turkey
So despite Turkey's success with Sevastapol, it looks like Turkey is "diplomatically isolated" which has implications that should concern that player.

Although Turkey might do something brilliant in the autumn move, but I will refrain from making a specific suggestion.

Oh, it may have been innacurate to describe the recipients of the player with England's rudeness as other players, other participants might be more accurate.

bump

Bump

That was a super disappointing turn for Italy.

Spring 1904

At this point in a game, tactics start to matter. I realize that the tactical aspect of Diplomacy is not as sexy as the diplomacy and strategy aspects, but it is vitally important to raising a game to the elite level. Sharp tactical play starts to really make a difference from here on out.

AUSTRIA

You hung in there and look you have a shot to emerge into the mid game as a significant power. My concern for your prospects arises from the western theater. Hobby statistics indicate that Austria typically does well when Germany and England do well.

Go to this link:
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?cid=3199CD9857175D9F&resid=3199CD9857175D9F%21176
Scroll down and look at the two tables that rate the percentage of eliminations by power in Austrian solos and the percentage of powers that achieve a draw in an Austrian draw. These indicate that you want England and Germany to do well in the west. In this case, it is still possible for Germany to do well. Although, I have my doubts here. (See below.)

As of now, however, my guess is that Italy will continue to work with you until Turkey is maimed. You might want to look at the possibility of a Turkish ally as well. He could support you to Rumania and you likely could stab Italy and support him to Ionian Sea. It's an option.

ENGLAND

Both units hold. Have you given up the ghost? Are you actuating your revenge against the community at whole? We would like to redeem you. Is it possible for us to do so? I will assume you are giving up if you disband your A Edinburgh. It is still possible to defend London or take Liverpool from France if you keep the army.

FRANCE

You have a good thing going with both Germany and Russia. Not sure where you’re headed from here. The steady course would see you choose Germany and ride the alliance. Once England is destroyed both of you have less to worry about from the rear and you can face off against Russia and Italy and start moving east.

On the other hand, if you choose Russia, you can make immediate short term gains by stabbing Germany for Belgium or Munich. You probably can secure an alliance with Italy to do so as this would keep you occupied (from his perspective) and most probably out of the Med. The other argument in favor or Russia is the number of fleets owned by Germany. Russia has but one in the north. You could be dominant sea power in the north. I think the easiest route to a solo lies in an alliance with Russia.

GERMANY

I like the convoy to Livonia. You are guaranteed to take Warsaw. I wouldn’t be greedy beyond Warsaw. Make sure you use A Silesia to defend Munich. Maybe a bounce with France can be arranged. Hopefully, Italy doesn’t mess that up with an (unwanted?) support order.

The downside of the aggressive move east is that your entire back is exposed to France. A veteran Diplomacy player would be unlikely to pass up such a temptation. Maybe you can ally with Italy to help you. After Russia, it will be Austria and Italy with whom you must deal. Considering they’re probably allied presently, you have diplomacy to conduct.

You need to court Turkey. You can both help each other. The quicker Russia collapses, even if you aren’t getting the centers. The reason is the longer your back is exposed to France, the greater the probability he stabs the crap out of you.

ITALY

Sticking with Austria has its argument. You can push into Turkey and potentially eliminate the eastern threat. On the other hand, that Turkish fleet disband really neuters him for a while. It is similar to the situation you have with France. You have the luxury of time. This is a window through which you potentially crawl into Austria with knives. This is also your best avenue to an Italian solo in my opinion. Turkey could be a convenient ally for you. Who else will ally with him? Austria?

RUSSIA

The worm turns. I am not a big fan of the Steamroller because it means that Russia is a target if the board units. Of course, the Steamroller is dead, but the forces on your borders are already there and have opportunity to take your centers.

Germany has declared full scale war against you. You need an alliance with France badly. I would defend Moscow and hope for time. Germany might try for both of your heartland centers and you need to build somewhere. Hopefully, Turkey does not order A Sevastaopol supports A Livonia to Moscow. You could lose both of your centers to Germany.

TURKEY

You need to cultivate an ally. With the fleet gone, you could form an alliance with Italy. The opportunity for him to stab Austria has to be a tempting one. The same for Austria. The Italians have no business in Rumania. Clearly, that center is Austrian or Turkish. He could be expelled if you can come to an agreement.

Losing your fleet is bad for the allure of an AT. As a tactical matter, if you sensed the AI would hold last turn, you could have moved F Smy-EME; F Gre-Aeg. That would have given you bargaining power with Austria.

You still have an opportunity with Italy and Germany.

There is a tactical move you can make to protect Bulgaria. I’m not going to give it to you, but I will be interested to see if you figure it out . . . assuming your diplomacy fails.

∆+1

boop, cuz that was a fun phase

The one thing I might quibble with from eturnage's last post, is in his comments on France, with specific regard to how he might attack Germany. Going for Munich or making a supported attack on Belgium have their relative merits. But it's fair to assume that Germany will act to protect them. And they are not France's only choice. There's another choice. It's not an sc. It could be compared to Ukraine. Move an army into it, and another up to Burgundy, and whilst France won't get a German sc immediately, it might put France in an extremely strong tactical position to attack in the next year.

SPRING 1904

I am glad I get the chance to contribute! These are listed in order of in my opinion interestingness.

FRANCE: A
So is this not a manifest French attack on Germany? It looks that way to me. It doesn't sound like we're convinced, but I don't see how it can be anything else.

Anyway. Very well done France. You've set up where you may not get builds this turn, but you can set yourself up to be the winner out of the west. Russia your ally is weak and dependent, but not so weak that you can't get help vs. Germany. I really like the move to Gascony instead of Mars; it could still cover Mars but gives Italy no reason to panic without opening up too much to Italian aggression.

GERMANY: C-
At first, I was not super impressed with the convoy, but it's good. The result might work out to just be trading one center for another, but it gets that army to a position doing something more useful, getting it out of a kind of dead-end center into the action. So that's pretty smart.

The real problem here is your other front. France can threat both Munich and Belgium, requiring you (if you want to guarantee not losing centers to France) that you use three units vs. his two. Plus Russia gets a build! This is not a good turn for Germany. I guess it is interesting that you finally moved Munich, though this is a bad time to do it. If you let France know that you were moving on Warsaw with Munich, it was a bad decision.

Germany has some very interesting options for responding to this French threat. Things are certainly not lost, but France can come out of this turn much better positioned that Germany can.

RUSSIA: D+
This was originally a D but you got help from France in an important way, and you can likely ensure that you don't go down a center. But right now there are four hostile foreign armies touching Russian home centers that one Russian army is covering. Bad! Unless Turkey and Germany are hostile or very incompetent, or you turn things around with one of them, you could be down to one home center at the end of next year.

AUSTRIA: B+
Things are going well for you. You're probably going to benefit more from the conflict with Turkey than Italy will. I'm a big believer that you should structure alliances such that the other party needs you more than you need them. Austria is getting there. It's conceivable that Austria will emerge from a very bad beginning as the strongest power in the east.

ITALY: D+
Didn't do anything! Apparently Turkey is Italy's main enemy now, but Italy let Turkey take Sev, potentially erasing the gains of taking Greece and burning any good will with Russia. I really don't like (from Italy's perspective) the tactics and positioning of the AI gains. Unless Italy is getting something unseen out of this, Yoyoyozo has exactly the right response: Super disappointing turn for Italy.

ENGLAND: F
England appears to have some real life problems coming in, but England also appears to have given up.

Please sir, may I have some feedback?

How do the professors feel about Germany's build and its subsequent use? I felt that had he built an army, he could have kept Sweden and still convoyed unopposed to Livonia. The fleet could have followed.

I was disappointed with the tactics from Austria and Italy this turn- what did the professors think?

Oh crap

I'm not a professor, but I feel like being nosy today.

Germany's build and moves. Given that Germany was attacking Russia, I think he should have built an army. This is further compounded by all the other armies sitting next to Munich. However, I don't think his moves are that bad. He's got North Sea. He can get Sweden back this turn and take Warsaw and maybe take a shot at Moscow or St. Petersburg. The bigger concern is that France is about to get big, and those armies are flowing towards Germany and not away. I'm not sure that Russia actually gets a build here out of Edi, as France can just take it, especially if England has given up. That doesn't necessarily make things better for Germany though.

Turkey: D
Taking Sev is nice, but now you have no friends, no defense, and nowhere to grow. You need to break the kooky, inefficient AI, or bring France in to break it for you (although that might create some problems down the line). I can't see the press, but I fail to see how Italy is benefitting from the current arrangement, or why Austria is ok with the Italian armies hanging out in Ven/Tyr, and yet they're still piling on you.

A/I tactics: I count 9 combined units, and only 2 moved. Of those, only 1 moved in a useful way. First, the bounce in pie is pretty wasteful. If Italy doesn't trust France, he should move on him before he gets bigger. If Italy is allied with Austria, why hang out in Venice and Tyrolia, and why is Austria ok with this?

Taking Greece is good. However, taking it from Albania creates a few problems. First, Italy's fleets are just sitting around, and Italy isn't getting anything out of this. I would have had Italy in Greece with a fleet (which is great for Austria because that fleet isn't moving inland towards the Austrian home centers). It Italy and Austria trust each other, they could also have been much more efficient with the other armies. Taking a shot at Bulgaria, either from Serbia with Trieste filling, or Rumania with Budapest filling, would have been reasonable. If they wanted to take the guesswork out and guarantee Greece this turn, Rumania should have at least supported Sevastaspol to keep Russia onside and Turkey bottled up.

As a side note, Russia attempting to convoy Turkey into Rumania isn't the best either. Yeah, Turkey in Rumania is better than Turkey in Sevastapol, but if dislodged, that army is going to Ukraine and possibly working with Germany (or even Turkey!) against Russia in the fall.

I totally forgot to grade Turkey, and I want to expound further upon why I and it seems peterwiggin were so disappointed in the Italian in particular turn.

TURKEY: C-
If the AI holds, you're in bad long term shape, but you're very smartly positioned to make them pay for it. You have time, in other words, to do Diplomacy. It's like a whole new game! But one where everyone else is already friends.

About the AI (especially I): If units aren't clearly doing something to further your game, you're doing something wrong. Sometimes this means something boring like covering a center, but that's suboptimal. Italy has so many things to be doing rather than a basically pointless support hold of Ionian and bounce in Piedmont. If things are good with Austria, Italy could be moving either to engage aggressively with the French, who've had the game laid out on a platter for them. Or Italy could be moving to make a claim to German centers. Or, heck, if you're sticking with that weird Rumania set up, go get some more Russian centers and take Sev away from Turkey. And not support holding Sev is really a mistake unless this is some complicated anti-Russia and anti-Austria thing, which would be silly.

Earlier I really liked Italy's feint west. Think how different the board would look right now if Italy were doing that again! And it wouldn't mean a fight with France, necessarily; Italy could have demanded bounces in Piedmont and Western Med to keep France from moving forward if Italy's not moving forward. This would be an irritating demand, but not necessarily one that starts a war.

For Austria, I don't think this is actually that bad. France growing doesn't really hurt Austria. Italy growing makes Austria the even weaker half of this alliance. I don't understand things from the Italian side.

Rumania and Serbia trying for Bul while Albania and Ionian tried for Greece would have been guaranteed to work. Did Italy not trust Austria enough to try that?

bump

Yes, that’s the gist of what I was getting at- certainly trying for Bul.

Critically, there was no need to defend Ionian- if Ion is forced, then turkey is trading a guess at an Italian centre in exchange for Italy having a guess at a Turkish centre. That’s not a good trade, so you know Turkey is unlikely to force it.

This means that Ionian is free to take a guess on Aeg/Eas, or to move to Greece, with TyS following up in case the move works and Turkey goes to the Ionian with one.

Not using Rum for support is a big deal because it is wasting a unit, and not taking Bul is a big deal because Turkey’s position is now going to be better than it was at the start of the year, which is the reverse of what A/I want.

The bounce in Pie is also bad- France is unlikely to attack at this stage, and if you’re really worried, just send Ven there (or hold- Italy can absolutely withstand a french attack from here). The bounce wastes two units, to defend against an attack that is very unlikely. It would have been better to send Tyl to Mun, or to walk both up to Bob and Mun if you’re feeling aggressive.

I suspect Austria is calling the shots here- but I don’t think it’s good structure for Italy not to get anything here. Italy is probably going to lose Rum, because Austria didn’t use Serbia to go for Bul. I think it would have been better structure for Italy to get Greece (with a fleet), and Austria to get Bul.

Good structure means that you have incentives to keep working together (it’s both easy and best for you to keep working together). Bad structure means that your ally is held to you entirely on trust- and terrible structure means that your ally is incentivised to stab you.

My guess at the press is that Austria is calling the shots, or that Italy is being too paranoid about all the possibilities, or both. Or perhaps, Turkey is pulling off some amazing press to break the A/I.

Diplomacy tactics aren’t about writing the best set of orders to defend against all possibilities- they’re about writing the most efficient set of orders. Here, we have restricted four units (Ven/Tyl/Ion/TyS) all to defend against unlikely moves. These moves are “expensive” because they each spend a unit in exchange for low value (or zero) position improvement for Italy. There may be some diplomatic pay off, but the moves are otherwise of such low value that good press would have sufficed. Remember that you get a LOT of diplomatic pay off by submitting all holds- so diplomatic payoff isn’t always worth it.

Relative efficiency is important. In this case, Italy’s moves have low outcome per unit. France, Turkey and Austria all made more efficient moves with better outcome per unit. This is bad for Italy.

In my opinion that is a really good post from ATC. Each player has a finite number of "unit moves" per Spring and Autumn move. ("unit moves" ??? Similar concept to "man hours" )
So I agree with ATC.. Get the best return from a finite resource, the most "bang for bucks"
The "cost" of wasted "unit moves" is like lost opportunity costs, and wasted unit moves have a "continuing cost", eg, didn't capture an extra sc, didn't get a build, don't have an extra unit, delay in or consequent inability to overpower a rival.
Time is an important resource in the game as well. The really good players ( ie "not me" ) get the most out of their forces in the least number of moves.
So, good post ATC.
On a different topic. I think it's a mistake to overestimate the influence on the game of any individual contributor from the "Peanut Gallery", particularly my good (?) self. Players in a Skool of War game have several sources of advice and opinions.

Oh man, I should have just said what ATC said: "Relative efficiency is important. In this case, Italy’s moves have low outcome per unit. France, Turkey and Austria all made more efficient moves with better outcome per unit. This is bad for Italy."