Worst starting country

by **DougJoe** » Mon Apr 15, 2024 2:59 am

Diplomacy&Warfare wrote: ↑
Thu Feb 29, 2024 12:09 am
Nice nickname, I am now "Dip & War".
Turkey is hard to kill, but they start the game stuck in a corner and must either kill Austria or Russia to get out of said corner. This requires allies because there are literally not enough provinces to attack from because you are cramped in a corner, while allies are functionally nonexistent in gunboat. The crusher is somewhat strong, but if Italy Lepantos you are dead, while if Russia maintains basic precautions such as not letting you into the Black Sea (which you can't negotiate yourself into because it's gunboat and having a unit in Ukr, you will gain nothing and have already made an enemy of Russia.
Finally, even when Turkey kills Russia and Austria, getting units out far enough to fight Germany and Italy takes multiple years due to Turkey being in a corner. Generally, the best Turkey can do in most games is draw with Italy and a western power, or two western powers. But, wait, draws can't be requested because THERE'S NO CHAT IN GUNBOAT.

I just finished this game (https://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=869772) as Turkey that ended in a E/G/I/T draw (Italy with two western powers). Italy did a really good job of surrendering his homeland to get a place on the stalemate line (rather than trying to defend his home centers) and I probably made a mistake at one point in going for Russia instead of trying to help Russia against Germany so I could at least try to get Munich. I had a couple of years where I could make no progress but A/I were fighting and then Italy supported me into Greece and that changed the board calculus quite a bit.

by **CaptainFritz28** » Wed Mar 06, 2024 11:32 pm

I don't really pay much attention to statistics, but I think that in order of my personal subjective enjoyability, this is my ranking:

1. Germany
2. France
3. Russia
4. England
5. Turkey
6. Austria
7. Italy

That said, I enjoy them all.

by **DiplomacyandWarfare** » Wed Mar 06, 2024 10:26 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Wed Mar 06, 2024 7:43 pm
There are other statistical treatments of Diplomacy games, some of which may come to different conclusions. But the ones I've linked here all agree that Austria suffers a persisting disadvantage, for example.

I agree on that one. Austria is very weak in both gunboat and press. Their only hopes are Russia and Italy both working with them to fight Turkey, or Germany going Anchluss.

In general, though, most statistics are inaccurate between the shown statistics being shown for solos (Turkey, in my experience, draws 2 or 3 way more than France, but France gets more solos), low data samples(Someone quoted statistics where Austria moving to Bohemia, a very anti-Germany and also very bad strategy, has higher win chance than literally anything else, but I'm too lazy to dig the quote out of the 4-page thread), and inaccurate data sampling (ie, only from one site, only from gunboat or press but does not indicate such, etc), those statistics are very unreliable. The best judge of the most powerful country is the players, while players, deciding that a particular country has the potential to easily grow too powerful and solo, may not align with that country, reducing that country's chance of winning. Diplomacy games and the power of perception shape the perception of power and the game Diplomacy. Yay, mostly symmetric sentence.

by **Pengwinja** » Wed Mar 06, 2024 10:25 pm

But that is not ALWAYS the case. There is never a clear disadvantage until the first moves are made. It could always go either way.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Wed Mar 06, 2024 7:43 pm

Pengwinja wrote: ↑
Wed Mar 06, 2024 7:25 pm
I’m mainly asking because almost all the arguments for the worst country in diplomacy are opinionated, and i prefer to stand by the facts.

Here are the data from WebDip's sister site, VDip: https://www.vdiplomacy.com/stats.php?variantID=106&variantID=1

Here's an article that has play-by-email WebDip data:
https://brotherbored.com/guest-post-is-the-diplomacy-map-unbalanced/

Here's an article based on game data from 5,000 games:
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?cid=3199CD9857175D9F&resid=3199CD9857175D9F%21176

Here's yet more data based on an old repository of game outcomes that no longer seems to be available:
https://diplom.org/Zine/F2007R/Burton/statistician3.htm

There are other statistical treatments of Diplomacy games, some of which may come to different conclusions. But the ones I've linked here all agree that Austria suffers a persisting disadvantage, for example.

by **Pengwinja** » Wed Mar 06, 2024 7:42 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Wed Mar 06, 2024 7:30 pm
Thinking about this more, it makes sense that press can't totally overwhelm the strategic reality of the board.

If players are rational they can't just be talked into anything.

Moreover, press is itself competitive. If I'm in a ranked game with players who are just as good as me at press, then the board disadvantage really does matter.

If we made some extremely weak new playable nation on the Classic map (say, a one-unit Switzerland), I wouldn't expect that nation to have an equal chance of getting into the final draw in a genuinely competitive game.

This is true, but doesn’t go against balancing because it deals with two things that don’t determine starting country strength: The players and the hypothetical.

The players determine starting country strength, and in that case, it is balanced/

Yes, if you made a 1 unit Switzerland, it would be weak (unless, of course, you are counting terrain) but, there isn’t a country that is THAT unbalanced. Russia has another unit, but it has been shown to not always help them.

All different arguments for country balancing go something like this:
“This country is weak because this CAN happen.”
It could even look like:
“This country is weak because this is LIKELY to happen because it’s a good idea for the other countries”
When someone says countries, they mean players, because the country, in this case, is a thing, so it doesn’t have any set intelligence. It may be a good idea, but there is no telling that they know what that idea is. Country balancing depends on the players.

by **Aristocrat** » Wed Mar 06, 2024 7:40 pm

Pengwinja wrote: ↑
Wed Mar 06, 2024 7:25 pm
I’m mainly asking because almost all the arguments for the worst country in diplomacy are opinionated, and i prefer to stand by the facts.

There are various articles around, https://diplom.org/Zine/F2006M/Burton/DP_F2006M_best_powers.htm for one example. I know this site's sister site (vdip) also has stats.

I think the above link follows what is pretty consistently stated over time - that France/Russia tends to be the strongest country in press, and Italy/Austria the worst. And the stats are not super close (France is in a win or draw in the above stats about 45% more than Austria is; Russia's solo rate is about 80% above Italy's).

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Wed Mar 06, 2024 7:30 pm

Thinking about this more, it makes sense that press can't totally overwhelm the strategic reality of the board.

If players are rational they can't just be talked into anything.

Moreover, press is itself competitive. If I'm in a ranked game with players who are just as good as me at press, then the board disadvantage really does matter.

If we made some extremely weak new playable nation on the Classic map (say, a one-unit Switzerland), I wouldn't expect that nation to have an equal chance of getting into the final draw in a genuinely competitive game.

by **Pengwinja** » Wed Mar 06, 2024 7:25 pm

I’m mainly asking because almost all the arguments for the worst country in diplomacy are opinionated, and i prefer to stand by the facts.

by **Pengwinja** » Wed Mar 06, 2024 7:24 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Wed Mar 06, 2024 7:19 pm

Pengwinja wrote: ↑
Wed Mar 06, 2024 7:15 pm
I, personally, believe that there is no worst starting country for press games.

The reason being is because the main aspect of diplomacy do not change from country, and that main aspect is, you guessed it, diplomacy. Sure, from country to country, position changes, but their ability to manipulate others and to work with each other does NOT change. Some people may be natural enemies, but that doesn’t mean there is an uneven balance in their ability to make alliances. When a game that is mostly played off the board, you cannot use just the board to try and determine which country is better.

Non-press games have a difference, because you don’t make alliances verbally. It must be an understanding. For example, Austria and Turkey are almost NEVER going to make an alliance, but if they can talk each other into it, they could make an alliance. If they can no longer talk to each other, the chance that was already slim goes to practically none, because they are natural enemies. Both of the countries may want to be allies, but, if they think the other country doesn’t, they will not. In that case, the game is played off of strategies.

Essentially, Non-press games are based off of already existing strategies, and press is based off of diplomatic relations. This doesn’t mean that press games don’t have any strategy, but if you are smooth talker, you can throw other peoples strategies out the window.

This is what I think is true. Please feel free to make corrections and ask question.
I agree that press/diplomacy could, in theory, equalize all nations.

In practice, however, there is overwhelming evidence that it does not.

Any real game data I've looked at suggests that some nations are quite strongly disadvantaged.

Diplomacy is a balancing mechanic, but yes, data shows that there are countries that have a disadvantage. Data can be incorrect if not interpreted correctly though. Could you tell me what data you are using, and how you are interpreting it?

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Wed Mar 06, 2024 7:19 pm

Pengwinja wrote: ↑
Wed Mar 06, 2024 7:15 pm
I, personally, believe that there is no worst starting country for press games.

The reason being is because the main aspect of diplomacy do not change from country, and that main aspect is, you guessed it, diplomacy. Sure, from country to country, position changes, but their ability to manipulate others and to work with each other does NOT change. Some people may be natural enemies, but that doesn’t mean there is an uneven balance in their ability to make alliances. When a game that is mostly played off the board, you cannot use just the board to try and determine which country is better.

Non-press games have a difference, because you don’t make alliances verbally. It must be an understanding. For example, Austria and Turkey are almost NEVER going to make an alliance, but if they can talk each other into it, they could make an alliance. If they can no longer talk to each other, the chance that was already slim goes to practically none, because they are natural enemies. Both of the countries may want to be allies, but, if they think the other country doesn’t, they will not. In that case, the game is played off of strategies.

Essentially, Non-press games are based off of already existing strategies, and press is based off of diplomatic relations. This doesn’t mean that press games don’t have any strategy, but if you are smooth talker, you can throw other peoples strategies out the window.

This is what I think is true. Please feel free to make corrections and ask question.

I agree that press/diplomacy could, in theory, equalize all nations.

In practice, however, there is overwhelming evidence that it does not.

Any real game data I've looked at suggests that some nations are quite strongly disadvantaged.

by **Pengwinja** » Wed Mar 06, 2024 7:15 pm

I, personally, believe that there is no worst starting country for press games.

The reason being is because the main aspect of diplomacy do not change from country, and that main aspect is, you guessed it, diplomacy. Sure, from country to country, position changes, but their ability to manipulate others and to work with each other does NOT change. Some people may be natural enemies, but that doesn’t mean there is an uneven balance in their ability to make alliances. When a game that is mostly played off the board, you cannot use just the board to try and determine which country is better.

Non-press games have a difference, because you don’t make alliances verbally. It must be an understanding. For example, Austria and Turkey are almost NEVER going to make an alliance, but if they can talk each other into it, they could make an alliance. If they can no longer talk to each other, the chance that was already slim goes to practically none, because they are natural enemies. Both of the countries may want to be allies, but, if they think the other country doesn’t, they will not. In that case, the game is played off of strategies.

Essentially, Non-press games are based off of already existing strategies, and press is based off of diplomatic relations. This doesn’t mean that press games don’t have any strategy, but if you are smooth talker, you can throw other peoples strategies out the window.

This is what I think is true. Please feel free to make corrections and ask question.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Wed Mar 06, 2024 6:15 pm

Diplomacy is so weird in this regard.

I play several 2-player board games that feature asymmetric competition (War of the Ring, Undaunted: North Africa, Watergate), but these games are so thoroughly playtested that win rates for experienced players almost always conform to 50/50 for either role.

Diplomacy just said screw it, let's make a game that is blatantly unbalanced and allow press + playgroup culture to bring things back towards balance.

However, many decades later, classic Diplomacy remains extremely unbalanced in most play groups even though there are more data, articles, and videos about Diplomacy strategy than ever. Common knowledge about, say, Austria's on-average weakness could be an advantage for Austria (e.g., Austria can credibly claim not to be a threat in the early game), but it also ends up being a deficit (e.g., since Austria's weak, other players should conspire to just take them out early).

No doubt different playgroups will settle on different meta strategies. Excellent press play can theoretically get one out of any pickle. But for press players on a site like WebDip, which I assume has similar play statistics to those found on VDip, it is undeniably disadvantageous to start as some nations (especially Austria and Italy). This disadvantage seems to persist even though most players know that these nations are the hardest to win with.

I don't find this aspect of Diplomacy particularly charming. If a new board game came out in 2024 with these balance issues, I wouldn't hesitate to call it poor game design. The combination of poor balance and permanent elimination are why my IRL box of Diplomacy will almost never get used.

by **Aristocrat** » Wed Mar 06, 2024 5:51 pm

It's worth noting that the Calhamer list is so old it predates the Lepanto (the article does discuss the Lepanto as a "development" that may change Diplomacy game theory, but the above list does not incorporate it). I was not alive back then, but by all accounts Diplomacy was a very different game in the 50s/60s/70s.

Edit: It also would not surprise me if there was a substantial unconscious bias towards a England-France alliance among UK/US players in the early days of the game, for obvious reasons. That would also help account for England being seen as substantially stronger than it is now.

by **CaptainFritz28** » Wed Mar 06, 2024 5:38 pm

Calhamer's list is based off of the amount of connections that each nation has. Germany has five neigbors, thus they are on the bottom of the list. Turkey only has two, so they're at the top.

I'm not saying I agree with it, just that it's an interesting perspective.

by **Pengwinja** » Wed Mar 06, 2024 12:43 pm

Diplomacy&Warfare wrote: ↑
Wed Mar 06, 2024 12:27 pm

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 05, 2024 6:18 am
From the game's designer (although that doesn't mean it's automatically true):
https://diplomacyzines.co.uk/strategy-tactics/articles-by-alan-b-calhamer/across-the-whole-board/

"As Diplomacy progressed from its initial form to its final market form, it was played frequently by a group of good players who steadily progressed in their understanding of the game against steadily improving opponents. The strength of the countries as determined by experience within this group ran from Turkey at the strongest down through Britain, France, Italy, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and lastly, Germany. We note the close correspondence of that list to the list of countries in reverse order of the number of neighbours, as read off the network: Turkey, 2; England, France and Italy, 3; Russia and Austria-Hungary, 4; Germany 5."
Indeed, this is not automatically true, and is probably entirely false. Turkey should be way lower, Germany a lot higher, and why is Italy tied for 2nd?

Because terrain, obviously.

In all honesty, i have no idea what this is saying. Is it saying that the ones at the highest of the list are the most avoided, or the ones at the bottom?

by **DiplomacyandWarfare** » Wed Mar 06, 2024 12:27 pm

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 05, 2024 6:18 am
From the game's designer (although that doesn't mean it's automatically true):
https://diplomacyzines.co.uk/strategy-tactics/articles-by-alan-b-calhamer/across-the-whole-board/

"As Diplomacy progressed from its initial form to its final market form, it was played frequently by a group of good players who steadily progressed in their understanding of the game against steadily improving opponents. The strength of the countries as determined by experience within this group ran from Turkey at the strongest down through Britain, France, Italy, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and lastly, Germany. We note the close correspondence of that list to the list of countries in reverse order of the number of neighbours, as read off the network: Turkey, 2; England, France and Italy, 3; Russia and Austria-Hungary, 4; Germany 5."

Indeed, this is not automatically true, and is probably entirely false. Turkey should be way lower, Germany a lot higher, and why is Italy tied for 2nd?

by **JECE** » Tue Mar 05, 2024 8:42 pm

JustAGuyNamedWill wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 05, 2024 6:09 pm
Wait, why does a Diplomacy game with outside factors sound fun? Board game idea? Lol

https://diplomacyzines.co.uk/home/contents/the-arda-classification-system/r-rules-revisions-using-the-regular-board-no-or-minor-map-changes/

https://diplomacyzines.co.uk/home/contents/the-arda-classification-system/y-diplomacy-related-games-non-variants/

by **Pengwinja** » Tue Mar 05, 2024 7:02 pm

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 05, 2024 6:59 pm

JustAGuyNamedWill wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 05, 2024 6:09 pm
Wait, why does a Diplomacy game with outside factors sound fun? Board game idea? Lol
Look up "War Room" by Larry Harris (same guy who designed Axis and Allies). While it does have dice, it does a better job conveying the importance of some territories for resources, the impact of battles on homeland morale, etc.

I have a fear of dice, which is why I play diplomacy.

by **CaptainFritz28** » Tue Mar 05, 2024 6:59 pm

JustAGuyNamedWill wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 05, 2024 6:09 pm
Wait, why does a Diplomacy game with outside factors sound fun? Board game idea? Lol

Look up "War Room" by Larry Harris (same guy who designed Axis and Allies). While it does have dice, it does a better job conveying the importance of some territories for resources, the impact of battles on homeland morale, etc.

Worst starting country

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Worst starting country

Re: Worst starting country

Re: Worst starting country

Re: Worst starting country

Re: Worst starting country

Re: Worst starting country

Re: Worst starting country

Re: Worst starting country

Re: Worst starting country

Re: Worst starting country

Re: Worst starting country

Re: Worst starting country

Re: Worst starting country

Re: Worst starting country

Re: Worst starting country

Re: Worst starting country

Re: Worst starting country

Re: Worst starting country

Re: Worst starting country

Re: Worst starting country

Re: Worst starting country