Define "too many" :)

I think stalemate lines give the game a finite end. And that's a good thing.

I dislike stalemate lines, but there's no way to get around them. It is what it is.

@chaqa my understanding is that it's possible, and many variants take advantage of the fact, that a board with simple design (no switzerlands, etc) using Diplomacy logic will result in a board that if you have more units than another, there is no possibility to set up a line of units that can't be broken through (eventually) with a lucky guess of where to hit.

Imagine a 3-unit versus 2-unit fight in the middle of the diplomacy board. Obviously eventually the 3-unit force will win over the 2-unit force. Without design intracies such as switzerland itself, chock points, islands, assuming Turkey can't get a fleet to attack STP, the Tunis/Ionian/Tyrr sea choke point, this example will effectively scale forever.

Stalemate line is what makes Diplomacy different. It's what makes it the best. Oh...

There were actual stalemate points in World War I too. It was a reality at that time. Sure, stalemates are far more mathematical in Diplomacy in that it assumes all units are equal and that one cannot break another, but stalemates were part of the strategy in the wars. When one was broken, strategy changed drastically, as did the power structure of the continent, and the same goes for a Diplomacy board.

Bo, you are an inspiration!

Aren't I? It's a shame that that often goes unnoticed.

You hidden gem you... :-D

Did I say unnoticed? I meant unfulfilled.

Bad addition. Games are played to be won. An addition that makes a game unable to be won by any participant, therefore...

"I dislike stalemate lines, but there's no way to get around them"

Is it too late to enter this for webdip quote of the year?

Oh, I didn't mean it as in to flank them. I meant I dislike them but you have to deal with them. There's no way to avoid them in the game.

It's clever regardless of intent.

Stalemate lines make sense in some situations - crossing the strait of Gibraltar against resistance is actually really hard, and trying to break into Scandinavia doesn't always go to well. I think the mainland Mar/Mun/Ber stalemate line is the biggest problem. The introduction of Switzerland as a passable space or a center would do a lot to combat this problem, though it wouldn't be a full fix.

A simple rule change would improve the game. When a stalemate has been reached a dice is thrown and the country with the lowest number has to remove a unit. They can rebuild during their rebuild phase. This might prevent players playing for a draw as they know a draw isn't possible. It also favours the largest power as there is likely to be fewer countries in their alliance and therefore less chance they will roll the lowest number between them.

The stalemate line has to have been established for 3 turns before dice is rolled. Countries may wish to stab on final turn which means dice won't be needed.

Or we could start a game knowing who has to disband a unit in the event of a stalemate being reached. We could base this on most successful to least successful country or list countries to withdraw units at random. This is done before players are allocated their country. Might be worth trying this out to see how it changes the game dynamic.

Or you could not screw over a perfectly good defense by luck of the draw.

Stalemate lines were an unintentional design flaw, but they are necessary to the game. Draws are to be avoided, but that makes breaking stalemates (or avoiding them altogether) that much more important. It does matter to study them to advance to the next level as a player.

As for breaking them, a variant came to mind. It may have been tried already. What if each power could designate a "commander unit" each Spring and Autumn, and this commander unit would have strength 2 for that phase only? It'd surely enable stalemates to be broken, but it would have all sorts of unintended consequences, like potentially making Diplomacy into a game of mental and physical attrition.

I am not opposed to stalemate lines or indefinite defense. It is up to those who want to solo to break the other players. I think getting a stalemate is a bit too easy, but there's no reason to remove stalemates entirely. Just make the center of the board on land a bit more volatile, and it'll get better.

I think stalemate lines are a great part of the game and add an important strategy element to winning a game. If you want to solo, you have to do so while keeping in mind whichever stalemate line is a possibility given your situation. If stalemates weren't in place, the endgame would ultimately be more similar to Risk, where you can win by throwing the largest number of units on the board. Soloing and beating a stalemate line requires an additional level of skill.

+1 to that. I know people feel that it limits their ability to win and should be removed, but that's where diplomatic skill comes into play over militaristic might. In almost every case, it requires players to put aside their differences and band together to stop an overwhelming force, and that can't always be accomplished. Without stalemate lines, a country would only need to get so big before diplomacy becomes unnecessary.

Ugh. NO DICE!!! Banish that heretical thought from your head!

I agree with bosox to a degree. The game system is abstractly modeled on World War One. Stalemates were a result of trench warfare. (I don't understand variants that use the Diplomacy game engine to simulate WW II or other mobile eras...). Personally, I like the dynamics to this game. It's unique. I find it a challenging puzzle trying to break through a line.

Don't like the stalemate lines? Use diplomacy to try and work around it. Still don't like it? Find a different game to play.

I dont like the random disband. Anyone playing as Germany gets an automatic advantage. So does France and Russia. Most hurt are Austria turkey and England. (although I can also have zero effect on Austria). They already sit on the stalemate line so that's pretty stupid to me.

Very interesting to hear all your thoughts. I too tend to the side that, while stalemate lines may be unintentional, they do force to players to resort to diplomatic channels to break them, which is the whole purpose of the game. I think using dice to resolve a stalemate is not in the spirit of Diplomacy.

Has anyone tried to play a F2F or house game where switzerland was passable and able to be occupied? If so, how did it go (with relation to the stalemate discussion)?

Diplomacy is a game where tactics alone can not necessarily get one out of any predicament (though they can often avoid said predicaments). Stalemate lines are an example of this.

Negotiation, on the other hand, can theoretically solve any problem, including stalemate lines. This is one of the most fascinating elements of Diplomacy, and one reason why the game benefits from a diverse player base.

i was in a live game a week ago where i won as france and i had to fight down a stalemate line. Attack communication between forces; it gets kind evilly fun

Stalemates are wonderful, they offer themselves to the smallest still hope! Why else to continue playing? Indeed, a player should search stalemate lines only when goes nothing more - in the final. Also there are often games in which two or three parties simply want to agree on a peaceful draw without delivering a theoretically possible final battle. They has just got on during the game so well that they would not like to fight at the end mutually. The special know of the strategy around the most common stalemate lines is absolutely essential in a game with experts. The stalemate line can be also used diplomatically and has quite a lot of alliance allow to break which thought on the triumphal procession. From one fall I would like to report and call it "Encircled Axis Power":

http://www.bilder-upload.eu/show.php?file=239abd-1419773657.jpg

World Diplomacy IX, Full Press, WTA:

Europe (me) and Kenya have closed a firm alliance after a few years against the rest of the world and formed a strong axis power. At the middle game the last three big nations Quebec, West-Canada and China forges against us an alliance and tried to crush us like a nut in the nutcracker. Our opponents were firmly persuaded of the fact that they can wear down us and also put my ally under hard pressure over diplomatic canals, so that I had to fear that he gets softy knee and maybe changes at the last minute the sides and falls to me in the back.

Of course - I knew at that time that we could go (now) any time to a stalemate line without which the opponent could prevent it - because I had fiddled about it many game rounds and now it had become a fact. However, now my ally needed a visual representation to the reassurance because he could fancy it not really. Then I have indicated in the global chat that we can change any time in a stalemate line and it's better to play it not further for an endgame and to go to draw. Quebec also wanted a visual representation, I sent to him one of myself outlined maps about the stalemate line.

This changed everything and the opposing alliance broke. Quebec saw that we were not to be cracked any more and explained itself to an outlaw. So he fell in the back to his allied West-Canada and wanted to throw him out of the game. We integrated West-Canada in our axis and could hold him in a draw. The player in China was still surprised through Quebec's exit from the alliance and stood suddenly strategically unbecoming in this game. He was so disappointed that he didn't want any more to go to a final and left the game. Quebec trenched in the endgame on the American continent and it ended in a 4-way draw: Europe, West-Canada, Kenya and Quebec.

Do all the variants have stalemate lines built in as well? I've never really tried playing them, except for one Ancient Med game.

Stalemate lines are a more then fine element to the game and cool challenge to overcome for the most part. The annoyance for me comes when players cling to them haphazardly. They should be a fallback plan, not a year three knee jerk reaction when your over played opening move didn't quite pan out. Try to play to win first THEN consider how to play to draw later on. Hate players who walk into a game playing to survive.

I would guess that all variants also have stalemate lines, but I don't think people have studied them in the same way as with the Classic map.

To find stalemate lines, divide the map equally in half with respect to supply centers. If the number of territories in the line is about one-third fewer than the number of SCs on either side, you'll probably be able to create a stalemate line.

Ancient Med has stalemate lines, I've constructed them before. The Med is easy to stalemate, you just grab one of the less wide places, and put a lot of fleets behind it. And as for the land, there are many places when it's one or two spaces wide on each side as well. I don't know about Americas or World, not having played them much before. You can certainly end up in stalemates in World, and there are local unbreakable lines, so if you have enough of those, you get a functional stalemate, even if it might not be theoretically perfect.

@Jeff Kuta

Ah ha, that is good to know.

Bo - in WWI they weren't stalemate lines - they were called "trenches", and yes even trenches eventually fell - usually to Commonwealth Stormtroopers from Canada and ANZ.

The existence of stalemate lines can also promote aggressive play: if you go sure but steady the opposition have time to form up in line whereas if you throw a couple of units up ahead (and can, somehow, sustain them) it will be much harder to hold you off. In the immortal words of Faith No More: "Be Aggressive, B E Aggressive, B E AGG RESS IVE"