Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!bellcore!petrus!scherzo!allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews From: andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) Newsgroups: net.games.pbm Subject: 4,5,6-player Diplomacy variants Message-ID: <78@ubc-cs.UUCP> Date: Mon, 28-Oct-85 19:54:42 EST Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.78 Posted: Mon Oct 28 19:54:42 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 29-Oct-85 14:37:42 EST Reply-To: andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) Distribution: na Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science, Vancouver, B.C., Canada Lines: 58 [is this where the dippy people hang out?] We've been playing real-time Diplomacy here lately, but we have not yet gotten the 7 people necessary for the full game. Thus we have been encountering the joys of playing the variants recommended in the rules for 4, 5, and 6 players. I would appreciate someone correcting or expanding the following comments on these variants. 6 players: The Italian units hold in position. This seems to be mainly to the great benefit of France, who is free to take over the Mediterranean as far as Tunis without much competition. If Austria races to compete with France, it will lose out in the Balkans and leave itself vulnerable to attack. Alternatively, France can concentrate on the Low Countries and not worry about Italian attack; the Austrian and Turkish navies won't be threatening Iberia for years to come. 5 players: Ditto for France, but the German units holding means that England must also reap a big windfall. It has two builds assured, and can safely go for Holland in '01, picking up Denmark in '02. In this variant, therefore, the big question seems to be: how can Russia and Austria prevent England and France from totally taking over, while protecting their rears against possible Turkish treachery? It's certainly not easy, given that the Balkan conflict often takes up much of Russia's and Austria's time in the normal 7-player game! Possibly the best strategy would be for R and A to simply throw everything west except one unit each, and try to negotiate some settlement with the Ottomans (which will probably include the forfeit of Greece, ugh). 4 players: The alliances, you may recall, are France/Austria, Germany/Turkey, and Russia/Italy (the 4th player plays England alone). Of these, the most dangerous seems to be the Russian/Italian one, insofar as this player can invade A-H territory immediately and quickly join forces. If A-H doesn't take this threat seriously (as I didn't when I played it) he can quickly get wiped off the board. The best A-H opening in this case seems to be A Bud-Ser, A Vie-Gal, F Tri-Ven and forget about Greece (correct me if I'm wrong). Otherwise the threat of Russ. A War-Gal and Ital. A Ven-Trl or -Tri is too great. Although the prospect of going for Munich with the help of the allied French unit is enticing, I don't think it can be recommended. Question: is a "kamikaze" strategy a good idea in this variant? I can imagine the Russia/Italy player deciding, for instance, that Italy is just going to be a nuisance to France and Austria by attacking their home supply centres and competing for their "free" ones; in this case Italy wouldn't get very far, but neither would France or Austria, and Russia and possibly Germany or England would pick up the slack. The France/Austria player might follow a similar policy for Austria. In summary, I guess we should remember that, in any case, diplomacy is the great equalizer in Diplomacy. If you're not a good diplomat, then you have (e.g.) more of a chance with France and less with Austria-Hungary; but even if that's the case, it still is of value to know the relative strengths of the various powers. Maybe you can convince the other players that even if you're the only immediate loser, everyone should maximize their attacks on the powers that have the greatest natural advantage. --Jamie. ...!ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews , "Viens, voir les musiciens, voir les magiciens, voir les comediens"