Strategic Combinations
The strategic game requires that you look at the alliance patterns as a system. It has long been argued that a perfect Diplomacy
game is one that would resolve into a three way draw. In the opening
game, there are basically five players against two. In reality, one or
more players often split their forces against the two targets. In the
middle game, two players have been eliminated and the situation comes
down to three against two; again, at least one of the majority alliance
members will hold down two fronts. In the end game, there is no
strategically stable situation. In a perfect game, a two against one
situation would see the two-player alliance break down as soon as there
was an advantage to one side. Then the alliances would shift and the
game would reach strategic stalemate.
Tournament play in fixed deadlines does not allow that type of end
game to develop, for the most part. Instead, you have the game in two
parts: beginning and middle. The most dangerous situation in a
tournament occurs when one part of the board sees a two vs. two
conflict while the other part of the board sees a two vs. one conflict.
This causes a significant power shift toward the region with just three
players. The most common way this develops is when the East develops
into Austria and Italy vs. Russia and Turkey. That leaves England,
France, and Germany to play odd man out.
If you are counting on fast gains, then you must think globally in
terms of large groups. Plan to be one of the five that are ganging up,
not one of the two being ganged up against. Then look ahead and think
about who is going to be your buddy and who is going to be your target
when the game is down to five players split three against two.
The shorter the game, the less stable the alliance needs to be. An
alliance of everyone against France and Austria is probably the most
unstable as it moves toward the middle game. If the game is going to
end in 1905, however, this alliance might be perfect for a group of
aggressive slashers. A longer game increases the importance of pacing
yourself strategically and is less likely to see rapidly shifting
alliances, unless the tournament system is in the extreme range of
Supply Center Ranking.
Strategically, every time you change your alliance structure, you
lose time. If you ever move an army back to a province it came from,
you have lost time.
Strategic tournament thinking also requires you to consider whether
you are going to face any of these same players in the next round. How
will your ability to influence those players in the next game be
affected if you set yourself up as someone who always plays against the
leader -- even when he is your ally -- in this game? Carrying grudges
from one game to another is considered very poor behavior, but what
you've seen of a player's style, in this or previous games, is an
important factor when making decisions. Who would you want as an ally:
the player who always plays against the leader no matter what, or
someone who is willing to put the long-term goals of the alliance ahead
of a single supply center difference in your power? Players who have
competed in many tournaments with supply center ranking are the most
prone to turn on allies who pull slightly ahead, while those more
accustomed to a draw system tend toward longer alliances regardless of
differences in supply center count.
In games with long time limits and an emphasis on draws, then
strategic play comes down to choices: do you ally with partners who
must, for geographic reasons, cross the stalemate lines and thus risk a
double cross with no defensive stalemate, or do you plan an alliance
structure that seeks to achieve a stalemate line to guarantee results
in a small draw?
Before making that decision hastily, remember that most alliances
bring with them a mirror alliance. That is, by forming an alliance with
one player, you virtually force another to join the opposition. Also,
the tighter your alliance is, the more it forces your opponents into a
tight alliance.
The most common alliance is between two neighboring players:
England/France and Russia/Turkey (The Steam Roller) are the two most
powerful next-door combinations. They also bring against them, however,
the potential for a three way alliance that can overwhelm them in time.
Consider the strategic limitations and counters to your alliance mix.
Common Errors
When you start the game, you set a tone for yourself that others
hear. If you're a new player, study the possible openings beforehand.
When you receive your country assignment, you should already know the
most common conservative opening and the slashing combinations.
Know the geography of your country so that you can discuss your opening
without having to wonder whether Liverpool connects to London (it does
not) or be shocked when an Army advances from St. Petersburg to Norway
in Fall 1901.
In tournament play, if you announce that you're a rookie at Diplomacy
and act like a victim who's just learning to play, then you will become
a victim. Worse, you will not learn the most important thing: how to
feel and act confident in yourself. Appearing meek works in some social
settings but it definitely does not work in tournament Diplomacy play.
Irrationality as a technique works mostly in short games where you
can get away with a few "crazy" moves or paranoid plays. Claiming that
you want to see what happens when an Italian Army enters Silesia in
1902 or an Austrian raider steams into the Mid Atlantic is amusing, but
only for a short time. Most players have a consistent policy of
treating an irrational player as an enemy. This minimizes the effect of
their irrationality and leaves you concerned only with their unit
moves. It's surprising (or maybe not) how often a player who professes
to be wild and crazy suddenly becomes rather conservative when forced
to contend with unrelenting pressure and a lack of allies.
In long tournaments, the usual reaction to players who constantly
lie and stab allies is to eliminate them from the game early. In short
tournaments, players may be more forgiving simply because liars and
stabbers can fall back on the line that "the tournament system made me
do it" or "I need that center to stay even in the tournament." But
guess what -- the player it was taken from needed it, too.
Stagnation is a common error. You might think that a situation
forces you to play a few turns in turtle mode, just holding a defensive
line. Never be content with this. Imbalance is the dynamic that wins
tournaments and breeds great players. When you find yourself in a
stagnant situation, try to get your ally to help you open things up
diplomatically. Consider whether a surprise retreat might present your
opponents with conflicting desires that allow you to shift the alliance
structure. If nothing else, generating some imbalance is fun.
Order writing in tournaments is horrible for the most part. The
handwriting is even worse. The number of miswritten orders goes through
the roof. Even very experienced players make errors. The first thing to
do is to make sure your starting forces are listed correctly. Second,
do not use abbreviations if you are nervous or new. A poorly written
order that allows for only one interpretation is better than a
well-written but vague order. So what if you spell out North Sea? It
avoids an argument over what was meant by "Nor." Use a big piece of
paper. The trees will forgive you long before you forgive yourself for
a bad opening move in which you forgot to list a piece's order because
the paper was too small.
The most common adjudication error is forgetting that a force cannot
cut support for an attack on itself. The second most common
adjudication error is forgetting that your allies' armies can dislodge
you if they are supported by your enemies. One infamous North American
DipCon was decided by an unintended support that caused Munich and a
stalemate line to collapse.
It may happen that players in your game make an adjudication error
that you recognize, but it would be to your advantage to keep quiet and
let the faulty interpretation stand. Polite play -- quality play --
requires you to point out the error. Playing with extra units you don't
have the supply centers to support, or with units in the wrong
locations, may be funny at the time in your secret inner place, but in
the long run it isn't good for the game and it isn't good for you.
Every tournament has a Gamesmaster somewhere. If a series of moves and
orders is confusing, make use of him to help straighten it out. If he
decides in your favor, be grateful; if he decides against you, be
gracious and above all, don't argue. A bad GM call is wrong but arguing
with the GM is worse.
Above all, remember --
It is only a game.
Have fun and make it fun for others.
Don't miss any of Edi Birsan's series on tournament Diplomacy.
Part 1: What Makes Tournament Play Different
Part 2: Tournament Systems and Scouting for Results
Part 3: Tried and True Opening Moves
Part 4: Grand Strategy and Small Mistakes
Edi Birsan is considered the first Diplomacy
world champion for his win in 1971BC, the first championship
invitational game. He has won numerous championship games since then in
North America and worldwide and is universally considered one of the
game's top players. More importantly, he has striven tirelessly for
over three decades to promote Diplomacy play in all its forms, at all levels, all around the world.
