Recruiting for Obsidian Diplomacy Game 3

[Archmonarch]

Well, here we are again. As still more individuals have expressed interest in playing Diplomacy, I shall (with the knowledge of Reveilled, my own Diplomacy GM) be GMing a 3rd game.

 

To blatantly plagiarize Reveilled's introduction for the second game:

 

To anyone unfamiliar with the game of Diplomacy, it is a game played on a map of Europe in 1901, with players acting as one of the seven great powers of Europe at the time. Through strategy, planning, and above all diplomacy, players must attempt to gain control of the majority of Europe through wars, alliances, and betrayals.

 

There are a lot of Rules [The link goes to a pdf file(which requires Adobe Acrobat) and can temporarily hang certain browsers while it downloads, so beware], but once you get the hang of them, they are actually quite intuitive and fairly easy to remember.

 

Here is the Starting Map. Stars are armies, Anchors fleets, and coloured circles supply centre provinces.

 

To again borrow Reveilled's explanation for the general rules (he introduced me to the game):

 

Everyone starts with a certain number of armies and fleets (3 total except for Russia with 4), and you send the GM move orders in order for them to move. For instance, playing as France, you might order your Fleet in Brest to the Mid Atlantic Ocean, your Army in Paris to Burgundy, and your Army in Marseilles to Spain.

 

(Rather like Chess, the game has its own notation, though it is not necessary to use it. Those orders would be F Bre-MAO, A Par-Bur, A Mar-Spa. They can still be written out in full, though)

 

The game's structure is composed of Years, which are divided into seasons, Spring, Fall and Winter. In Spring, everyone sends in Move orders as in my example. In Fall, the same happens again. Also, at the end of Fall, any Supply Centre (a province that has a coloured circle in it) that has a unit in it becomes the property of the country which controls the unit. For instance, if in Spring France ordered Army Marseilles to Spain, and ordered it to remain there in Fall, there would be a French army in Spain at the end of fall, and so France would own Spain. In winter, adjustments to the number of units are made. Units are built or removed in order that the number of units is equal to the number of Supply Centres owned. In our example, assuming that France captured Spain, and didn't lose control of its starting centres then France would have four centres. Since France starts with three units, France would build one unit in Winter (sending the GM an order like Build Army Paris, or Build A Par) If France moved its fleet in Brest to the Mid Atlantic in Spring and from there to Portugal in Fall, then France would have five centres, and build two units.

 

There are other rules regarding conflict between units and convoys and such, but I'll leave explanation of that to the rules themselves.

 

When someone owns 18 centres, they win.

 

What's important is the Diplomacy aspect of it all. France can't afford to send two of its units into Iberia unless he can be sure he won't be attacked in the first year. Sending his fleet into the Mid Atlantic and then into Portugal isn't a good idea if England is going to order his fleet in London into the English channel and then into Brest, so the player of France has to negotiate furiously either to get England on his side, or to get Germany to attack England and thus keep him occupied. Of course, Germany and England might well be planning an alliance against France, and so how can France be sure that England's promise of an alliance is sincere? The intrigue is what makes the game fun. If you look at our current game's map and compare it with the start, you'll see the horrible consequences Austria suffered for trusting Italy just a little too much.

 

 

For examples of how this game can be played, please refer to the two Diplomacy threads in the Pen & Papersection of these fora.

 

 

So far, two that I know of have expressed interest (sorry if I am forgetting anyone):

 

1. Darque

2. Numbers

 

So that leaves 5 open spots Please post or otherwise contact me if you desire to play. Once we have the players, we will decide who plays what country.

 

P.S. I am willing to walk all players through their first turn or so, should it be required.

[Archmonarch]

I forgot one thing, and though I could add it to the first post through Edit, it is cluttered enough as is.

 

Players from either of the existing games are welcome, should they desire. However, understand that new players have a priority.

[Reveilled]

I wouldn't mind another game, though since OBS-2 just started, the players of OBS-1 should probably have priority over OBS-2 players.

 

I'd happily be a standby for the game if someone drops out, though.

[Archmonarch]

True. Consider Reveiled's words as if they came from my mouth, because in your reality they did. :D

[Powerslave]

You say the game starts on the year 1901? The map as I see it shows Europe just before (or in some cases just after) World War I. Especially in the Balkans...

 

</historical maps geek>

[Archmonarch]

The map has been adapted to more adequately fit the board game setting i.e. to make it more balanced between players.

[Cantousent]

When is the deadline for tossing in my name? I've been thinking about joining one of these games.

[Reveilled]

When is the deadline for tossing in my name?  I've been thinking about joining one of these games.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Generally the deadline is "when we have seven players", though because Arch is inviting the OBS-1 players to participate, it might be slightly different (like a week after he has seven players if some of them are from OBS-1, in order to give new players more chance to sign up).

 

I'm sure Arch will clarify everything, though.

[metadigital]

You say the game starts on the year 1901? The map as I see it shows Europe just before (or in some cases just after) World War I. Especially in the Balkans...

 

</historical maps geek>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Archmonarch]

I'll say the deadline is 24 hours after we have 7 players. That should give anyone who cares a chance to throw their name in the hat, once the deadline draws close.

 

However, should we have more than 7 applicants, first come, first serve (excluding OBS-01 players).

[Baley]

That map spells Romania right.

 

*Feels happy inside*

[metadigital]

I'm interested, but I have to be careful with the organising of the second game: I don't want to jeopardise the game -- especially early on, when I am still new to GMing it, and there is a lot of initialisation to do.

[EnderAndrew]

I'll play so long as I'm not stealing a seat from a new player.

[metadigital]

You're not allowed to play, you're going to win this game. :Darque:

[EnderAndrew]

One could also contend that Russia's actions in the other game will make players gang up on me in the next game I play in.

 

One player alone can not win any game without the support of his/her peers.

 

If I were to win a second game, it will be because players will want to make alliances with me, even after the first game. That's why I try to make it a habit to not actually turn on, or betray other players. The only country that I've even really been working with, and turned on thus far has been Turkey.

 

And I didn't move on you until I had reason to suspect you were attempting to double-cross me first.

[EnderAndrew]

Hey? When did I move against you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't say that you did. I said I had reason to believe that you would.

[Universal Soldier]

If there is still room I will be in

[EnderAndrew]

I think the only country that would have a really difficult time winning the game is Austria, but really this isn't risk. Your ally could be on the opposite side of the map, and instead of directly supporting you by being your neighbor, they could be drawning an enemy's attack away. Think pincer attacks. If England and Germany were combining against Russia on my Northern front, then Turkey might eat up Russia in the south.

 

I don't believe the only way for Turkey to win is to combine with Russia. I'm not saying the Juggernaught is a bad idea, and perhaps it is an idea I may have been interested in if proposed more directly in the beginning.

 

The game is still on, so I don't want to give too much of Russia's strategies (or lack thereof) away. However, I maintain that I suspected Turkey may have turned on me, and I responded accordingly. My aggressions toward Turkey haven't been totally crippling to this point either. Russia is divided on many fronts, and Turkey could still grow to become a serious power. There is really only one nation out of this game so far.

[metadigital]

Ender, we should remove these posts from this thread, too. This is a private matter, not for broadcast (whether you're serious or not :Darque:).

[Reveilled]

I think the only country that would have a really difficult time winning the game is Austria, but really this isn't risk.  Your ally could be on the opposite side of the map, and instead of directly supporting you by being your neighbor, they could be drawning an enemy's attack away.  Think pincer attacks.  If England and Germany were combining against Russia on my Northern front, then Turkey might eat up Russia in the south.

 

I don't believe the only way for Turkey to win is to combine with Russia.  I'm not saying the Juggernaught is a bad idea, and perhaps it is an idea I may have been interested in if proposed more directly in the beginning.

 

The game is still on, so I don't want to give too much of Russia's strategies (or lack thereof) away.  However, I maintain that I suspected Turkey may have turned on me, and I responded accordingly.  My aggressions toward Turkey haven't been totally crippling to this point either.  Russia is divided on many fronts, and Turkey could still grow to become a serious power.  There is really only one nation out of this game so far.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If I were playing Turkey, I certainly wouldn't have suggested it. A Juggernaut almost always results in a runaway win for Russia. A Juggernaut isn't just not the only way for Turkey to win, it's also a way he can be pretty sure he won't win.

[EnderAndrew]

Every strategy likely leads to a runaway win for Russia, so long as I am playing Russia. :darque:

[Kaftan Barlast]

So, when are we going to play with a cool map instead of that crummy old one?

[EnderAndrew]

I'm guessing that is Archmonarch's call. I'm worried alternate maps won't be as balanced, but if I see a good map I wouldn't be opposed.

[Reveilled]

I'm guessing that is Archmonarch's call.  I'm worried alternate maps won't be as balanced, but if I see a good map I wouldn't be opposed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I know one variant that's even better balanced than the standard game, and that's Migrane. (eight players, and anything named with a compass point connects to it's opposite-compass point named counterpart, and single provinces shown twice on the map connect a to a and b to b).

 

Though I continue to maintain my position that if we have any new players that the game should be played on the standard map. But that is, as was said, Archie's call.

[Archmonarch]

Id say that map, especially as it is not in geographical format, would confuse many newer players, perhaps even myself. Afterall, I, too, am fairly new to the system. Thus, we shall play using the standard map and rules.