The Inside Scoop on Gaming

I had to write this (my first review!) when I learned the terrible fact that there are no reviews of Diplomacy on this site. That surprised and dismayed me, because such a review is long overdue. After all, the game has been around for over forty years.

So here goes:

Diplomacy is a strategic board game in which seven players each assume the role of a Great Power of Europe in the years before World War I, and compete for dominance. It was invented over the course of several years by Allan Calhamer, who came up with a stable version of Diplomacy in 1954, revised some of the rules in 1958, and had the first 500 sets manufactured at his own expense in 1959, after several companies had rejected the game.

Diplomacy became a hit. It gave rise to a postal hobby and fanzines, and was rumored to be a favorite pastime of various leading politicians. It inspired at least one book on game strategy, and later an official Gamer's Guide in addition to a regular column in Avalon Hill's General magazine. It was eventually followed by the official variant of Colonial Diplomacy (also reviewed on this site), and countless unofficial variants set in different periods, maps, and worlds.

With the rise of e-mail and the Internet, Diplomacy became more accessible than ever before. There are now automated Judges (the original created by Ken Lowe) to referee e-mail games, and impressive Web sites like The Diplomacy Archive and The Diplomatic Pouch . Today, the board game is manufactured by Avalon Hill (now a sub-division of Hasbro), and has a devoted following of gamers.

Obviously, Diplomacy appeals to a large number of people. But why?

Easy to Learn...

The mechanics of Diplomacy are relatively simple — certainly in comparison to some of the other strategic board games out there (Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, anyone?).

In its purest form, the game is played with a full seven players, each of whom is committed to play until the very end. There are rules for games with fewer players, or with a set time limit; but most people find that these variations detract from the Diplomacy experience.

The rules summary below assumes face-to-face play; however, the game also lends itself exceptionally well to postal and e-mail play.

The Basic Premise: There Can Be Only One !!!

To reiterate, in Diplomacy each player takes on the role of a Great Power in pre-World War I Europe: Austria-Hungary, England, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, and Turkey. Officially the assignment of countries to players is randomly determined, but in reality players often just agree on who will play which Power.

Each of these Great Powers is divided into several provinces, of which three (or in Russia's case, four) contain major cities — or supply centers. At the start of the game, each home supply center is a home base for that country's armed forces, and contains either an Army or a Fleet as stated in the rulebook (so all games start with the same initial setup). In addition to the areas that are already occupied at the start of the game, there are several sea areas and land provinces. Twelve of the land provinces contain unclaimed supply centers, bringing the total number of supply centers on the board to 34.

Each turn, each country orders its armies and fleets around the board in an attempt to conquer more territory. Whenever a country conquers a new supply center, it can create a new army or fleet on one of its home supply centers: when a country loses a supply center, it also loses a unit.

The goal of each player is to conquer Europe by gaining control of a clear majority of the supply centers: a total of 18 or more.

Turns and Phases

Each turn in the game represents a six-month period, starting in the year 1901. The first turn in each year is called the Spring turn; the second turn of the year is the Fall turn. The ownership of each supply center, and thus the number of units each country must add or remove, is re-evaluated each year at the end of the Fall turn.

Each turn starts with a timed diplomatic phase (up to 30 minutes on the first turn, 15 minutes every turn thereafter), during which players get together one-on-one or in small groups to make alliances, discuss military plans, exchange threats, and otherwise attempt to influence the actions of others. However — and this is a key element of the game — none of these negotiations are enforced by the game rules. When it's actually time for the armed forces to move, players are perfectly free to ignore treaties, withold needed support, or attack their allies. The only consequences for such violations of trust lie in how the other players will react to them.

After the diplomatic phase comes the order-writing phase, during which the players secretly write one order for each of their fleets and armies. Again, these can be any orders they wish, regardless of what they may have promised other players. Each unit may be ordered to do one of the following:

Hold in place (this is the default action for unordered units).
Move one space into a neighboring area. Armies can move into land provinces, or be convoyed across water into land provinces; fleets can move into sea areas, into land provinces that have a coast, or from one land province to another along a coast. Fleets cannot move across an inland boundary.
Lend its strength to another unit that is attacking or defending an area that the first unit could move into. This order is known as a support. Supporting the units of another country is allowed.
(Fleets only) Convoy an army across a body of water.

The order-writing phase is immediately followed by the order resolution phase, in which the results of all orders are resolved simultaneously. Basically, whoever has the most units wins; ties result in no movement. All units are worth the same in a fight. There are no dice or cards; no element of chance is involved.

If a defending unit was defeated (dislodged from the territory it was defending), there follows a retreat phase if there is an open space for the retreat. All countries with retreating units secretly write down their retreats, which are then resolved simultaneously (without giving players a chance to consult or negotiate). If there is nowhere for a unit to retreat to, it is disbanded (removed from the board).

Fall turns include one extra phase to mark the end of the year: the building/removal phase. This is the time when each country's gains or losses are added up, and the armed forces grow or shrink accordingly. So first, the ownership of each supply center is determined:

If a supply center is occupied by an army or fleet, that supply center now belongs to the conquering country.
If the supply center is not occupied, its ownership does not change. In other words, once conquered, a supply center belongs to the same country until it is physically occupied by a different country during a Fall turn.

Next, the forces of each country are adjusted to match the number of supply centers owned.

If the country owns one supply center for each unit, no adjustments are made.
If the country has more supply centers than units, the player can build new armies or fleets in their open home supply centers. The home supply center must currently be unoccupied, and must have a coast if the unit is a fleet. If the country has no home supply center open for a build, it must wait until the next Fall. A country may also forgo a build voluntarily.
If the country has fewer supply centers than units, the player must remove a like number of their units (player's choice) from anywhere on the board.

Then the next year begins. The game continues until one country has established control over 18 or more supply centers, or until all surviving countries agree to share a draw.

The Prisoner's Dilemma Writ Large

So that covers the mechanics. It may seem like a lot when crammed into a review, and there are certainly some complications and special cases that I've glossed over; but that's basically it. You move your units, conquer new territories, and build new units until somebody gets to 18 or more. Sounds simple, eh?

Ah — but there are complications. Six of them.

Because the fact is that in every game, you have to deal with six unpredictable, treacherous, fickle, cut-throat, cast-iron bastards who will stoop to anything to win. They will spread any rumor, tell any lie, commit any foul act of perfidy, all without blinking. And you understand this completely, because you're just like them. So you know straight off the bat that you can't trust any of your fellow players to work with you. In fact, they can't possibly win without defeating you, and you can't possibly win without conquering at least two or three of them.

But there's a problem: you can't possibly win without their help.

No country is strong enough to go it alone. You need allies. You need friends to help you conquer other countries, and you need to make sure that you aren't a target yourself. So you are going to have to make plans with and extract promises from the other players, and trust some of them some of the time, even though you know they can't be trusted.

To top it all off, you know that things will get worse the more successful you are. The closer you get to 18 supply centers, the more of a threat you are to the remaining cast-iron bastards, and the more likely they will be to combine against you.

And remember: until you actually reach 18, the combined forces of the other countries will always outnumber your own.

Honesty Is Such A Lonely Word

You're going to have to make decisions about your own negotiation tactics. How will you persuade other countries to work with you? Are you going to give promises freely and break them casually? Or will that anger everyone? Can you try a more honest approach without alienating your neighbors or giving advance warning to your targets? How will circumstances affect your decisions? After all, you don't want to stay in an alliance if it's a losing one, even though your partner(s) may be faithful.

There is no League of Nations to slap your wrist when you break your word. Unless somebody has both the strength and the will to hold you accountable, you can get away with it.

Of course, the same holds true for all your neighbors.

Friends Come And Friends Go, But Enemies Accumulate

How will you approach others? Will you be able to persuade them with your logic, or will they see things differently? If you pretend to be stupid, will they see you as a potential dupe, or a potential target? If you threaten will they cower, or react with angry defiance? Can you patch up differences with an enemy before another country swallows you both? Can you manipulate others into doing what you want without their realizing it? Will you realize it when you are being manipulated? How will your previous behavior affect their view of you — will they mistrust you because you betrayed a former ally? Will they believe you just because you've been honest so far? When you start winning, how will you keep them from ganging up against you? If someone else is winning, will you be able to overcome past emnities and organize a coalition to save Europe in time?

In a face-to-face game, who's talking together, and for how long? Those who consult each other for the longest time are most likely strong allies — or are they? How much time can you spend talking to one neighbor without making the others suspicious? Are you able to read other players' body language, while controlling your own? In a postal or e-mail game, it isn't as easy to keep track of who's negotiating how much with whom. If your neighbor sends you very terse messages is it because she's hostile, or is she just not talkative? If the messages are long and detailed, does that mean they're sincere? Or are they intended to lull you into feeling secure so you'll be less prepared for the backstab?

Successful negotiations depend on so many factors: the person you're dealing with, the situation on the board, the history of the game to date — and above all, your own powers of persuasion. But no matter how hard you try to convince other players, you can never be sure that they'll do what you want.

The Race Goes Not Always To The Swift, Nor The Battle To The Strong

Like Chess, Diplomacy is a game of many dimensions. If you want to win, it isn't enough to plan on doing well the next turn. You have to think strategically. Where will your eighteen supply centers come from, and how will you get there?

Each country has its own strategic peculiarities. For example, England has a strong defensive position, but often finds it difficult to expand, and must concentrate on building fleets rather than armies. Austria is centrally located near several open supply centers, but has many neighbors and only one port. The same basic strategy will not work with different countries, and you must take that into account when planning your own moves and builds, or predicting those of your neighbors.

You must also pay attention to the entire board, because the success or fall of distant countries can have a profound effect on your own position. For example, as France you have no borders or even neighbors in common with Turkey: but Turkey does border on Russia, which in turn borders on Germany, which in turn borders on you. So if Turkey successfully invades Russia, you'll lose an important potential ally against the Kaiser — a disadvantage that can easily prove fatal to you. What will your policy toward Turkey be, and how will you persuade the Sultan to follow it when you're too far away to help or hinder his country directly?

You have to make long-term plans that will guide your diplomatic and military goals. If you can convince one of your neighbors to gang up with you on a third, that's great; but what happens when your mutual victim is defeated? Will you turn on your ally, or vice versa? Or will you continue to work together against another target? When you eliminate one country, how does that benefit or harm the others, and how will it affect you in the long run?

On top of it all, you must be flexible enough to adjust your strategy when things go awry, as they inevitably will. Your ally decides to switch sides; your brilliant attack fails against an even more brilliant defense; a country on the other side of the board becomes a real threat to win, and you have to stop them — even though that means withdrawing your current attack on a mutual neighbor. What do you do next?

So Is It Any Good?

Well, that depends. If you've read this far, you probably already have a good idea of whether or not this game is for you.

If you are excited at the idea of matching wits against six of your friends in a desperate struggle to grind them into dirt; if you enjoy the look of horror on a poor victim's face as they slowly grasp the extent of your treachery; if you enjoy the challenges of grand strategy, and have the willpower to see it all through; if you consider yourself a master of manipulative psychology, and welcome the opportunity to bend unwitting dupes to your will; and if you're enough of a good sport to take it cheerfully when some unpredictable treacherous fickle cut-throat cast-iron bastard marches his legions into your last supply center: then you must play this game.

If, on the other hand, you enjoy lighthearted co-operative games; if tactics, strategy, and political interaction bore you; if you don't have a single megalomaniacal bone in your body; if you weep in sympathy whenever someone gets voted off 'Survivor'; if you can't tell a lie to save your life, and can't help but take betrayal personally even in games: then you should probably avoid Diplomacy like the plague.

If (like most people) you fall somewhere in between, you'll have to decide for yourself. The Diplomacy community (yes, there is one!) has room for all sorts of different playing philosophies.

Presentation

Many different Diplomacy sets have been manufactured over the years. The most recent sets are manufactured by Hasbro. I don't own a new set, but I have seen it and played a game with a friend's set.

From what I've observed, the production quality of the set is high. The pieces are model cannons (armies) and dreadnoughts (fleets), colored according to the country they represent, and much nicer than the plastic stars and anchors or wooden blocks of previous sets. The map (as far as I can recall) is of as high a quality as ever.

In a useful addition to the game, Hasbro has included control markers. You can place these small cardboard markers on a supply center to show which country owns it. The markers have two sides, so you can indicate ownership either by color or by the flag of the owner.

Perhaps most importantly of all, there is a new rulebook. The basic rules are unchanged, with the possible exception of a few necessary clarifications for points that were ambiguous in earlier versions. However, the new rulebook is written far more clearly than ever before. The text includes several illustrated examples for each rule; there is a list of canonical abbreviations for the different provinces and seas; and even a checklist for resolving orders. Together this all represents a vast improvement over Diplomacy's previous incarnations.

The Bad

Even if you like the game, Diplomacy does have features that can be problematic.

For one thing, it takes seven players. It can be very difficult to gather seven players together in the same place long enough to finish a game. E-mail gaming can alleviate this problem, but it's still a concern.

It also takes a great deal of time to complete a game. If you add up all the phases, it can easily take over half an hour for each turn — so if you play for five solid hours, you may reach the end of 1905. And it isn't likely that the game will be over by that point. E-mail games, which tend to operate on 48-hour deadlines, can take months. This is even worse when a player drops out and a replacement must be found. It's considered bad form to drop out just because you aren't winning, but it does happen—it's human nature. As stated previously, it's possible to complete a game at a set time limit or with fewer than seven players; but it just isn't the same.

If you have a bad temper, beware. Some other player is bound to ignore your cleverly plausible reasons for alliance, no matter how sincere you are, and that can be extremely frustrating. You may be surprised at how emotionally involved you can become, no matter how coldly logical you consider yourself to be. The same holds true if you have a big ego; this game will humble you.

The Good

Many of the game's best points should already be evident. The fact that it's still around after forty-odd years is already a testament to its elegant genius. Age cannot wither it, nor custom stale its infinite variety.

First of all, the mechanics are easy to learn. There are only two types of units, with the same strength and basic capabilities. Units can move only one space at a time, or perform one of a limited number of alternative actions. There can be no more than 34 units on the board at any one time. All actions are resolved simultaneously, and no element of chance is involved—the players themselves constitute the only random element. The fact that all orders are written down makes it easy to check a previous turn's moves, or even reconstruct a game from the very beginning if needed.

At the same time, the game offers a wealth of strategic options. The board is well designed; though all countries are different, they are reasonably well balanced. Although some countries may (arguably) seem stronger than others, success really depends on matching each country with an appropriate playing style and strategy.

As in Chess, several elements of strategy are involved. The long-term nature of the basic goal means that Diplomacy continues to be exciting even when it appears that someone is winning. It isn't enough for a country to surge ahead in the supply center count temporarily; any one game can contain several reverses in fortune before the winner is finally determined.

Most importantly of all, Diplomacy is a social and poltical game. It's important to have a grasp of strategy and tactics; but the real core of the game lies in persuading the other players to do what you want. And that, ultimately, is what makes Diplomacy so endlessly fascinating.

Overall, I recommend Diplomacy highly.

So where do vampires fit into all this?

Well, isn't it obvious?

I mean, if you already enjoy playing an effete, pretentious, self-importantly titled member of the undead, how can you possibly resist the chance to play an even more effete and pretentious heir of one of Europe's great imperial dynasties? ("Notre cher cousin de la Russie: We regret to inform Your Majesty that the presence of Your Majesty's Imperial Army of Warsaw in Our Majesty's Imperial Capital of Vienna has left Us slighly discommoded. Furthermore, We find Your Majesty's proffered excuse of 'Oops, it slipped' to be most lugubriously inadequate. We must request that you withdraw immediately. Your devoted friend and loving cousin, Emperor Cerebus von Hapsburg, Most Christian Archduke of Austria and Monarch of the Apostolic Kingdom of Hungary.")

JOKING! I'm joking. Really. Sheathe those fangs !!!

No; the real reason why I think Vampire fans should have to play Diplomacy is that this game teaches you how personal politics really work. This is raw; this is the real thing. The outcome doesn't depend on the whims of your Storyteller, who may be too harsh or (more often) too lenient. If you make the wrong move, nobody will spare you to keep the story going. Strike hard; strike fast; strike first. There is no mercy for the weak or the incompetent.

Personally, I think that this game would be required neonate training—certainly for the Ventrue, Tremere, and Toreador. And any other Kindred who wanted to survive more than... oh, say, a week.

Seven main Clans of the Camarilla: seven Great Powers of Europe. Coincidence?

I think not.