I played this game as a "Cut-Throat in Care-Bear Clothing".

This game, like it's counter-part Cut-Throat, was inspired by the debate
during the days of the House Rules Project. While the game was to be
adjudicated like a normal game, the players were encouraged to play to
the Care-Bear Standard. Being an anonymous game, one can never tell how
committed are the opponents to that standard. This is a particularly
intriguing situation given that CareBearNess is not often considered
consistent with the game of Diplomacy. Are the other players also
"Cut-Throats in Care-Bear Clothing"? Are there some genuine Care-Bears
out there who finally found their game? I will have to answer these
questions myself as the game unfolds.

I joined the Cut-Throat game as it fully agrees with my gaming philosophy.
Normally, I would not have joined a game designated for CareBears as it
is very much against my philosophy. However, this was *the* Care-Bear game,
presented as the counter-point to *the* Cut-Throat game. And besides, it was
going to be anonymous and GMed like a normal game. I could not get over a
perverse desire join and win BOTH games. Somehow showing that I can
span the range of Diplomatic style.

After I joined the two games, I posed a question to some of my friends:
Which is tougher, a Cut-Throat or a Care-Bear game? To a person, they
all said a Cut-Throat game. My response was: isn't the chance of victory
1/7 (assuming there is indeed a victory) in either cases? Why should one
be considered "tougher" than the other? One of my objectives in playing
both games was to indeed see which is tougher.

The strategy was simple. Form a 3-way alliance which will commit to
itself to end the game as a three way draw. Manipulate the alliance to
give myself a disproportionate growth and a position to stab. Stifle any
dissent before it materializes with insistence that the Care-Bear principle
forbids stab - and that the "good of the alliance" demands the best tactical
moves no matter who benefits. Of course, I would argue that the moves
that benefit myself most are the "best tactical moves."

Russia, the power most adept for this strategy was my first preference and
I was indeed fortunate to get it.

After England and Austria failed to endorse the concept, I settled to
my desired 3-way-alliance-to-victory with Turkey and Germany.
This is my favorite alliance when playing Russia. It was also my
opening alliance in game Cut-Throat. By dedicating 2 units to
each front, I can share gains equally with Turkey in the south, and again
share gains equally with Germany in the west - thus achieving a growth
rate twice that of my allies. In reality, I wouldn't quite go so far, but
instead be "generous" and give the benefit of the odd-counts to my
allies in each front. But, still, I grew disproportionately. Furthermore,
my allies' units were mostly in the forefront of the battle, while my own
were position behind - ready to stab when the time comes.

From the start, I encouraged my allies to play with proxies.
They weren't really needed, but I wanted to make them a part of our
alliance, and gradually get more and more units proxied to me on a
regular basis, so that when the time to stab came - I's have so much
more going for me.

In 1902, England made a move that could be interpreted as a violation
of the letter of an agreement we made. I certainly can't blame him.
I've violated the SPIRIT of that agreement the turn before and was
in fact setting him up to look non-Care-Bear-ish. Sure enough, as soon
as the move executed, I went on a verbal assault on England. He did not
shy away and fully engaged me and even counter-attacked. I quickly realized
my mistake. I had a good thing going with my alliance with GT. The alliance
was anchored in the inviolatility of agreements of a the Care-Bear option.
If one alliance member was getting - or were soon to get - second
thoughts about it, or a better offer, then the war of words I was conducting
with England might just give him the excuse to dump me. I felt trapped,
I couldn't ignore the accusations, and I didn't want the war-of-words to
continue. Fortunately nothing bad happened, and the debate died down.

The defense mounted by the other four powers against us was rather
unfortunate (for them). They collapsed steadily. Italy's 1904 stab
against the rest of their alliance only hastened a collapse that was
already inevitable. I was actually unhappy about that stab. It was going
to make things too easy for our alliance. That's not what I wanted. I
did not want my allies - who were at the forefront of the battle - to
have it too easy. I didn't want them to have spare units to park back
as stab-insurance. I wanted to stab at some point with the maximum of ease.

For a while I managed to convince my allies to act as if the Italian action
is a clever ploy to fool us. Since we can win in any event, we might
as well play it safe. After some moves, it became so clear Italy is
indeed no longer working with our opposition that this argument fell apart.

In the Fall of 1905, I almost won. Turkey was too busy to study the board
and proxied all his units to me (!! :) ). The policy of encouraging proxy
has paid off. I had 10 units at the time, and I was looking for a way to
stab for 8 (!) centers with the help of the huge proxy. I couldn't find
one. The best I could do is get 7 of my 10 units to enter new supply centers.
This would give me a mere 17 centers. Not good enough. The next turn, I
would have only 14 units (since Russia can "only" build 4 units/year), where
as my opponents - now united against me - would have 17 units. I would
be shredded. I decided to play the loyal Care-Bear that time, and hope for
another, similar, opportunity - after I'd grown to 11 units. It never came.

By 1907, I was ready to execute my big stab. By then, I was regularly
getting a couple of crucial proxies per turn. Communications within the
alliance had nearly died down. They were at the level of 1-2 messages
per season. I was happy with that. It fitted fully with my "lull the allies"
philosophy. To further pursue this lulling objective, I employed
several simultenous tactics, all reinforcing each other. First, the fact
that my official supply center count was still merely at 11 - not quite
the size that makes a power look like a win-in-one threat - was working
for me. Second, I was sending notes that would make it appear to anyone
who was already suspicious that I was going to stab THE FOLLOWING TURN.
Specifically, I suggested that we all waive our 1907 builds. Third, and
most explosively, I began pretending to be a flirtatious co-ed. I tried
to play into whatever stereotypes the opponents might have of female
Diplomacy players. For that, I've taken advantage of some direct advice
from some (female) players whom I have found use such methodology to
notable (Diplomacy) effectiveness. I tried to excuse my earlier cool-headed
and tacticaly good play (which disagrees with the female stereotype)
as the doing of my (recently) ex'ed boyfriend. "Our recent separation"
was also meant to open the door in the imagination of those pre-disposed
to such thoughts. Had my stab failed to achieve the desired result, I was
planning on a significant escalation of the use of this falsehood. Already,
the French player was expressing genuine condolences over my "misfortunes."
I sent him a very grateful note - "you don't know how much you cheered me
up" - in the hope that he will be doing some more to cheer me later.
Considering that his own position was totally hopeless, but that he might
facilitate a victory for me should my stab be botched, "cheering" was exactly
what I was aiming for.

Germany made it subtly clear that he was on to me. He refused my request
for support into Marseilles, offered that Turkey take Spain, and that
I take Brest with his help. Each of these suggestions, as well as the
sum total of the three, was entirely consistent with the Care-Bear alliance.
Even going the extra mile when viewed from within the alliance. More
germainly, the suggestions - if followed - would entirely remove my ability
to fruitfully stab. I gave those suggestions the "silent treatment." I stopped
all further communications with my allies that turn so they could not assume
I had received the message. Fortunately for me, Turkey was also silent.
Germany was thus forced to either break with the alliance - if he were to
seriously defend against a stab - or hope that I am not stabbing (at least
not this turn). It worked. Germany didn't do anything more radical than a
rudimentary defense. Turkey didn't even do that.

Thanks to Germany's rudimentary defense, I failed to win on the turn. Thanks
to Turkey's lack of any defense, I had a forced win available for the next
year. The forced win was far from obvious. In fact, it proved a rather
difficult puzzle and I have presented it as such to several people (including
the Master and some players of this game). Finding high-probability wins was
not a problem. Finding a forced (100%) win was tricky. Germany, who had
already demonstrated his tactical expertise, solved it.

I was rather embarrassed when - through a move submission snafu - I failed
to submit the exact orders for the forced win. I unnecessarily gave the
opposition a 1/16 (6.25%) chance of surviving 1908. I was fortunate that
this did not come to haunt me. I won in 1908.


The game as a whole was played at a good level. GEF certainly got my
attention as very good players. England had the grace to congratulate our
alliance for making the move that sealed his fate (a convoy to Yorkshire).
They certainly fitted my profile of "Cut-Throats in Care-Bear Clothing,"
and I'm certain they would have stabbed for a win if presented the
opportunity. Austria played a decidedly weak game. He ordered units to
hold while those who could have been supported were dislodged. I never
did figure out what to make of Italy's play. The failure of the Key
Lepanto opening and the Balkan campaign as a whole might have been the
fault of Austria only, or could have been partly Italy's fault. His decision
to stab France made no sense whatsoever. While it did allow him to survive
a bit longer, it removed any prayer of a hope that the opposition could have
stopped us. Still, his position was quite hopeless at the time, and I can
never criticize anyone for taking an "irrational" action in a hopeless
position ("There is No Such Thing as a Wrong Move in a Hopeless Position!").
Turkey may have been the only true Care-Bear (read: naive) player in this
game. He just followed instructions, and moved units around as if this was
a tactical exercise only. He was so distraut at the stab that he resigned.
While I can symphasize with someone who expected to see a stab-free game
being rudely awakened, and while I feel guilty (just a little) for
"style-crushing," I can not condone this. Turkey didn't complain when a
stab (Italy's) ruined the opposition. Only when he was targeted.
The replacement Turkey was faced with a feit-acompli (i.e. the forced win),
and thus had no chance to show his abilities.


And as for the question of which is tougher, Care-Bear or Cut-Throat?
My answer is still about the same. I must admit that I was more on
edge in game Cut-Throat, and that in game Care-Bear I usually knew
how a move would execute before it did. On the other hand, in game
Care-Bear everything had to planned *very* long in advance. I had to
slowly introduce my allies to every idea long before it could be used
in a stab so as to not look suspicious. Proxies were introduced to the
alliance and inserted into its mentality in Spring 1901. The idea of
convoying Germany into and out of England was presented from 1903.
In broad terms, I was preparing my final stab as early as 1901!
As far as objectives meters go, with the same power and a similar
starting alliance I won Cut-Throat in 1907, and Care-Bear in 1908. In
both games I could have stabbed (and was seriously contemplating stabbing)
for 17 centers as early as 1905.


Finally, I would like to thank our GM, Rick Desper, for mastering this game.
Rick was available to adjust deadlines during the first months of this
year when my heavy travel schedule required it. He was also available to
answer questions I had (such as "do you have a problem with a massive
abuse of proxy power in a Care-Bear game" [answer: no]). This is the third
game I've played under Rick's mastership. I would also like to thank the
rest of the players for making the game what it was and for (mostly) being
graceful when I CareBearLessLy stabbed at the end. Lastly, but not leastly,
I would like to thank the Electronic Frontier Foundation and David Kovar
for providing the judge which made the game possible.

Goldie, the monster, Locks.

Go Back to the Diplomacy Academy

Read the next EoG (Italy's End of Game Statement)