What is a Cut-Throat game? The answer was the key to victory.

For those unfamiliar, the idea of a Cut-Throat game came up during
the debate of the EP House Rules Rewrite Project (HRRP). During that debate
it came to light that some people consider playing Diplomacy games
toward any goal other than maximizing one's position is an illegitimate
objective. Others people think that there are many legitimate
goals in Diplomacy, and that guessing what your fellow players
are striving for is a valued part of the game. Both groups considered
their view as obvious and universal, and some heated debates resulted.
Bo Yin Yang, a strong proponent of play-to-maximize-the-position-only,
coined the term "Cut-Throat". Ken Lowe, the writer of the judge code and
the keeper of the first judge, strongly supported that concept (He suggested
that anyone who joins a Cut-Throat game and then fails to play to the
standard should be "[staked] out in the hot sun and put red ants in [his]
ears and nostrils..."). As a somewhat deragotary response, Nick Fitzpatrick,
the keeper of the Hall of Fame, coined the term "Care-Bear" for any game
which is not Cut-Throat.  He suggested that such games are silly and
would not be recognized for his Hall of Fame. David Kovar, the keeper of
the largest judge, was concerned about how might one enforce games of these
designation. He has thus banned them from his judge. Eventually, it was
agreed that games could refer to themselves Cut-Throat or Care-Bear,
but can't enforce those provisions. Such games will have to be moderated
like normal games. If players wish to enforce the setting from within
the game, that's their business only. Under these rules Rick Desper
created two games: Cut-Throat and Care-Bear.

As a strong proponent of the Cut-Throat principle myself, and since I
was deeply involved in the debate (I coordinate most of the HRRP),
I practically felt obliged to join.

My overall strategy, I determined, is going to be to gain dominance
over the question of what is Cut-Throat. This may sound like a strategy
devoid of substance, but it actually provided a rich vein to mine.
From the HRRP debate, I came to be familiar with the fact that many
people interpret the same principle in many different ways. I also came
to see how drastically different interpretations could seem universal
and obvious by different people. Each of those interpretation was
explained in a logical and compelling manner. It is only when one sees
the interpretations side-by-side that it becomes obvious they are not
always compatible. Some thought that under the Cut-Throat principle draws
which are not anchored in a stalemate position should not be allowed.
Some thought that 2-way alliances to the end should be forbidden. Many
considered vengeance as a disallowed motivation (or even threat).
As the moderator of that debate, I reviewed, scrutinized, and collected
all views presented, and the arguments that supported or opposed them.
While moderating the HRRP debate, I tried to be fair in hearing and
representing what others argued even when in disagreement with my own views.
While playing this game, I would have no such scruples. I would freely
manipulate the meaning of Cut-Throat at every opportunity and present
each manipulation as if it was part of the rules and hence compelled
everyone who is in the game. The one thing that I feared most, and that
I did not want anyone to say is: "Yes, this is one interpretation of
the Cut-Throat rule, but there are others which are just as valid".

I might begin a diplomatic correspondence with a message like "Since
this game forbids alliances..." (nonsense, there is nothing about
Cut-Throat that prevents alliances, but it sounds 'right' when said in
a domineering and authoritative voice). I might offer a power which
I've butchered and was about to kill survival in return for becoming
a puppet by saying something like "No matter how much you hate me or how
much you disbelieve my offer, you know that you cannot survive unless
I choose to let you. Since survival gives you a chance - however small -
of getting a position, and death does not, you are *required* - under the
Cut-Throat principle - to accept this offer" [Emphasis here only].
I really went wild in abusing the definition of Cut-Throat with a note I
sent to some when I was close to victory. It read something like, "The
Cut-Throat principle requires one to try to win, and to get into a minimum-
sized draw if that's impossible. While it says nothing about what to
do if even that is impossible, the only possible answer is that it
requires one to maximize the number of centers with which he survives.
Since it is clear to all that I can't be stopped from winning, ..."

Almost every turn, I sent someone a message which included some new
interpretation of what Cut-Throat is, and presented it as if it was
obvious and universal. The actions of various powers following
those "sermons" indicate that my messages were heard.

I was fortunate to get my first power preference: Russia.
It is my favorite power for games where I think I am going to get my way
Diplomatically. It has the firepower and the position to fight two
separate wars simultenously. This is a liability if Russia is forced on the
defensive (because there are TWO wars which can go wrong, not just one).
However, if Russia is going to be dominating the Diplomatic scene
(as I was planning on doing with my "definition game"), and hence have
two *offensive* wars, then the growth rate and flexibility is increased
as well (not quite doubled, though...).

To farther focus on the treachery of this game, I have chosen the
name Zhirinovsky for my signatures. Zhirinovsky is the (present) leader
of Russia's opposition. His political line is that of virulent nationalism
and expansionism. Quite an appropriate handle for Cut-Throat.

The first action I took was to make sure absolutely everyone got into
the mood of "This game is different, it is ESPECIALLY Cut-Throat". (Quite
a distortion of the original Cut-Throat concept which - as I took it - was
meant to be a totally normal game which merely excludes certain goofball
behavior). I have thus gathered all the talent of a Vogon captain and written
a poem: "The Cut-Throat pledge" promising that I'll always stab my allies.
I was a little nervous to submit it in my own name, so I faked it as if
it was sent by someone else. I chose to frame Italy, and not one of
my neighbors so if the Fakery is discovered I wouldn't be the first suspect
in anyone's list. I sent that poem to everyone (except Italy) but made it
look like a broadcast (using the Fake Press feature which was enabled).
My nervousness proved misplaced as player after player issued their own
rendition and poems of the "Cut-Throat pledge". The surprised Italians
got the credit and some public praise for starting this trend...
I was satisfied. Now it was drilled into everyone's mind - more than ever
before - that every move and every Diplomatic action must be executed from
the vantage point of Cut-Throat. And I was going to play on what that means.

As the game was beginning, the GM made me jump once by reminding players
what is Cut-Throat and how *HE* interprets it. He wasn't specifically
contradicting what I was saying, but my fear was that when my ever-more-
abusive definitions were placed next to the "authoritative" GM definition,
it will become obvious that definitions are not as hard I was trying to
make them look. I certainly can't fault the GM for endangering my strategy.
I was the one who chose to take a high risk by playing on abusing the
absolute foundation of this game. Still, it reminded me how even the most
careful of GMing might make a player jump.

An immediate worry I got was a rumor leaked to me via multiple channels
of a coming TAGE attack on me. I still don't know if it was really true
(TAGE, was it?), but if it was, I quashed it with a blizzard of faked,
grey, and white press. Suggesting to some that this plan was really
a set up on some of the other members, faking a broadcast that calls
off the attack by someone else (and sending the faked 'broadcast' to
a select audience only), etc.

As an offensive Russia I like to ally with one Western neighbor (usually
Germany) against the other (England) and one Eastern neighbor (I don't
mind which, whoever is more easy-going in his negotiations - in this
game it was Turkey) against the other.

My offer to Turkey was a Juggernaut (R/T alliance). The only thing that
can stop a Juggernaut is a powerful Western alliance, but we will prevent
that by propogandizing everyone else of how alliances are against the
spirit of this game. I justified the offer of an alliance to Turkey in
this game by saying "since it is fully consistent with the objective of
winning, it is ok. Furthermore, since we are going to convince everyone
else that alliances shouldn't be kept - the formation of an alliance
that wouldn't break is about as nasty as we can be. In fact, one might
say that forming an alliance is the most cut-throat way to play the
game there is". Turkey went for it.

On the northern front, England managed to bottle me up completely.
He had Norway and Barent, and I had Sweden and StP. My StP/NC fleet
proved to be a curse since I couldn't move it out, and I couldn't pass
any armies through StP or build in the Southern coast while it was there!
At least Germany was engaging EF simultenously. With the Scandinavian
standoff diverting half of England's firepower, Germany was able to do it
well. With his large navy (!), he was more of a threat to England than
to me, and I was happy to provide him with the freedom to engage the two.

The Southern front was were I was going to do all my damage. Fortunately,
I had some luck there. Austria's decision to start the game with an
all-out assault on Italy wasn't exactly the best response to the
Juggernaut he was facing. He collapsed like a house of cards.

In my communications with France, Cut-Throat meant we will be manipulating
our respective allies to our benefit on the Southern (T/I) front, and
the Northern (E/G) front until we are ready to jointly crush them.

Turkey, who seems to have bought into the concept of "our strong alliance
is the most Cut-Throat play possible" was leaving his front with me
more exposed than one would normally allow in a normal game, let alone
the Cut-Throat one. I couldn't allow such an opportunity to pass. I had
to stab. I could practically destroy Turkey in one move, and continue
the "Juggernaut" on my own. But, there was a problem with that. By
surging my SC count into the mid-teens while everyone else was still at
4-6 centers, I was risking Early Leader Syndrome (ELS). I would risk
becoming the target of a unified opposition. To forestall this eventuality,
I worked into the deal with Italy - who was to help me hit Turkey -
mechanisms to increase his size fast so he won't feel compelled to stop me.
I'll help him into a rich Balkan bounty. Practically giving him
my centers faster than he could win them if he stabbed me.
I had no intentions of keeping that deal. I was counting on the gathering
French pressure on his Western front to make it impossible for him
to send the units he would need to collect those transferred centers.
I likewise offered France to grow his size quickly (by giving him all
of Italy) so he won't feel compelled to stop me.
It was 1903, and I was already maneuvering into the endgame.

The actual stab of Turkey executed flawlessly. The stab plan called for
me to take as much as possible of Turkey while Italy fails to get his
share. The problem of Trieste was tricky. The last Austrian unit was
crushed there (and destroyed) in the Spring. If Turkey stays there, there
will be a Turkish unit there. If Italy dislodges him, Italy will build.
My solution was to manipulate a set of orders that will have Turkish unit
in Trieste move out and another one moved in (with a promised but
undelivered support from me). Italy was promised help into that center too.
The net result would be a bounce-off that will leave the center under
the control of unitless Austria. Knowing that this will be the outcome,
I set out to control the approaching Austrian phoenix.

I sent Austria a grey-press message signed as the head of Serbian
Intelligence. The message was full of conspiratorial-role-play-spook-talk.
It informed Austria that "Serbian Intelligence" has been manipulating
IRT to allow him to return to life and reconstitute his empire, but that
he must follow instructions exactly to benefit from it. The first
instruction is for him to build a fleet. (A fleet will make sure I never
have to worry about him attacking my interior centers). All instructions
would come to him via grey-press and identifying itself as Serbian
intelligence. He is to signal his willingness to follow the plan by
broadcasting grey a code message: A line from the play "My Fair Lady".
It was a no-risk-involved proposition if there ever was one. A unitless
Austria takes no risk whatsoever by agreeing to do anything in return
for being brought back to life. I suppose that players and observers of
this game dismissed the broadcast of the code message as some nonesense
or private joke. For me, however, it was quite meaningful.
Austria has faithfully executed all the instructions of "Serbian
Intelligence" until I got around to taking him out. Even on that last turn
in 1905, he helped me take Venice. While he probably suspected that it was me
running "Serbian Intelligence" - at least at the later stages - I continued
controlling him through this anonymous channel. The idea was to make
it hard for him to break his puppet strings. With whom would he make a
deal to stab the elusive Serbians? Maybe that someone is the puppeter?
I tried sending him several messages as Russia and confirmed that he
was ignoring my (and thus, presumably, everyone's) white press messages.
Having an extra fleet in the Med was certainly a godsent.

Turkey's defense after my stab was very unfortunate (for him). Things
were moving even faster than I expected.  It was 1904, and I was ready to
stab Italy. The fact that he managed to talk France to release the
pressure from him hastened that decision. Italy was not going to be
prevented from collecting the huge Balkan bounty I promised him - so I
had to stab him.

The Stab went well. Turkey, now down to only one unit - and beyond the
help of anyone else was now convinced that becoming my puppet is his
"Cut-Throat obligation".

Italy must have been fuming. That I stabbed him was bad enough. That
Austria - who began the game by heading toward Italy - was continuing
to harass him, he may well have dismissed as unexplainable behavior.
But now that even Turkey - a sensible, if a bit naive - player was
working against him; to say nothing of Germany and England failure to
contain Russia; things must have really been infuriating.

In the northern front, the bottleneck was beginning to break. Under German
pressure, and after a sequence of turns where I did not challenge England
as a sign of "good faith", England was risking diverting the bottling
units to check the German progress. Germany was already in Edinburgh.

I had a chance to go for a win in 1905. I would take one center each from
Turkey, Austria, Italy, Germany, and England to go from 13 to 18  centers in
a surprise win. However, I wasn't sure about one of the centers and decided
not to gamble by stabbing 5 countries at once. (It turned out that had
I executed the multi-stab move, I would have grown "only" to 17 centers.)
I settled for "only" taking four centers in 1905.

Germany was convinced that his Cut-Throat obligation is to stay with me.

I gambled for a win in 1906 by stabbing Germany, but only got to 17 centers.

Germany was told that his Cut-Throat obligation is to survive as large
as possible.

Forced a win in 1907.

Comments to individual players:
-------------------------------
Turkey:
You were a good ally. I felt bad about stabbing you. You left yourself
so exposed, that I felt I had to stab you while the opportunity was there.

Germany:
You were also a good ally, and I hated stabbing you. Still, I needed
those last centers to win.

Austria:
You never had a chance. Once the Juggernaut was on you were doomed.
Still, I hope I provided you with entertainment in your
phoenix stage with all the spook-talk of Serbian Intelligence.

Italy:
You were the only player who seemed to be seriously scrutinizing me.
You alone seemed to be immune to my definition games (which is why I
didn't use that tactic against you extensively). You treated me with
the suspicion I deserved. Still, your inability to pry from me all
the powers I have managed to manipulate with that game seems to indicate
to me that you failed to grasp the nature of the hold I have established
over those players. I suspect that you tried to unite everyone against
me with "conventional" arguments (stop the leader, this is your self-interest,
etc.) while I prevented it in an unconventional way.

France:
We started out well. If you were more aggressive, you may well have taken
the lead from me. You allowed Italy to lead you into a life of
mediocraty, and ultimately failure. You played a decidedly 'gentle' game.
I tried to dazzle you with some strategic concepts, but you never acted
on any (other than a short-lived attack on Tunis). Italy resented my
verbosity, you just ignored it.

England:
You were quite right to mistrust me in the beginning. Your bottling me
up in Scandinavia was a first class tactical coup that negated my huge
Diplomatic accomplishments on your (and all) front. I had masses of units
trying to get through but bottled up. Your decision to lift that
blockade - more a necessity than a choice - clearly spelled yours
(and everyone else's) doom. I was expecting you to find a way to break
the diplomatic lock I had over Germany. I guess you never did.

As a whole, game level was good. There were no obvious tactical errors
or boo-boos. Other than the Diplomatic lock I had on most players (big
"other than"), there were no Diplomatic errors either. In the endgame,
FI executed a spirited defense against me that was rather inspiring because
it was so obviously doomed.

I would like to thank the players of this game for providing a punching
bag for my experiment in manipulative language. I would also like to
thank our Master, Rick Desper, for moderating this game and for having
patience for my frequent travels that required many deadline delays.
I would also like to thank all those who have provided suggestions during
the HRRP debate about Cut-Throat. They provided the building block for
this game. Lastly, I would like to thank the Electronic Frontier Foundation
for providing the judge which made this all possible.

Go Back to the Diplomacy Academy

Read the next article (GameMaster comments on this End of Game Statement)