|
Why do people play Diplomacy? There are probably as many answers as there are people who play the game: Some people, like David E. Cohen (i.e. The Soloist Manifesto), and Joe Brennan (i.e. How To Solo), play to win, and only to win. Most others would like to win when they play but are happy to take a draw if they can get it. Then there are some who focus on the experience of playing the game rather than on the eventual outcome, although if you are not one of them you probably will not understand their motivation. Which way is the �right way� to play the game? This, of course, begs the question of whether there is a right way and only one right way to play the game, but for the sake of this article, let�s assume that you would like to solo more often than you do now. You are wondering which power is most likely to solo in a Judge Diplomacy game. The short answer is, not surprisingly, France, but let�s delve a bit more deeply into the numbers.
In full-press games which end in a solo, France and Russia are very strong, Germany is about average, England is a bit below average, Austria is weak, and Italy is just pitiful. Most Diplomacy games, however, do not end in a solo, so let’s look at the results of all full-press games.
Roughly 7% of Judge full-press games are terminated before they finish, and a fraction of a percent end in six or seven-way draws. For our purposes these can be ignored. Russia and France are about evenly matched in solo percentage, but Russia is significantly more likely to be eliminated than any other edge power while France is much less likely to be eliminated than even defensive powerhouses England and Turkey. France is even stronger and Russia is significantly weaker in Broadcast-Only and No-Press games, but let's concentrate on the full-press numbers since it is the negotiations that make Diplomacy the great game that it is. What conclusions can we draw from the floc.net data presented here? We might conclude that Diplomacy is inherently unbalanced because France is too strong and Austria and Italy are too weak, but if that were the case then it seems likely that Allen Calhamer would have altered the game in the course of its development to address this flaw. Another possibility is that we face a self-fulfilling prophecy here. Since experienced Judge players “know” that France is strong and Austria and Italy are weak, stronger players tend to submit preference lists like FR [ET]GIA. As a result, they play France more often, while weaker/less experienced players find themselves “stuck” with Austria or Italy. Ergo, players of Austria and Italy tend to expect to lose rather than making the extra effort that is necessary to succeed as a central power. A third possible reason for France’s success is simple geography. Just as Italy is assured of taking and holding Tunis through at least 1903, France cannot be prevented from taking Spain and Portugal. Once taken, those centers cannot be taken from France without a major sustained offensive from another power or powers. The main reason for France’s record of success on the Judges is, I think, a matter of Judge culture. Italy usually proposes or agrees to and abides by a DMZ of Piedmont, Gulf of Lyon, and the Western Mediterranean in 1901 and beyond. England is just as likely to agree to and abide by a DMZ of the English Channel in 1901 and beyond. This buffer gives France a rock-solid five-center base and the freedom and initiative to expand in any direction he chooses. History has shown that more often than not the military force with initiative will be victorious. If you want to win more often in Judge standard, full-press Diplomacy, play France if you can; if you end up as England, Germany, or Italy and you don’t want to see France win again, take the battle to France and force him to react rather than letting him decide the course of the game.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
