NAPOLEONIC DIPLOMACY II (Gary Gygax)
Rules Originally published in the US in Thangorodrim.
(1) Andrew Poole in Outposts 6, October 1981.
This was an attempt to produce a more acceptable 5-player variant
than the normal 5-player variant which has Italy and Germany unplayed
and which was called Napoleonic Diplomacy in the 1966 rulebook.
Double and Triple armies are allowed as well as Double fleets.
Loss of a home nations capital causes automatic civil disorder
in that nation, newly captured areas have to be garrisoned. A/F
are also used.
NAPOLEON'S EUROPE, 1795 (Gerald Drews and Harry Drews)
(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 2, December 1974.
Seven powers (Spain instead of Italy) on a well-designed map.
Victory criteria is 17 of the 41 centers. No canals or special
point, five double-coasted provinces. A perfectly straight-forward
game with no special rules. This is a very highly recommended
game. I cannot begin to list its features as they are all on the
map.
NATURAL CATASTROPHES (Clause Boursin) ??/07
(1) MIGUEL LAMBOTTE in SoL 2 (October 1990)
Several catastrophes menace the land Provinces (drought, earthquake)
and sea provinces (tornadoes, icebergs). They make the affected
provinces impassable.
NECROMANCER (Richard Egan)
(1) MARK NELSON in The Mouth of Sauron Volume VII #6 (February
1991)
This is a Third Age non Super-Sauron Tolkien variant. Due to the
extensive development of Downfall over the years there is little
similarity between the latter marks and Hartley Patterson's original
design. This variant goes back to the roots; I would classify
it as a revised Downfall I. Applying some of the better ideas
to be found in the latter Downfall designs (Nazgul, Cavalry units
and map change ideas) to Downfall I Richard has produced a game
which adds another angle to Third Age variants.
Richard points his finger at the "Super-Sauron" approach
of Downfall (and most of the other Third Age variants outside
of the Middle-Earth series) as being responsible for many of the
balance problems with Downfall. To avoid these Richard sets the
game in an earlier period (TA 2750) when Sauron was just another
growing power and the Ring unimportant (there is no Ring piece).
This produces a variant which is more akin to the traditional
variant-on-a-new-map idea. The only rule I dislike is an optional
alignment rule.
One intriguing rule concerns the length of the game. If Sauron
has not won by 3020 TA (18 turns) then the Ring is destroyed,
and he goes into civil-disorder with the game continuing. At first
sight this would appear to make Sauron a poor choice of power,
in a game with `good' players we expect to see an anti-Sauron
alliance which lasts until he enters civil-disorder. We'll have
to see what happens in practice. Sauron's initial set-up is also
interesting.
Anyone thinking of running another Downfall game is advised to
run this, eight player, game to generate some feedback. One final
thought: expect to see some of Richard's new idea re-incorporated
into the Downfall series if they prove to be worthwhile.
NORMAN EUROPE (Gerlad Drews) ??/??
Rules originally Published in Paroxysm 28.
(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of hosts 10, July 1976.
An interesting seven player variant which needs some work done.
The powers are arranged intriguingly with the Normans split between
England and southern Italy, the buffer zones between powers are
laden with centers. There is one triple-coasted province unnoticed
in the rules and several unmentioned double-coasted ones. I am
completely mystified by some of the decisions as to which provinces
are supply centers, but I suspect it has something to do with
consideration of play rather than history.
(2) GORDON McDONALD in AC-MONG 40 (August 1991)
This is a good game. The rules are simple, although the map isn't
too good and on the face of it some of the powers may have difficulty
due to their positions.
There are Normans in England, and Southern Italy, Norsemen in
Norway, Sweden and Russia, around Moscow, Germany taking in central
Germany and the Germanic part of the Hapsburg Empire, France without
Savoy (named Burgundy for the game?), Islamic Territories taking
in north Africa and half the Iberian peninsula and the Byzantine
Empire taking in the Balkans, Cyprus and Trebizond (an area in
northern Turkey with a geographical position similar to Pontus)
and the Crimea.
The victory criterion is 19 centres for a solo victory, 25 for
a joint win and 30 for a 3-way alliance if players so wish, with
the game starting in 1101.
Certainly the diplomatic options are greater than 1000AD (qv)
making communication a must and this is particularly necessary
for the Normans in order to retain Southern Italy, but a skillful
player can play off the Islamic Territories and the Byzantine
Empire against each other to ensure this area's safety.
NORTH AMERICA 2020 (unknown)
(1) Andrew Poole in Outposts 6, October 1981.
North and Central America have become split into seven separate
states. Players can use limited numbers of Hovercraft, some provinces
become frozen in Winter, and intervention, internal dissension,
or raw material shortages can plague your country. Also Partisan
activity and Severe Weather. Apart from the addition of Hovercraft,
the main section is a fairly pure variant, the optional rules
however add a completely new dimension.
NUCLEARDIP (Jean-Yvres Cornu) ???/10
(1) MIGUEL LAMBOTTE in SoL 2 (October 1990)
A variant of Ecodip (a variant popular in Switzerland) which runs
simultaneously on the map --- movement of units and nuclear missiles
--- and off the map with the economic game. Presence of the UNO.
NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST: WORLD WAR III (David Grabar)
(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 7, September 1975.
Thirteen players, global, economic, differing supply sources,
victory by unanimous consent, each player bids for his country
and uses funds left over from the auction for initial defence,
diplomatic movement except for planes and bombs, substantial air
and supply rules, combat is within a space and is reliant on economic
considerations, devastation rules and bankruptcy rules. It's a
bloody wargame masquerading as a Diplomacy variant.
Rules originally Published in The Pocket Armenian 13.
(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 5, June 1975.
Eight players (Alaska, Australia, British Empire, Hawaii, Japan,
New Zealand, Philippines, US); ten island centers not considered
land spaces. No relation to anything.
PARTITION OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE
(1) GORDON McDONALD in AC-MONG 43 (February 1992)
A seven player game whose title is self-explanatory, set in 1920.
The powers are: Armenia, France, Great Britain, Greece, Italy,
Turkey and the USSR. The fairly good quality map goes as far north
as Rumania and Southern USSR, east as far as central Iran, south
as far as Northern Sudan and west to central Libya and the toe
of Italy.
Most forces have their supply centres where one would expect them
to be considering the geography mentioned, with Britain based
in Egypt and Kuwait, France based in Syria and north-east Chad;
need I go on?
The game has an unusual order known as "seize". A nation
does not automatically take a supply centre by occupying it in
the autumn but rather must "seize" it first, and may
"seize" it for another nation. A supply centre may be
designated as a "home centre" if a player has lost all
his original home centres. An interesting game.
PERESTROIKA III (Larry Cronin)
Peristroika ???
(1) MICHAEL LOWREY in Perestroika 29 (February 1992)
The game itself I found rather boring. Perestroika III should
be called Trade Wars, for that's largely what it is. Trade is
too important, allowing small powers to generate large amounts
of treasury out of any proportion to their GNPs. (Assuming no-one
is dumb enough to trade with the dominant power.) This produces
a game in which the likely result is a big draw, making the game
not really worth the effort to play. Possible solutions to this
are either restricting the amount of trade and allowing trade
within a country. (I thought it was rather abusive that Italy,
which only owned part of Turkey, could trade 50 to Turkey while
having a GNP of 2. Meanwhile, no possibility of trade existed
between my half of Europe simply because it was all owned by the
same country.)
PERESTROIKA V (Larry Cronin)
(Peristroika 14, November 1990) ??/07
(1) LARRY CRONIN in Perestroika 14 (November 1990)
The main improvement with this variant is a simplification of
the accounting rules, blocks only costing one point now. To prevent
runaway economics an inflation factor has had to be put in, which
further complicates matters. Finally the cost of military units
increases as the game progresses. To keep this simple, I have
tied the cost of military units to the year; e.g. in 1902 they
are two points, 1903 they are three points. Blocks do not increase
in price.
Probably the most interesting feature of this variant, which radically
departs from all other Diplomacy variants, is that the NEUTRALS
have lives of their own. Trade may be conducted with NEUTRALS
and according to specified simple rules, the NEUTRALS trade back
to the player partner. This discourages the wanton conquering
of these defenseless nations. (Credit Will Philips for the idea.)
Overall this variant is very well balanced between trade, investment
and military concern.
In another area, I have removed the need for a location for treasuries.
This was an unnecessary complication and also prevented a nation
from surviving beyond the capture of all its supply centres. Now
a player can maintain more units than supply centres, providing
the treasury has funds to maintain them.
PERESTROIKA VI (Larry Cronin)
(Perestroika ???, 1991)
(1) MARK NELSON in The Mouth of Sauron Volume VII: #6 (February
1991)
This is an economic design and a comparison with Mini-Economic
would be interesting... Larry describes the game himself:
"The variant is essentially regular Diplomacy, but an economy
has been added. It's fairly simple --- blocks exist in supply
centres yielding a GNP. There is enough GNP in 1900 to build the
usual number of units but players can alternatively build further
blocks expanding the GNP. This creates a tension between the economy
and the military. The variant has undergone innovations and fine
tuning during almost two years of postal play. It does require
careful gamesmastering."
Players may loan/gift spare points, a common rule in many economic
variants, but there is also a new idea; that of `trade'. When
points given by one nation to another are *designated* as *trade*,
the receiving party obtains twice the amount sent. However, trade
can only occur if a `trade route' exists. (The idea of trading
routes is not new.) The effects of trading routes is that you
commonly only trade with your immediate neighbours, making trading
a risky but potentially highly beneficial activity. For example,
if Austria trades three to Italy then Italy receives six. Italy
trades the six back to Austria who receives twelve. Austria trades
the twelve back to Italy who receives twenty-four. However, with
that many points Italy may decide to build some units and attack
Austria.
To encourage players to respect the rights of neutrals, trading
with neutral supply centres is allowed, so if you can't trust
your neighbours but can keep a SC neutral then you can still trade.
This has an immediate effect on the power of certain countries:
Italy is stronger as he gets more out of keeping Tun neutral (and
continually trading with it) than from capturing it. Similarly
in the first year England can trade with Norway, and France with
Iberia.
I suspect that Austria is weakened as a result of trading. Austria
can't guarantee to keep any SC neutral and isn't in a position
to play short in the first season, thus putting it at an immediate
economic disadvantage. For example, England can afford to build
only two units in the first season which gives it a block to invest
in a SC (making that centre a double SC).
In order to prevent ever increasing GNP's, a serious problem,
SCs that are attacked decrease in value. This means that it's
better to trade than to build up your home economy. A form of
multiple units is used to break up stalemate lines.
One rule which is *ridiculous* is that draws are not allowed,
the game continues until a player wins; or, as is more likely,
until all but one of the original players drop out.
There are a number of optional rules which enlarge the scope of
the game. I like this variant, I'm not convinced about its balance
but there are plenty of interesting possibilities. And unlike
many variants which increase the strategic/tactical side of the
game and cause a decrease in diplomacy (as players spend more
time working out the best set of moves) this game rewards those
who diplome through the benefits gained from trading.
Overall, some excellent ideas; but the faults need ironing out.
PERSIAN (Martin Janta-Polezynski)
Rules originally published in Europa 6-8.
(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 5, June 1975.
A substantial redesigning of Diplomacy, rather well done. Many
bodies of water are combined; the North Sea is shrunk to the benefit
of the Norwegian and Channel; the Adriatic reaches Greece; more
than one fleet of a given power can occupy a body of water; Kiel
and Constantinople may be skipped by fleets if unoccupied by a
unit that wishes to block it; there are two four-points; fleets
may not retreat from sea to land; convoyed armies have extra strength
and fleets in a coastal province are weaker; there are five more
land provinces; except for Berlin and Kiel, no major power has
two adjacent supply centers; there are several new double coasted
provinces that are not supply centers; every province in Russia
has at least one coast; set-up is completely optional; there is
an optional rule to permit builds in non-supply centers; supply
center Venice has been moved to Milan to lessen conflicts, but
the new center at Breslau is adjacent to Warsaw.
PERSIAN DIPLOMACY II (Martin Janta-Polczynski) ??/07
(1) STEVE AGAR in ???, circa September 1980
An expanded board variant which keeps the regular seven powers,
but introduces considerable map changes --- introducing the North
African coast whilst reorganizing the province boundaries within
the regular countries (30 SCs). Interesting features include multiple
fleets, new rules on canals (making F(BAL)-NTH legal), an addition
to the convoy system (allowing fleets in coastal provinces to
convoy), a hierarchical movement system (whereby equal forces
do not necessarily stand each other off --- consequently an unsupported
fleet in a coastal province will always be displaced by an army
and finally the inertial builds rule module which does away with
the necessarily of conditional builds/retreats. Fascinating.
PHILLIES' RULES (George Phillies)
(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 3, February 1975.
Examine the 1961 rulebook: "an order to move, with support,
against a unit belonging to the same country as the supporting
unit is of no effect; that is... may not force... retreat."
In the 1971 rulebook: "an order by one country which supports
an attack by another country against a space occupied by one of
the first country's units does not permit a move dislodging that
unit...". Phillies holds that the rulebook should be interpreted
literally: if A's units support B's unit against another of A's
units, the attack fails unless the support is cut NO MATTER HOW
MANY OTHER SUPPORTS B HAS. Sounds like fun -- think about it.
PLAGUE! (Adam Gruen)
Rules originally published in Urf Durfal 6.
(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 8, December 1975.
A random variant, affects land provinces eliminating units in
them and negating supply. The plagues are voted and spread to
adjacent units which CD and die two turns later. Sick.
PLUTONOMY (Tom Swider) re09/07
(1) MIGUEL LAMBOTTE in SoL 2 (October 1990)
Based on Bourse, this variant enables the bankers to control the
powers.
PRASAD DIPLOMACY (Anshu Prasad) ????/07
(1) MARK NELSON 1/04/1994
A variant posted to rec.games.diplomacy on March 29th 1993.
When a unit moves into a supply center that the occupying power
does not own the player that owns that center loses control of
it, but the occupying player does not gain control of it unless
they occupy it at the end of the Autumn adjudication ( as in regular
diplomacy).
The only exception to his occurs when a player writes an order
of the form:
U (abc) - def NON-HOSTILE.
In this case ownership of the center def is not effected by the
presence of the occupying unit.
PURE (Danny Loeb) ??/07
(1) taken from the rec.games.diplomacy.FAQ file on 28/1/93.
This is a simple traditional variant of diplomacy. There are the
usual seven countries. There are seven spaces on the board - one
corresponding to each country - its home supply center. These
spaces are all connected by land one with another. Initially,
each player begins with one army in his home supply center.
The objective of the game is to accumulate four supply centers.
See also Minimalist Diplomacy.
Back to the Introduction
Back to the previous file variants H-M
On to the next file variants Q-S
or jump to a specific letter
[ A | B | C |
D | E | F |
G | H | I |
J | K | L | M |
N | O | P | Q |
R | S | T |
U | V | W |
X | Y | Z | 1]