WAR OF THE RING (Lew Pulsipher)
(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 7, September 1975.
Not so much a game as a game system. Various scenarios, between
two and seven players. There are forts, equivalent to stationary
units without capability to support external action, multiple
units, army/fleet conversion, Gondor and Rohan usually linked,
only one scenario uses mountains, centers depending on scenario
for value and strength, one scenario uses Downfall-type rules
for Ring and Nazgul. A must for Tolkien variant players and designers.
WARWICK
(1) GORDON McDONALD in AC-MONG 43 (February 1992)
The Scenario is England in 1470. King Edward IV faces a rebellion
by Warwick, who acts in the pretense of regaining the throne for
Henry VI. There are nine players in the game, all of which start
with one unit on each of their home supply centres.
These players are: Edward IV, Richard of Gloucester, Duke of Norfolk
and Lord Hastings all under the Yorkist banner, while the Earl
of Warwick, Duke of Exeter, Duke of Somerset and the Earl of Northumberland
are fighting the Lancastrian cause with the Duke of Clarence as
a neutral. The Lancastrians support Henry VI, who is a non-player
unit in the control of Warwick and is assigned secretly to one
of his units.
Players may change their political alignment, either as a claimant
to the throne, support someone else in their claim to the throne
or declare their neutrality, as long as the GM is informed. Once
a player has declared himself a contender to the throne, he may
never ally with another claimant, even if one party renounces
his claims. If at any time there is only one claimant to the throne
for two consecutive seasons, that player becomes King.
Units can act as fleets by moving from a port to a sea province
and any number can occupy the same one; nor can they be dislodged
from a sea province. London confers a garrison strength of one,
to any unit occupying it.
The rules seem straight forward enough, although map quality could
be better.
WESTPHALIA VIII (Howard Mahler)
(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 1, November 1974.
This is a revision of Westphalia VI and includes many minor map
changes; the principle changes are that a Spanish center and space
Milan are created, Spain begins a unit short, and all initial
set ups are discretionary. There are more Spanish centers outside
of Spain than inside. There are several double-coasted and canaled
provinces, and one province (Andalusia) separates the Atlantic
from the Mediterranean.
WITCH WORLD II (Lewis Pulsipher)
(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 1, November 1974.
There are almost as many double-coasted, special provinces and
special rules as there are ordinary supply centers, which might
be necessary to simulate the special properties in this five player
fantasy. (I do, however, miss the actual magic that is to be found
in the books; in Warlock for instance an entire army is wiped
out by magic in a minute.) Coastal Crawl and Crawling retreats
are used. In spite of everything, the game appears rather simple
and should generate interesting press, especially if the players
have read any of the books.
WOOLWORTH II-D (Glen Overby and Fred C. Davis Jnr)
(1) Ten Great Powers (Regular plus Spain, Scandinavia and the
Balkans) but only five players. Each player controls one `public'
power and one `private' power, which gives lots of scope for double-dealing
as well as the problem of how closely to co-ordinate your two
powers (too much and you'll give the game away!). An increasingly
popular variant over the past few years, and rightly so. The name
arises because when the Woolworth stores were originally founded
in the USA, all their goods were sold at either 5c or 10c.
(2) JAMES NELSON in SPRINGY 45 (February 1991)
This variant uses a slightly modified map. There are five players,
each controlling one public power and one secret power, which
player runs which secret power is, at the start of the game, known
only to the GM. With ten powers on a small map there is immediate
conflict! The secret powers make it easier to start wars and makes
for colourful press. The secret powers need to played carefully
so as to avoid giving away the identities of the controlling player.
There are sudden shifts in alliance structures as players try
to find out who their opponents really are. With two powers for
each player, elimination from the game is rare. A fun game.
WORLD DIPLOMACY (DW 39)
(1) BOB OLSEN in MOD
This is superficially similar to FINAL CONFLICT (qv), but the
two were developed independently and have very different styles
of play. Like FC, World Dip is played on a world map. It has eight
players and the basic version, which includes armies, fleets and
air forces, is closer to the regular game then Final Conflict.
There are optional rules for nuclear forces.
WORLD DOMINATION I & II gp26 & gp27 (Richard
Egan)
(1) Eric Instone in Moonlighting 8, April 1990.
Playing standard DIPLOMACY, I often felt restricted by both the
limited extent of the board and by the almost inevitable stalemate
line. World Domination gets over these problems and a lot more.
Whereas in standard DIPLOMACY France will normally go for Iberia,
the southern powers will squabble over the Balkans, and England
will set out to control everything around the North Sea, in World
Domination things tend to be a little more varied as there are
a lot more options. It's a big game, covering the entire world,
and normally everyone will be engaged in actions in several different
pies, and if one gets hurt it's still not necessarily the end
of your game. As for Europe, the standard board is used (the game
is an *extension* of the standard board), and is still prone to
the odd stalemate. However, with action elsewhere remaining fluid,
Europe snarling up actually adds to the game, providing an interesting
contrast. Game balance between powers is deliberately uneven,
but again this adds rather than detracts to the design. If there
is one fault, however, it would be the weakness of Russia, which
World Domination II went some way to rectify (World Domination
I was really no more than a draft version, which somehow found
its way into the variant banks of the world). Finally, the chrome
(gas warfare, submarines and more) is almost all optional, and
is both simple and works well. It gives yet more variety to the
variant. To sum up, World Domination is not overtly complex, and
is tried and tested. Games are both big and varied.
WORLD POWERS (Richard Ware)
Rules originally Published in Voinskij Doklad 1.
(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 8, December 1975.
A simple map extension covering the entire world; each of the
powers has an additional center with Japan and US added with four
centers; there is a canal through Egypt and between Mexico and
Columbia. Some merit.
WORLD WAR TWO DIPLOMACY (Chris Edwards)
(1) ANDREW ENGLAND in Affairs of State (1988)
This variant is based around Lew Pulsipher's 1939 Diplomacy (qv)
but provides for more options. The system is the same as Pulsipher's.
The changes come in the form of an expanded European map which
takes in all of North Africa and the Middle East and units for
most of the neutral countries. These neutrals may be converted
to the use of the major powers (now including the U.S.A) by expending
those centre points. Moreover, the game allows players to indulge
in technological research again by spending these points. Through
this the players can gain better tanks, armies and bombers and,
of course, the "Bomb". Overall this variant has proved
very popular with at least three games in progress in Australian
zines. If there is a flaw it is that the German player is slightly
disadvantaged. He starts off strong and so there is a tendency
for the other players to "gang up" on him. But as more
games are played this tendency may be disproved.
WORLD WAR III (Scot Rosenburg)
Rules originally Published in The Pocket Armenian 19 &
20
(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 8 December 1975.
Confused and unnecessarily complicated --- uses nuclear and alignment
rules.
YOUNGSTOWN
(1) Pete Birks, Greatest Hits 126 (January 1986)
It is amazing that Youngstown attained any popularity with a glaring
design fault of a chronically easy stalemae line in about four
different places. One of Diplomacy's strengths is that although
it is possible to set up lines, it is never easy and usually requires
close co-operation (in other words, if you set one up, you probably
deserve the draw). In Youngstown, Russia and/or China could set
up one on their own. Apart from drop-outs, I cannot think of a
Youngstown game which ended in an outright win.
YOUNGSTOWN (Judge version)
(1) JOSH SMITH (1992)
The popular Youngstown variant altered the basic Diplomacy game
in a number of significant ways. It introduced Off Board boxes,
allowing a form of wrap- around movement from one edge of the
board to the other. It redrew the European map to allow Germany,
Austria, and Turkey to start with four units each, and created
several additional neutral centers in Europe. It gave England
and France home supply centers in Asia, and Italy a home center
in Africa. It added several islands, which bordered only sea spaces.
It made the map non-planar in the African Off Board and the Suez
region. It added three players to the original seven, but more
than doubled the number of supply centers on the board to 72;
the victory criterion is 37 centers. The rules and a postscript
map can be downloaded from any of the on-line Judges.
(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 1, November 1974. Six
powers (three `Roman Empires', three invaders). Europe without
Scandinavia, North Africa, and Asia north of Arabia and the Persian
Gulf. Six double-coasted provinces, one canaled province, Alps
and Pyrenees impassable as are the North and Caspian Seas, the
Persian Gulf and Arabia, one special build centre. Worth playtesting.
1000AD III (John Lovibond) ???/07
(1) GORDON McDONALD in AC-MONG 40 <August 1991>
The powers in this game include British, Franks, Moors, Byzantines,
Vikings, Maygars/Polacks and Polotjans/Dregovites. The British
and Franks are situated in the usual places with the Moors occupying
North Africa and the Iberian peninsula as far north as Madrid.
The Byzantines as well as controlling the Balkans occupy southern
Italy with the Maygar/Polacks contained in eastern Austria, Hungary
and Czechoslovakia and the Polotjans/Dregovites situated in the
Baltic states, northeast Poland and White Russia. The Vikings?
Well, they're in Norway and Denmark!
The powers vary in strength from 4 to 5 units/centres and orders
are submitted for Winter 999AD; these orders containing initial
placement of units within the home borders, fleets or armies being
up to the owning player. The total number doesn't have to be positioned
at the start, some can be retained for later build seasons, although
I would say it doesn't happen too often. The Magyar/Polack player
doesn't have a coastal area within his/her boundaries and so is
allowed to use Lombardy for such.
The A/F system is available with the victory criterion varied
depending upon power. British, Franks, Polotjans/Dregovites -25;
Vikings, Moors, Magyars/Polacks -28 and the Byzantines - 31.
Historical accuracy may not be total (British including Britons,
Anglo-Saxons and Norsemen etc) but the game does seem to have
a balance about it. No player is in the middle of the board and
everyone is faced by two opposing powers which creates options
for alliances and strategy. I think I would have the Moors at
the top of my preference list followed by the British. The map
is of good quality and the rules simple to follow.
1066 (Ken Clarke)
Rules originally Printed in Darien Settlement 3.
(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 9, March 1976. Another good
Ancient England variant, with a noticeable flaw in that one non-home
supply center is labelled as a home center with two names. Two
players have units that are either armies or fleets, and two players
have units which begin off-board and the right to build in their
first three captured centers. It is not clear if the variant is
balanced, as three of the seven players have corner positions,
two have near-corner positions, and two have inside positions
-- it is unclear that playing the last four positions would be
any fun at all; one of the corner positions is rather isolated
so the two near-corner positions are better, but the positions
of the Northern Earls and Harold Godwinson are still not very
enviable.
1492 (Edwin Godfrey)
(1) Mark Nelson in Beowulf 18, September 1989. The four
players are England, France, Portugal and Spain and the aim of
the variant is to recreate the voyages of discovery. At the start
of the game the GM draws up a map of the world centered on Europe.
The players then send their units off the board in an attempt
to discover where the supply centres are! The GM tells each player
what he has discovered separately so we have an interesting situation
where different players can know different parts of the map but
no player knows all the map. This is a good idea and has the potential
to be a fun game... although there may not be too much diplomacy
in it.
1618 (Scott Rosenburg)
(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 1, November 1974. A ten
player game set around the Holy Roman Empire. No double-coasted
or canaled provinces, one off-board supply centre and three special
build provinces. The game is designed to show the immediate theatre
of the Thirty Years War. There is one obvious typographical error
in the rules: "If Austria occupies Prague after Fall 1618,
it becomes an Austrian home center in all ways..." should
read something like "If Austria occupies Prague on or before...".
The map might be a problem, but a game should prove interesting
if it doesn't bog down due to its size.
1648: The Thirty Years War (IV) (Greg DeCesare)
Rules originally Published in Novgorod 12.
(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 5, June 1975. Eight powers (Spain,
Sweden and Poland for Italy and Germany), Russia and Poland have
four centers, Ottoman Empire has five as well as five neutrals
to others or reclaimable by him if he loses any home centers.
Two fleets per build limitation on each power. Spain may start
an army in the Netherlands instead of Leon. Fleets can convert
to armies. Neutral centers can be converted. There are mercenaries
(half armies) which cannot attack. There are two four-point junctions
and many more spaces, both land and sea. The game uses a twelve
month year with frozen Winters. Loanable supple centers. Worth
looking at.
1885 (Fred C. Davis Jnr)
(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 1, November 1974. Nine
powers (add Spain and Sweden) on a slightly expanded map, rather
beautifully done. Only one double coasted province, which is rather
unimportant, with the obvious benefits that result. Twelve month
year with quarterly adjustments. Certain provinces may be used
for builds without being centers. Army/Fleets are used in lieu
of extended convoys. Retreats are mandatory. Turkey begins one
unit short, and Italy begins with a discretionary army or fleet
in Rome. It is a very beautiful variant and highly recommended.
(2) STEVE AGAR in ??? circa September 1980
An expanded board variant, which adds two new powers in the shape
of Spain and Sweden. There are 46 SCs of which 24 are needed for
victory. The Davis A/F rules are used.
1898 (unknown) ??/07
(1) MARK NELSON (28/1/93) A development of Winter 1900 in which
the players start with one unit in one of their home centres in
Winter 1898. They must recapture their home centres in the standard
way before they can build in them. Rules are available from the
Judge.
1914 DIPLOMACY (Lewis Pulsipher)
(1) ANDREW ENGLAND in Affairs of State (1988).
This variant attempts to provide a realistic basis for simulating
the Great War but with an open ended alliance system (as per the
regular game). Supply centres are assigned point values which
must be used not only to build units but also to convert neutrals
(which have their own armies) and to pay for attacks. This latter
rule really makes players think about what they do. Another interesting
feature is the alliance system which is based around written agreements
which can only be broken with one season's notice. This makes
alliances more secure and tends to channel the emphasis more onto
combat. Overall the game provides a good simulation of World War
One.
1939 DIPLOMACY (Lewis Pulsipher)
(1) ANDREW ENGLAND in Affairs of State (1988).
This game uses the standard rules but with some important variations.
The map is of Europe but the provinces and supply centres are
changed to reflect the political geography of the time. In addition
two new unit types are added, the tank and the bomber. The tank
is worth two units and the bomber may stack with other units and
`fly' to provide support for certain orders. Each supply centre
on the board is worth a certain number of points which are then
used to build and maintain units. The major problem with the game
is that it doesn't provide for the effect that the United States
had on the war. This variant has been made redundant by Chris
Edward's World War Two Diplomacy (qv). This was the first real
variant run by mail in Australia through *Austral View* beginning
in 1984.
1939 III (Neil Duncan and Dave Newnham)
Based upon 1939 II By Lew Pulsipher
(1) REVIEW: Steve Agar in Spring Offensive 11 (April 1993)
1939 III is a World War II variant for six players, which has
been developed from 1939 II which originally appeared in Lew Pulsipher's
slim volume on Diplomacy variants in the 1970's. In addition to
the usual Armies and Fleets there are also Tanks and Bombers which
have additional powers but cost more to build. Tanks are in effect
double armies which can either move a single province at double
strength or move two spaces with single strength. Bombers are
single units which can move long distances and offer support to
units some distance away or `bomb' supply centres. Although some
of the rules are perhaps over-complex, especially the Tank movement
rules, it should make the game far more interesting from a strategic
point of view. The only real weakness this variant has is that
you can only build a Tank after every two regular Army units and
the number of Bombers can never exceed the number of regular Armies.
Tying the number of special units to the number of Armies places
England at a *massive* disadvantage as a Power can only build
a Tank at the beginning of the game if they refrain from building
fleets (yet if England does that her units are land-locked). Furthermore,
Russia can guarantee that England cannot take Norway in the first
year, yet England has no other compensating neutrals around (how
about a neutral SC in Eire?). I think a better and simpler rule
would to say that special units can never exceed 1/3 (rounded
up) of a Power's forces at the time they are built and/or to prohibit
the building of special units until after the first game year.
A list of Powers and home SCs would also help -- from the map
Germany appears to have four home SCs to everyone else's three,
but that isn't mentioned anywhere in the rules. The absence of
a SC in Tunis may make the Mediterranean quite empty early on,
while putting a garrison in every neutral SC will really slow
the game up and drastically reduce the options open to the various
powers at the beginning of the game.
1958 DIPLOMACY (Alan Calhamer)
(1) MARK NELSON (26th April 1992)
The first version of Diplomacy to be commercially distributed
--- Alan Calhamer paid for 500 sets to be made and sold them through
small ads. None of the people who were involved in the setting
up of Diplomacy fandom in the early 1960's were aware of the existence
of this game --- they had all found Diplomacy through the 1959
and 1962 releases which were a significant revision to the 1958
game. (There is no distinction between the 1959 and 1962 games).
Diplomacy fans were not aware of their favourite game's older
relative until Rod Walker reprinted the rules in an one-off publication,
QUARMILL, in 1971.
There are a number of differences between 1958 Diplomacy and the
Diplomacy game of today. The main differences are: Build Rules,
Convoy Rules and the map. In addition minor differences are that
the costal crawl was allowed and the rules for games with less
than 7 players are different.
Players may only build armies in their `capital' and fleets in
their `naval base'. Players may have more than one unit in these
provinces, although the presence of multiple units does not increase
your defensive strength - they have a total defensive value of
one. These stacked units may not support each other nor support
the same unit outside the stacked province. If a player loses
his capital he may designate one of his other home supply centres
as a new Capital, where he may build armies. However if you lose
your naval base then you can only build new fleets if you recapture
it.
There are no convoy rules. Instead an army and fleet may combine
to form a stacked A/F under certain circumstances. This A/F unit
then moves as a normal fleet unit. If the A/F fleet unit is in
a coastal province then the Army may attempt to disembark.
Tunis is not a supply centre, but Switzerland and Albania are.
Home supply centres in Germany and Turkey are different and there
are more provinces on the board.
The 1958 game is inferior to the 1959 revision as it is neither
as dynamic nor as flexible as the modern game. It takes longer
to play to completion because there are no convoys and there are
more provinces. However, this hasn't prevented a number of enthusiastic
variant fans from running several postal games.
There are actually two different forms of the 1958 game, because
the released version had an error on the map --- one of the provinces
was omitted. There is also an earlier version, the 1953 game which
has several differences in the map; but this was never distributed.
Back to the Introduction
Back to the previous file variants T-V
On to the next file Appendix
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]