Death to Smouchy was a Robin Williams film that came out this past spring. The dark comedy was about the sinister aspects of children's entertainment. Williams' dark character loses his job as "Rainbow Randolph" for accepting bribes. Williams' show is replaced by "Smoochy", a large colourful Rhinouserous - with a close resemblance to Barney (and his kind and progenerators, Bannanas in Pajamas, Pokaroo etc etc back to the Carebears). "Smoochy's" actor, a kind hearted soul refuses to push toys, sugary drinks and other promotions. Being on the soft side of sane, Williams vows revenge and tries to kill Smoochy.

While I completely disagree with the notion of evil children's television, it strongly contrasts a cut throat, advance-at-all-costs environment to one that is warm and cuddly. Growing up means you have to lose the stuffed animals and live in the tough, dirty world.

Some of us may not of had the experience of encountering a stalemate line. For those holding the line, it can often be the result of desperate pleading with other minor powers to stay alive while to the aggressors it is a bane of a good game. To this latter sentiment I will contest. Stalemate lines are not the unrighteous end to a Nation's hereunto successful game, but rather a direct result of the style of play that got them there. Building on the article Stalemate Lines are Crap! (1975!)  I would like to further explore styles of play from which we will end up discussing those cute stuffed animals from the Eighties: Carebears.

The articles detailing opening strategy are rich and varied and indicate the great importance that Diplomacy players place on a good opening. The result of a good opening ensures that you will live to see the middle portion of the game. In many games this solid opening is the result of forging a single key alliance to dominate and eliminate a mutual neighbor. Seeing this success one extrapolates, that if this solidly forged alliance can take down one nation, it can surely take down others! This is one possible reason for game-long alliance play. Others include a reluctance to betray the real personal relationship developed from this alliance, a revulsion to lie to further your nation's goals or the inability or desire to see where the game is going and ensuring you hit 18 dots first. To the latter condition, I recommend additional play to broaden your experience referring you to Brandon's article "Growing Up".

To the former I cite the credo, "It's not whether you win or loose, but how you play the game and if your going to play, play to win." The crux of the matter, the whole point of play, is to win. Failing that, preventing someone else from winning first, and failing that due to Calhamer's board design to minimize the draw induced stalemate. The emphasis on winning cannot be over emphasized. To those who need to be indoctrinated I would suggest "The Soloist Manifesto" by David Cohen.

The main point I would like to discuss is how alliances, game long or otherwise, interact with the Objective: Winning. The whole point of an alliance is not to pummel your mutual neighbour, but rather to improve your position and get you closer to the Objective. In the alliance you should ideally only further your own agenda - gains for your ally are irrelevant and only of minor consequence. Hopefully your ally will take the same view and demand orders that support increasing his Objective and getting her closer to the Objective. In this way trust is ironically built. If you ally is acting in their own rational self interest (RATS for those psychology buffs - Rationally Self Interested something or others) you can always trust them. A simple declaration of this enforces both parties mutual need to consider the other's position so as to offer them more by working with you than they can obtain by working against you. Both the degree and tone of how one forwards their agenda while accommodating their allies is the difference between beginners and veterans. The former often come across as greedy and shellfish, the later can be silver-tongued devils. From this declaration of mutual self interest foundations of solid alliances form. To drive an ongoing alliance the parties' mutual interests and garnered benefits must be maintained. If you are interested in larger alliances I'd suggest Roger Yonkoski's, "The Grand Alliance".

Having discussed the creation and maintenance of an alliances, I must return to the Objective: Winning. An alliance must drive you closer to winning. If the alliance only improves your position, but in doing so threatens the Objective, it is no longer worth keeping the alliance. I state this as your alliances, your play and your actions will affect other players actions, play and alliances. See the whole board and consider how the RT alliance affects France's play. Simply by staying with an existing alliance you may be forcing other nations into alliances or breaking alliances that will hurt your objective. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal is applicable to social interactions just as it is in physics: Simply Observing will alter the system. Rephrase your actions effect others actions, and the smaller the group setting the larger the effect. If your alliance hinders your ability to meet the objective dissolve the alliance, which may or may not include stabbing, and find a new one. In this flexibility is the key. Many players are unwilling or unable to create new alliances during the middle game. You must communicate with all players whether they be current allies, current enemies or neutrals on the other side of the board - otherwise creating a new alliance during the middle game can be impossible. It is tough for England to forge a strong alliance with Turkey in 1908 when neither has spoken to the other since S1901. In maintaining or breaking alliances you should expect your allies are pursuing the same objective as yourself. Should you become irrelevant to your ally, or worse a hindrance to his Objective, expect to be stabbed and remember you only have yourself to blame for it.

With all players adhering to these principals the game will no doubt be a long one, but oh what an interesting game. The real triumph of this game that lacks the random effect of dice and without luck is two fold: brilliant tactical play and complex interpersonal dynamics. Both of these develop with play, however it seems only the first is actively pursued by many players. For many new players the tactical bridge is the first and most essential one to cross. If you feel you fit in this category I would suggest the fantastic "Library of Diplomacy Tactics" by Matthew Self. Armed with only these tactics and a solid game long alliance you will have many great games. Soon you will be taking draws left right and center. You will become a renowned tactical player who takes his allies all the way to the shared draw. People will clamor to be your ally as they know you will never stab them. While this bevy of allies and easy games is attractive, it ignores the other facet of the game. The elusive enjoyment gold Diplomacy can provide is not just negotiation, but interpersonal play -seeing the bigger board and not being bound by rules of engagement. I would speculate that there is a reason why Callhamer avoided compulsory alliances found in other games. Tactics will get the body and form down, but negotiation is the soul of the game. I would encourage others to delve into this realm and cast aside game long alliances in favour of intrigue. By joining the darker side you will defiantly have to work harder at forming and attracting alliances, however you will find better players, enjoy more interesting and dynamic gains and make your wins that much sweeter. In short playing to win, makes the game that much better. If you are not convinced consider the World Masters game WM2008 in which the Kiwi and Bismark Cup winner, Brandon Clark, a known world champion - who was identified early on in the game - went on to solo. He did this in spite of a concerted effort to stop the known proficient and favoured player alliance, due to his mastery of the soft side of this game.

Which gets me back to where I started: Carebears. Hate'em, never liked them. Their existence leads to dull games that end in draws. I would rather be accused of not casting a shadow and having allies who have no reflections than to have a painted rainbow on my tummy.

  Matthew Schoenhardt
([email protected])