"There was a sound of revelry by night So much of the eastern opening strategy in Diplomacy is a rehearsed dance by experienced players. Russia and Turkey contemplate how best to occupy their fleets that border on the Black Sea. Austria and Italy try to work out an agreement about their adjacent units in Trieste and Venice. Russia tries to reach agreements with Austria about Galacia and with Germany about the autumn occupation of Sweden. But in the west, things are a little less rushed. England, France, and Germany share no adjacent supply centers and can only stand each other off in two locations (Burgundy and the English Channel). Usually, the spring moves are used to indicate a willingness to move in one direction or another, rather than the flat-out declarations of war that can result from a hostile opening in the east. But there's one spot on the western side of the board that raises contention like no other: Belgium. Geography dictates the early disposition of the neutral centers -- France takes Iberia, England makes a play for Norway, and Germany assumes control of Holland and Denmark. But Belgium is within the grasp of all three; in fact, all three western powers can reach with both hands:
To make such a bold move for this crucial center, all three must give up something else: England would have to pass on Norway to support a move to Belgium, France would forego a 1901 build from Iberia, and Germany gives up his 1901 influence in Sweden. It's an enormous tradeoff for any power to try to take Belgium by force; as such, this center's owner is usually more a matter of diplomacy than is the case anywhere else on the board. Here's some statistical rationale behind the importance of Belgium. If you examine the Judge games from 2002 (Standard only, with full communication between players in effect -- 568 games in all):
Germany's 55 seperate 1902 revolutions are no doubt usually the product of going to Denmark and Holland in 1901, then building and going after Belgium in 1902. If you look at just who was the first to occupy Belgium, you find that it's 33% England, 39% France, 29% Germany. I've done similar studies for other neutral provinces and no other is remotely near to being as closely contested between three powers. Belgium is where all the action is in the opening stages of the game! But is Belgium really that important? Or are the western powers getting hung up about one center while neglecting concerns elsewhere? Consider:
So with regards to soloing, it would seem that it's a big factor for all three nations. France, as usual, does better overall, but is greatly limited in terms of solo ability if England is the first to take control of the crucial center. If we look at it from a less solo-centric view, and looked at overall performance of the three powers, we see a more complete picture. If we grant 6 points for a win, 7/N-1 for participating in an N-way draw, and -1 point for a loss, every power should average exactly zero points (since in every results, as many points are given to the winner or drawers as are taken away from the losers). In 2002, the actual rates for E, F, and G were +0.17, +0.29, and -0.19. That means that England did a little better than average and Germany did a little worse than average, and that France had a pretty good year (France always has a pretty good year). Now, what happens when we divide up those games based on who was the first to take Belgium?
The final line is most startling: all three powers do better than average (if only so slightly) when Germany assumes initial control of Belgium. But it's a sort of Prisoner's Dilemma: The sum of the three numbers (the "group good") is only +0.23 in that case -- lower than the +0.26 for having England start out with Belgium or the +0.30 for having France start with Belgium. While it would seem that giving Belgium to Germany seems the statistically fairest thing to do, it hampers all three powers in the end -- Germany moves west to do so (which would have the tendency to initiate more conflict) and cedes Sweden to Russia in the process. What's the conclusion? Well, if you're Germany, you should send this article to France and England as an explanation for why you should be allowed to take Belgium in 1901. It's the best plan for you, it protects Engalnd and France from each other, and it's a generally "fair" opening for all three powers. If you're England or France -- you should respond by telling Germany that this Doug Massey character doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. And then make sure that you're the one that gets Belgium. . . . . . . . . .I'm happy to have been given the chance to write one of thirty-four articles in honor of Manus Hand, one of Diplomacy's great ambassadors. From his work on the Diplomatic Pouch, to his coding and support of the USDP Judge (the DP Judge), to his organizational skills that were brought to bear for the 2003 World Dip Con, Manus is owed a debt of gratitude by almost every Diplomacy player on the Internet (and by many who are not!). I've never met the man, but I've conversed by email about a number of topic over the years and am proud to consider him my friend. Manus, from all of us and from me in particular: Thank you.
If you wish to e-mail feedback on this article to the author, and clicking
on the mail address above |
