| Pouch DepositsThe Editor and the Readership |
|
|---|
Editor's response: That's close to my answer....Or is it Western Med. to the Mid-Atlantic from Italy?
Editor's response: Not a bad second indeed. I also like any kind of convoy out of Kiel. Usually takes the board by surprise and almost always works and shifts momentum fast. Speaking of which....
Having said that, everytime I play Turkey (and to a lesser extent, Italy and Austria) I aim to get a fleet into the Barents and an army into Clyde. I think the crowning glory of my Diplomacy career will be a game where I'm Turkey, and I finish participating in a draw with a fleet BAR and army Cly, preferably owning say Budapest and Munich.
That would be grand!
Editor's response: Bingo!
As for national borders; well, for me it'd have to be the French/Italian border - sparks tend to fly when someone crosses that one.
Editor's response: Not a bad choice....That said, my favourite move is the Galicia-Bohemia slide when I am Russia and planning on attacking Germany.
Editor's response: You're very close to my choice, which is the Galicia-Silesia border. Any move from Gal to Sil or vice-versa is just such a big momentum shifter, and it seems like it's so rarely expected.It is so easy to claim that you are going after Austria....
Editor's response: I guess we have the same take. The whole Pru-Sil-Boh-Gal area is so often DMZ'ed between a number of powers; usually, it's two separate DMZ's, and no one thinks that you'd enter the one simply because you really want to go to the other.
I also get little squirms around Prussia since that usually signals a big change in game policy, but I am very biased towards the Russia-Germany dynamic for some reason, I think it is the most interesting on the board. They absolutely must remain friends at the beginning, but each benefits somewhat from the other's downfall.
Editor's response: Indeed so. And Russia can so easily be in Gal "to finish Austria" and then quickly move to Sil to put Germany in huge trouble. (Germany has a harder time doing the reverse, but Boh-Gal, as you pointed out, is similar -- sudden unexpected pressure on War, Rum, and Ukr-Sev/Mos).Response from David: Hmm, now that you mention it, the Gal-Sil is a biggee, Boh-Gal is the preparation, but the Gal-Sil is the shift from the attack on Austria to the direct assault on the German home supply centres.
We do indeed have the same take, though. Boh/Sil/Pru is often an "automatic" DMZ, and as such it is always exciting when it is broken. In fact, I always make a point of trying to be the first into that zone if I am nearby, since you can pick up a very nice tactical advantage if your attack is unexpected.
Sil-Gal would not be as exciting though... why is Germany in Sil to begin with? Very anti-Russian, so why would he be doing that unless Russia was dead or some treaty was made? Hmm... I'm beginning to clue into something here. Galicia is pretty much an Eastern province, while Sil is a Western province... crossing means that you are changing theatres of operation...
Editor's response: Actually, I prefer Sil-Gal to Gal-Sil. One of my favorite things to see (much like Brandon's wish to occupy Barents and Clyde) is a German army that runs straight for Rumania via Mun-Sil-Gal-Rum.
Editor's response: You and David Hood. The northern equivalent of Spain to Tuscany (or vice-versa).
Send in your opinion on who were the most
talented diplomats of the last ten centuries. Feel free
to include in your mail who you think are the seven greatest Diplomacy
(The Game) players over that same time period (or the last forty years,
whichever is shorter 
).
If we get enough response, maybe we'll formalize this and have actual voting. Or re-do it next year when the millennium really does come to a close.
Editor's response: I think I can speak for the whole hobby when I say that we all eagerly await this new work!
Thanks very much again.
Through Diplomacy you learn more about yourself, and how you interact with others. In addition, you make fantastic friends. Some of us even meet interesting women.
If you feel you're paying a price for it emotionally, I say keep playing. I pay an emotional price for playing Diplomacy when I lose, but it's a small price. However, when I win the payoff I get is enormous. Learning to win sometimes takes time, but once you get enough experience under your belt, and develop your game you learn that, as disappointing as the setbacks are, they are far outweighed by the rewards of playing.
, one foreign language game, and one
Bliztkrieg 15Hr per phase mad dash. Yes. I am currently in
five games, and I have only been late twice.
Foremostly, I am writing to say how amazed I am at how much I have learned about myself and human nature. I am embarrassed at how 'wimpy' my initial comment seems to me today. Geez, if a player took that tone in their first press in a game, they would be waving a big flag that said "Please, take advantage of me, stab me first or second! Pretty please!" I must laugh at how enthused I would be today to get a message with that tone from one of my neighbors. (Drooling!)
I have not yet finished a game (1905 is the latest I've gotten, simply because there is a lot of waiting...) but I no longer consider myself a 'hapless newbie.' I sniffed out a Key Lepanto and split the Austro-Italian alliance with press. I was the decision maker in another and convinced my fellow dippers to concentrate on targets of my choice (causing wo eliminations, soon to be three). As the replacement player I convinced my country's previous nemesis to cooperate against the local bully to gain my first SC (one I'll remember with pride) and then eventually stab that old nemesis down to 1 oneC (the best I could do in one turn).
Dan Shoham or Jamie Dreier I am not. But I feel like I can do a decent job of dipping my fellows to roughly do what I want a reasonable amount of time. Where did I learn it? WWW.Diplomacy-R-Us.com! Of course it was The Pouch. I'm not trying to flatter you, but you've worked hard to help the Dip community with The Pouch and I must say you've made the world a better place (for dippers).
Particularly, I learned a great deal from the following articles:
By the way, I was disappointed to read about Paul's wife. My wife and child mean everything to me (well, after Diplomacy!) and the Windsors are in my prayers.
The first three articles really go for the heart of the reason to play Diplomacy - learning about onesself and human nature. (If you can't tell, I am a fellow who reads the entire owner's manual before even plugging in a television set, and I have read at least half of all of the articles that are not on variants, and only half because I do have a wife and kid.)
I see an excellent potential article for Newbies to be entitled "Advice on writing your first press." After joining my first two games, I took an hour to write my first messages because I was so inexperienced and a bit overwhelmed with the feeling that I was going to "do it wrong" or "not do it the right way." (I did do it 'wrong,' anyway; that's for sure.) I learned so much from trying to dig my way out of the hole I'd put myself in. It may be counter-intuitive from reading such a rambling e-mail that I've become so much better at edifying a thesis with supporting facts, but in fact I have improved greatly. For the first time in my life I now feel like I have the skills to persuade someone to do what I think is best. That is part of the true value of Diplomacy, as I am sure you agree.
Gunboat games have given me freedom to adopt personas very different from my own. In real life I used to be far too considerate of other people to my own detriment. Now, I realize that everyone is a backstabbing son-of-a-bitch and a carebear all at once, and perhaps not only socialization but also position and opportunity which dictated which trait guides a person. I have yet to be eliminated in any of my games (all of my positions are up at least one SC over start/takeover) but I have no real fear of being beaten. If you lose this game it is not too often because you were tactically inferior but beacause you were unable to pursuade other people to act as you want/needed them to. Learn from it and move on. Or if you find yourself playing with Dan Shoham, resign immediately! I have found that I respect people who take their lumps fighting gracefully, and I never have any respect for unjustified resignations (life intruding is justifiable). If players have a problem emotionally with having their positions wiped out after months of work (playing a game) then they need to have their heads examined.
Every night, I promise myself I am going to write shorter press. All of my games are waiting for a late power, so I checked the Zine and found the recent issue, and well, here's the outcome. I would be happy to create a succinct summary of this for the next dip pouch issue, but I thought you might actually be this interested in what I had to say on the subject because of the dedication level you show for the hobby and the 'zine. Is your dedication rating default at the machine overflow value?
I don't know when one graduates from being a newbie, but I sure feel like I have already. It is too bad I can't just play Dip for a living.
Editor's response: Ain't it the truth. I think we all live for the day when there's a Professional Diplomats Tour, just like golf and tennis have. See you on tour!As for the rest of José's mail, I rarely publish letters that I follow up with a badgering to write an article. In this case, though, I decided that much of what he had to say in his letter would be interesting to the readership, despite the fact that, yes, he succumbed to my badgering and wrote an article, which you can find elsewhere in this issue. (José -- I still like the "How To Write Your First Press" article idea. How quickly can you get it to me?
Congratulations!!!
Editor's response: Thanks for the mail. Yes, I must say that I have been very very pleased with the support that Hasbro has given the hobby. From inviting me to write two chapters in the CD-ROM game manual to devoting the inside back cover of that manual to pointing new hobbyists to The Pouch, the people I have worked with at Hasbro have been nothing if not completely supportive of the hobby.
Maybe the multiplayer option has something to offer but the single player games are worthless. I plan on trying to bring the game back for a refund or at least to exchange for a game that gives me a challenge.
I just picked up the new Diplomacy computer game and played it for the first time tonight (single player). Here's a quick review:
The game looks great. It seems to play well - no bugs seen yet. Gameplay is very smooth and the interface is very intuitive. You can literally load the game and be playing quite happily straight away without looking at the manual. While I haven't yet played a multiplayer game, the multiplayer interface also seems very good - it's a snap to set up on the Microsoft Gaming Network, and again, you can be up and running in minutes. The only thing I miss (having been spoiled by the recent 'chrome is all' trend in computer gaming) is more pretty graphics and sounds - the game could have used a nice intro soundtrack (perhaps a nice 'History Channel' type introduction to the world as it was in 1900) and a few more graphical extras. But for the dedicated Diplomacy player who just wants a no-nonsense approach, it does the job well, and I think it will be a great tool for making multiplayer games much easier than they are at present, and much more accessible for players new to the game.
The only real problem I have with the game so far is in single player mode. The AI is quite simply atrocious. The old Avalon Hill computer Diplomacy had better AI, and gave the player a far better run for his/her money than does this version. I played one game as England against the computer opponent with all the difficulty options turned to high, and I gained my 18 supply centres fairly easily by 1907. I had allied with the German 'player' early on in the game, and I backstabbed him pretty ruthlessly in 1903 - but at the end of the game, with only one supply centre left (all the rest had been taken by me), the German was still happily talking to me. If this was a human vs. human game, the guy would have been trying to throttle me, while pleading with his neighbours to 'fight the common foe'. The AI doesn't even play well tactically - missing obvious moves, and seeming not to care whether it's a Spring or Fall move. Basically, the single player game will work as an introduction for the complete neophyte, but for seasoned players, it's a complete waste.
However, I don't think anyone really expected a chess-type AI for this game - what we need is a nice base from which to mount multi-player games over the internet. This, the latest version does admirably, although with little fanfare or chrome.
Editor's response: Thanks for the review. Someone foolishly volunteered to write us up a full-blown review of the product. Look for that in the next issue.
Editor's response: Thanks! (I also wrote the "What is Diplomacy?" section, he says immodestly.)Now you are a famous mega-star in the computer game world,
Editor's response: Next: complete world domination!I just wanted to be one of the first to congratulate you. I've admired your work on the DipPouch, and I think the computer game owes a lot to you and everyone who has worked to keep the Judge system alive.
Editor's response: Thanks very much!
Editor's response: I have heard many reports like yours. When I playtested a pre-release version of the CD-ROM, I also had no trouble roaring to victory, theoretically against six players. The Articifial Intelligence is still apparently very artificial. This is too bad, but it raises my hopes that the CD-ROM will bring people to the human hobby. I only hope that the ease with which the AI players can be dispatched does not make a bad impression on players new to the game. As we all know, Diplomacy is a very challenging game (the best!) when the level of competition is right. This next letter inspires more hope:
I have played a couple of games on the Zone with Hasbro's new game and they went well. It's just very difficult to find people lurking in the Diplomacy game room.
Editor's response: My response to Manny was just what you'd expect from me: "How soon can you have something to me that will enhance The Pouch as you suggest?"
I'm surprised that there was no mention of the "least squares fit" method of power assignment. It's like maximizing satisfaction, but instead of going for the high score, you go for the low. To take Tarzan's recurring example:
| Cornelius | GEFTARI
| Cheeta | RTGIEFA
| Manus | ETRAFIG
| Tarzan | FETRIGA
| Simon | EFATGIR
| Dave | RTEFAIG
| Petar | EFRTIAG
| |
|---|
Ideally, you evaluate all possible combinations of powers and choose the best one, but that's impractical if you're working by hand, so a good place to start is with a bottom-up method. Looking at the lists, nobody has placed Italy higher than fourth place. Someone is going to have to be Italy, so it looks like it'll be Cheeta. Similarly, no one has placed Austria higher than third, so Simon gets Austria. All other powers are now somebody's first or second choice. Cornelius, Dave and Tarzan get Germany, Russia and France uncontested, leaving Manus and Petar to fight over England. Turkey is still unclaimed, and it's Manus' second choice and Petar's fourth, so Manus gets Turkey and Petar gets England.
So here's the assignment evaluation table:
| Player | Power | Rank In Player's List | Square of Rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cornelius | Germany | 1st | 1 |
| Cheeta | Italy | 4th | 16 |
| Manus | Turkey | 2nd | 4 |
| Tarzan | France | 1st | 1 |
| Simon | Austria | 3rd | 9 |
| Dave | Russia | 1st | 1 |
| Petar | England | 1st | 1 |
| Avg.: 1.86 | Sum: 33 | ||
It so happens that this is the outcome generated by Tarzan's "group satisfaction" method. Is there a better one? My guess is that there isn't. A swap of a first- and a third-place power for two second-place powers would knock two points off the sum of squares, for example, but in this case that opportunity doesn't exist, because no one placed Austria (the only third-place power) higher than third. What's interesting is that in the above table, satisfaction has been optimized not only for the players but for the powers as well. That is, every country has been assigned to a player who ranked it as high or higher than all other players did. If you whimsically assume that Turkey is "happiest" being run by a player who wants to play Turkey, then being played by Cheeta, Manus or Dave is the best possible outcome for Turkey. By maximizing the "happiness" of the powers, you also maximize the satisfaction of the players!
The next realm I would like to see explored is the evaluation of grouped powers. For example: A[EFGIR]T
Austria is clearly the first choice. But what are [EFGIR]? Are they counted as second place? If so, is Turkey third or seventh? Or does the group have a "center of gravity," putting it in fourth place? (This is what I generally assume.)
Author's response: Thanks for you feedback. Actually, my article does address exactly what you presented. I believe I referred to it as as yielding the "Least Dissatisfaction" or something like that. Perhaps, I didn't score it the same way you did (you refer to least squares) but I still would consider what you suggest as a variation of the "Least Dissatisfaction" method.Here's another interesting thought on the topic of power assignment and satisfaction: The preference matrixWhat we really need is someone (like me?) to code all these various methods into a Judge (yes, Manus, I'll work on it!!).
| Alice | RAFEIGT |
|---|---|
| Bob | AIRTGEF |
| Carol | TIRAGFE |
| Doug | ETRAFIG |
| Eddie | GRATFIE |
| Frank | GERAFIT |
| George | FRAGTIE |
is equivalent, if you imagine the powers themselves to have "preferences," to
| Austria | BA[EG][CDF] |
|---|---|
| England | DFAB[CEG] |
| France | GA[DEF]CB |
| Germany | [EF]G[BC]AD |
| Italy | [BC]A[DEFG] |
| Russia | A[EG][BCDF] |
| Turkey | CD[BE]G[AF] |
A least squares fit on the first matrix would produce one of the following assignments:
| Option 1 | Option 2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Austria | Bob | Alice |
| England | Frank | Doug |
| France | George | George |
| Germany | Eddie | Frank |
| Italy | Carol | Bob |
| Russia | Alice | Eddie |
| Turkey | Doug | Carol |
(Both options sum to 16, all get 1st or 2nd choice) Now, when you apply a least squares fit to the second matrix, you get:
| Option 1 | Option 2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Alice | Russia | Austria |
| Bob | Austria | Italy |
| Carol | Italy | Turkey |
| Doug | Turkey | England |
| Eddie | Germany | Russia |
| Frank | England | Germany |
| George | France | France |
(Both options sum to 13, all get 1st or 2nd choice)
Which happens to be exactly equivalent to the assignments done in the other direction! Thus, a happy country makes for a happy player.
As the game progressed I maintained a deal with the French player to dominate our respective East/West portions of the map. Time was going on and I had to make a decision as to whether I could win the game within the tournament time period and I concluded that I could not. Being of the old school: Win Only or another result, the another result that I wanted was a 2 way draw as combined with a prior 2 way and 3 draw I had a decent chance of ending up in top 7 positions of the tournament. The downside was the voting system. If the game went on a dead lock at the end then it would be draws include all survivors and not only would knock my position down in the tournament but would have elevated Hood's who was not allied with me in the game. The players in the west also wanted to extend their rating in the tournament and there was the basis of the deal that was negotiated. The small survivors in the game knew that they would be eliminated if the game was not ended by a draw vote. Therefore for them the best bet was to vote to end the game. Their survival and their score was higher because the game ended early. In fact as I recall at the end, even David was suddenly not sure if he would survive if the game went on. Therefore, the game was voted an end to the two way draw of Italy and France...where the remaining survivors all received points based on their supply centers. I believe that the vote was unanimous at the end and that even David voted for it, though technically he was not needed as he had only 4 centers. But it should be noted that David ended up with a higher score for surviving in the game than being eliminated. The game was not a bad display of abuse, in fact it was an excellent use of the voting concept in a game to achieve a result that could not be obtained by board play. It was a very diplomatic way to end the game.
Now whether there should be any vote in a scoring system or not is a different issue.
Also if prior rounds should affect the game in a tournament or not. These are tournament design issues.
However, I simply wanted to explain the game you saw and to correct your feeling that there was something very odd going on, it was just diplomacy.
I read your follow-up articles and the response threads. I think I have another take on your data. Why not drop the assumption that a respondent's "France/Turkey Attack Differential" is relevant? If you're trying to measure map effects, why not measure responses between maps?
What I'd like to see is the differential across experience and risk profiles between the maps. Why not plot the map response differentials for each population as data points? For example, try comparing the responses from both maps to "...likelihood that Italy is setting up to attack you..." for "somewhat conservative experts". In the end, you'd get 50 data points for each map: 25 for each unique population x 2 for the "likelihood" questions. You could graph it in two dimensions (y= {experience, risk}, x=likelihood) or in 3 dimensions (x=experience, y=risk, z=likelihood) depending on how you want to slice the results.
With 100 separate data points, some interesting comparisions could be made. How do aggregate responses between maps to one question contrast with aggregate responses to it's mirror question? Does the sum of those aggregate comparisons equal zero? Can you spot trends by altering your choice of which variable to plot as x/y/z (assuming each variable is plot independent?) In addition, you could easily make comparisons that adjust for map bias, such as comparing the aggregate of "Map A Likely + Map B Unlikely" vs. "Map A Unlikely + Map B Likely"
In addition, you might better explain statistically significant deviations by viewing each respondent as a unit. In that case, you'd get 446 data points to answer such questions as "Are experts more likely than intermediates to describe themselves as cautious and if so, could this be controlled for given the data?"
The possibilities are endless...
Author's response: I think I see what you are saying. I took data that went across multiple dimensions (which map, level of expertise, level of risk-taking) and flattened it by plotting only one dimension at a time (differential vs level of expertise for map 1, and for map 2, and differential vs level of risk-taking for map 1, and for map 2). You are suggesting plotting the three dimensional cube and looking for trends or patterns in volumes or areas along slices. Interesting. I've already had one person take me up on my offer to pass on the data I have (see the article by Marc Leotard in this issue). I again extend the offer if you are interested in exploring some of your endless possibilities.
p.s. I have no idea how anyone could not have seen the orientation! I didn't consiously recognize it at the time (I didn't actually take the test - I read the article only after the Spring issue came out so I was too late), but I certainly recognized the 3-D nature of the map. I really wonder about the spatial-reasoning/depth perception abilities of some of our fellow Dippers...
In defense of the unwitting experimental subjects, I don't think that people did not notice the 3-D nature of the map. But I think it's easy to not take notice of how 3-dimensional objects are spatially oriented. A pattern can be in front of you without you noticing. Having read the article about the test before having seen ruined the possibility of your having missed it. It's like looking for an object hidden in a picture. You can look right at and fail to see it, but after it's been pointed out to you, it's so obvious that you can't not see it.
I was fascinated by both your hypothesis and the study.
Author's response: Thanks for the kind remarks.
I had some thoughts on why, perhaps, you didn't get the results you expected, as well as the irregularities.
My first thought is about the maps. The visible "end" of each of the pieces is on the left in both maps; perhaps those surveyed subconsciously took this into account when they determined the likely target of the Italian forces. My second thought is methodological. The accuracy of at least the breakdown by skill level relies solely on self-reporting. Could it be, perhaps, that rather than experts being more likely to be swayed by the orientation of the pieces, that those surveyed misrepresented themselves? It simply seems unlikely to me that "experts" would be the least likely to base their conclusions about the possibility of a stab on the actual position of the pieces. I have no data to back it up, but it would seem to me that those unsure enough of themselves to misrepresent themselves as experts (due to discomfort over inexperience?) would also be the most likely to base their interpretations on the orientation of the pieces.
The first thought is a possibililty. The second is not only possible, but likely. I mentioned this in my followup to the original article. True experts might intentionally downplay their expertise, but since they have no reason to do so in an anonymous survey, it is more likely that some players who are experts relative to a large population of players may not personally consider themselves to be experts.
Again, I have nothing to support any of these ideas, but your piece got me thinking.
I've received enough comments indicating that I got people thinking, that I consider the experiment a success for that reason even if the results themselves weren't conclusive. Thanks very much for the note.
The cannons and boats are cast from the Parker Brothers molds from monopoly then annodized to the familiar country color. The cardboard disks with flags to indicate center ownership on the board will be helpful, but I'm concerned that one of my friends (um, acquaintances) who likes to slip additional units on the board now and then, now has an additional weapon in his arsenal.
Buz's response: Didn't set the pieces up, but they looked fine in the package. The center ownership pieces are round, maybe about penny size.