Dear Consigliere Niccolò:

I am not sure what I should do next, in a game I am currently playing. I am England, and hold Norway, Brest, Paris, Spain and Portugal, as well as my home Supply Centers. Italy and Germany had strung Austria along with promises of help in the east, against Russia, but pretty much left Austria to fight alone. Things blew up between them, and after fighting among themselves for several years (Austria still owns Venice), the three central powers have allied to fight Russia, who has all her home Supply Centers plus the Turkish dots, Sweden, Denmark, Rumania, Bulgaria and Budapest. I have neutrality agreements with Russia, Italy and Germany. All the surviving players are very good, with the exception of Germany, who is a newbie.

-At a loss in London

Greetings, most honorable King of England:

A prince ought never to make common cause with one more powerful than himself to injure another, unless necessity forces him to do it, for if he wins, you rest in his power, and princes must avoid as much as possible being under the will and pleasure of others. It is far better for a prince to make himself the leader and defender of his less powerful neighbors, and endeavor to weaken the stronger ones.

-N.M.

I agree with Signore Machiavelli here, generally. Often, not enough thought is paid to the consequences of helping large powers get larger. Of course, there are occasional exceptions. For example, when confident that if you and an ally engage in a race to 18, you will come out a winner, and you are not vulnerable to a stab by that ally. In this case, because of the comparative narrowness of the Anglo-Russian front, I would seriously consider moving against Russia and Italy simultaneously. The Kaisers and Tsar will keep each other busy in the center, and depending on the exact distribution of fleets, Russia may not be able to make any real gains in the Mediterranean while you collect all the Italian dots. The final Supply Centers for a possible solo could be those of the German newbie.

-D.E.C.
 

Dear Consigliere Niccolò:

I am new to the game of Diplomacy, and when I have asked people, I have received conflicting advice on opening moves. Is it better to be aggressive, and attack someone immediately, or is it better to wait for others to commit themselves before deciding what to do? Also, what country do you think is the best ally for France?

-Perplexed in Paris

Felicitations, young Prince:

It is indeed a wise prince who pauses to ask questions before deciding upon a course of action. I certainly think it is better to be impetuous than cautious, for fortune is a woman, and it is necessary, if you wish to master her, to conquer her by force; and it can be seen that she lets herself be overcome by the bold, rather than by those who proceed coldly. As to your second question, I leave the discussion of this tactical preference to my amanuensis, who is the one with more experience upon the field of battle.

-N.M.

Considerations of political correctness aside (and I will need to explain a few things once more to the Consigliere), I am in disagreement with him here. Whenever possible, I prefer to set up commitments with the other players so as not to make any enemies right away, and then if someone attacks me, I will counterstrike, employing the alliance structures and exploiting the relationships I have set up previously. If no one attacks me, then my flexible set up and good relationships normally allow expansion in whatever direction seems most promising.

As far as France goes, all things being equal (though they never are), an alliance with Germany is often the best policy. England would be the first target, and once England is reduced, you and the Kaiser could both turn east, with Italy as your next objective. After that, you probably still have options, either going further east in the Mediterranean, or stabbing Germany. In my experience, Germany will often be more vulnerable to a stab than France in this alliance.

-D.E.C.
 

Dear Consigliere Niccolò:

I am playing Russia in a game just entering 1904. France, Germany and I are attacking England, who is down to two Supply Centers. France and Germany, however, have each confided in me that they would prefer to attack the other, and I am fairly sure I can get the other two English dots (I already have Edinburgh), as the price for choosing sides. France and Germany are evenly matched, and I think they will be slugging it out for a long time. After taking England, I will probably just defend up north until I am ready to be more active. My question is in the south. France is attacking Italy, who was helping Austria against Turkey, but has mostly pulled back to defend against the French. I have good relationships with Austria and Turkey, with DMZ’s in Galicia, Black Sea and Armenia. My southern units are Fleet Rumania, Army Sevastopol and Army Ukraine. Austria (with the aid of the one Italian fleet remaining in the east) has the tactical edge on Turkey, and wants me to remain neutral. Turkey, who I think is the better player, wants me to join him in an attack on Austria. What should I do?

-Mulling it over in Moscow

Most illustrious Tsar:

It is a signal honor for me to respond to your inquiry. A prince is further esteemed when he is a true friend or a true enemy, when, that is, he declares himself without reserve for one, or against another. This policy is always more useful than remaining neutral. For if two neighboring powers come to blows, they are either such that if one wins, you will have to fear the victor, or else not. In either of these two cases, it will be better for you to declare yourself openly and make war. In the first case, if you do not declare yourself, you will fall prey to the victor, to the pleasure and satisfaction of the one who has been defeated. The one who is not your friend will want you to remain neutral, and the one who is your friend will require you to declare yourself by taking arms. In the second case, when those who fight are such that you have nothing to fear from the victor, it is also to your benefit to take arms. You go to the ruin of one who should have been saved by the other, if that other were wise, since the conqueror rests at your discretion.

Irresolute princes, to avoid present dangers usually follow the way of neutrality and are mostly ruined by it. If your ally loses, you are sheltered by him, and so long as he can, he will assist you; you become the companion of a fortune that may yet rise.

-N.M.

The Consigliere has a tendency to be absolutist in his pronouncements. (I do not, and look who is talking about being an absolutist! –N.M.) To me, a fight between evenly matched opponents can present good opportunities if one remains neutral for a while. For instance, offers to you by one or more combatants may be sweetened if you do not agree to their initial proposals. One or both of them may pull units away from your border in order to put them into action against their present enemy, leaving them more vulnerable to you when you do attack. You may also find out that an offer was a trick, designed to pull you into a conflict the player who made the proposal has no intention of joining, or designed to increase your vulnerability by influencing you to move units for the attack, thereby weakening your position elsewhere.

-D.E.C.
 

Dear Consigliere Niccolò:

I am playing Austria. My ally Italy and I are squared off against a Franco-German alliance, with the other powers eliminated. We are both comparatively new at Diplomacy, while the French and German players are excellent tacticians and very experienced players. I managed to take Munich by surprise this spring, but the German player must have sensed something coming, and Germany is now back in position. She will certainly be able to retake Munich this fall with a four on three attack. What should I do. Please don’t tell me to switch sides and attack Italy. In my present position, I am much more vulnerable to Italy than she is to me.

-Vulnerable in Vienna

My salutations, most noble Holy Roman Emperor:

I pray that my humble suggestions will be worthy of such an august personage. I would like you to have this general rule, that the greatest remedy used against the design of the enemy is to do willingly what he plans to force you to do, because by doing it willingly, you do it with order, and to your advantage; but if you are forced to do it, it would be to your ruin.

-N.M.

I feel the Consigliere is on target here. A situation like this does offer tactical opportunities. First, you can be fairly certain of what four German units are doing, which is likely to significantly narrow the possibilities for her other pieces. You have, therefore, much more information about the intentions of your enemy than is often the case. You must now use that information productively. Since you believe the defense of Munich to be futile, don’t oblige your enemy by wasting three units in the attempt. Taking a guess as to the position from the information you supplied, Army Munich could perhaps be used in an attack on Silesia, or to hit the French in Burgundy. The two units that would have been wasted in the fruitless attempt to hold Munich might also be put to more productive use. The difference between competent play and inspired play is often merely how much use you can get out of the units you have.

-D.E.C.
 

*Amanuensis’ Note:

I will not go into the long and preposterous story of how I met a man claiming to be Niccolò Machiavelli. Suffice it to say that given the explanation he came up with, I cannot prove he is not who he says he is. He does have an exhaustive knowledge of Machiavelli’s writings (the replies to the questions here are for the most part quotes or paraphrases of Machiavelli’s works). He is uncommonly well educated, fluent in Latin and classical Greek as well as several other languages, though there are significant gaps in his knowledge of post-sixteenth century history, to say nothing of the technological and sociological developments. For example, Machiavelli does not really grasp the concept of the internet, and I have not been able to figure out how to tell him gently that Mr. Hawthorne and Mr. Hand will not be paying him in gold coin for his services.

Machiavelli is an extremely witty and engaging conversationalist, and if he is willing to continue to invite my wife and me over for dinner, he can claim to be anyone he wants. The menu last time was (in part) a mixed salad with a balsamic vinaigrette, venison with truffles, saffron risotto, and for dessert, pears poached in wine sauce with walnuts and gorgonzola cheese. He also has a wine cellar.  

-D.E.C.

Consigliere Niccolò,
Care of David Cohen
(david_e_cohen@yahoo.com)