Table of Contents
Broadcast message from [escharf@seattleu.edu as] Observer
in 'backseat':
End of Game Statement - Jurgen Pohl & Waid Here
by Eric G. Scharf
Yup, like the header says, both Deputy Reichskanzler Pohl and
Waid Here were authored by the same guy. I was tempted to maintain the
schizophrenic facade and write two seperate EOGS, but that probably
wouldn't impress anyone (other than myself, of course).
First off, I'd like to offer my sympathy and admiration for the
guys who actually had to *play* through all our blather. If I were in
the same situation, I'd've probably ignored the advisers and treated it
like a no-press game, except that I hate no-press, so I'm not sure what
I'd've done. I'm especially impressed by the players who actually tried
to follow our advice. The image of England and Germany laboring to
publically orchestrate the invasion of France while everyone knows that
such an invasion requires poor French guesswork will remain with me for a
long time.
Of course, I wouldn't have enjoyed this game nearly so much had
there not been similarly vociferous advisers. Lansdowne and Jean-Luc, in
particular, had great influence on both the course of the game and on the
level of banter. Shadouvian (your Tsar needed you badly!), Katy, Anneke,
Cardinals Richelieu & Mazarin (the Ren & Stimpy of 'backseat'), the defiant
editors of Le Monde, even General Zarg and the anonymous Magyar made this
game more fun than some of the games in which I'm an actual player.
Some background: Jurgen Pohl is the name of the father of one of
my friends, and is a genuine German citizen. Jurgen was the second of my
personae; I chose to advise Turkey and Simon "assigned" me to
Germany.
Past players in my games will recognize the verbiage and slimy tone in
Jurgen; he's closer to my "normal" playing style (of course, I
will probably
completely alter my style after this game; recreational schizophrenia is
fun!). Concluding the Scandinavian Treaty while stiff-arming the French
advisors (having conflicting voices in the French government helped here;
comparisons to contemporary real world politics are left as an exercise
for the reader) was a personal victory; locking Germany into a slow-growth
strategy with English allies was less so. The Austro-Italian alliance
was inevitable; I like to think Jurgy helped delay its potency from the
opening until the midgame. Of course, the inconsistency in Russia's voice
prevented anyone from ever really severing the Berlin-St.Petersburg axis,
and I knew that so long as Jurgy was more consistent, the Tsar would have
little alternative to keeping the faith. Lansdowne's resurgence actually
made it easier, as I *knew* Jurgy's monologue was slipping towards
Ribbentrop, and Lansdowne's conservatism would impart the appearance of
moderation (comparisons to two-party politics in the age of mass media
are left as an exercise for the reader).
The single greatest achievment for Jurgy was seducing Italy to
attack Austria. That Italy was played by Paul Myers, whom in previous
games I've both allied with and stabbed, is an unexpected pleasure. I'm
most proud of this because I feel it truly expanded the options open to
My Kaiser; Germany could either stab Russia and ally with Italy or rely
on the poor communications between the Austrian and Italian advisors to
prevent a reconciliation after the stab. I'd like to laud Katy in this
affair, who was truly a beacon of wisdom (and, therefore, my dire foe).
Fortunately for My Kaiser, her voice was unheeded.
After it became apparent that France was permanently beyond the
reach of negotiation (I don't blame him a bit) and that Russia was
content to trust My Kaiser, I let Jurgy stay quiet, because I knew his
comments would only restrict My Kaiser and constantly remind everyone of
just how big Germany was. Which gave me more time for...
Waid Here was my first instinct when I saw the variant proposed.
A friend of mine, who shall remain (mercifully) nameless, used to use the
pseudonym "WAID Here" when we played Diplomacy on a local BBS.
I believe
it stands for "What Am I Doing Here?". My friend made a
specialty out of
extremely garrulous demeanor, ad hominem attacks, slurs on players'
manhoods, and general irreverence. We killed him everytime. I always
wanted to see how he'd fare in a no-partial game, and so I jumped up and
asked to play Turkey (foolishly thinking that it would take the longest
to eliminate). Unfortunately, the Sultan must have decided that Waid was
too annoying to have any tactical sense, and my advice was ignored. I
didn't even have any consistent competition as Turkey's advisor. Sure
enough, the Tsar was pissed off (it didn't help that, at the same time,
as Jurgy I was demilitarizing Russia's northern front), and the Sultan
reaped the whirlwind. Almost the fastest elimination of Turkey I've ever
seen.
Of course, now that I was freed from obligations to any one power,
I was free to advise them all. I was also exempt from most rules of decorum,
and so I could lampoon every attempt at the self-important posturing
required by this variant. Combined with Pohl-Lansdowne vaudeville routine,
I had to restrain myself from too-obvious setups. I only indulged myself
once: when Jurgen reneged on a promise he made to Katy and Waid
challenged him to a duel. After that, I stuck to one-liners, sparing no one.
When the Anglo-German forces bogged down in France for three straight
years, it would have been fatally out of character for Waid not to encourage
Germany to stab England. Even though Jurgy usually gave sound tactical
advice, I decided that he would have been too proud of his Scandinavian
EGR pact to actively suggest the stab. Also, in this way, the Kaiser
could hear a convincing case for the stab made in public, yet Jurgy could
retain what little of his credibility remained.
In the end, Waid performed that role of the loudmouth kibitzer
who walks by the board and repeats the obvious. While most games don't
specify it in their house rules, I suspect that an observer acting like
Waid would be kicked out in short order (exempting those games deliberately
so designed, of course). In FTF, such behavior could result in physical
ejection. Yet there's something to be said for Waid-like commentary,
beyond the simple comic relief. Waid always pointed out the Emperor's
lack of clothes. In PBEM Dip especially, players often decide on a policy
without hearing a lucid argument made for alternatives. Waid holds the
status quo to account. I suppose a case could be made that games played
without such commentary are "impure," in that local ignorance allows
inferior strategy to succeed where it otherwise might not have. However,
if I ever bamboozle my fellow players (perish the thought!), you won't
find me clamoring for a "disinterested party" to offer his opinion.
Finally, I take no small amount of pleasure in noting that the
victor, My Kaiser, was Aaron Townsend, who I brutally stabbed and helped
eliminate in game 'bauer'. While the credit for the victory surely goes
to Aaron, I hope that Jurgy's efforts in 'backseat' in some way defray
any animosity he might still hold towards me.
Probably not.
Eric G. Scharf
Broadcast message from [vollman@cpsc.ucalgary.ca as]
Observer in 'backseat':
Hello, it's me.
In this game you knew me as Jean-Luc Picard, and those of you who
paid attention know that I am better known as "King Rob" ... or
just "Rob Vollman" if you prefer.
I was also General Zarg. Hmph, go figure.
And Mr. Le President - I did stick around until the end. But I
soon became "bored" because ... well there wasn't much to say.
But I did sit back and read all the press, watch the moves, and
(from time to time) say something funny.
It's been so long since I actually had to think and diplome ...
I hardly remember the game ...
Thanks to all. Questions and comments are welcome.
(rbvollma@acs.ucalgary.ca, preferably)
King Rob
Jean-Luc Picard
General Zarg
Broadcast message from [tkoutsky@tmn.com as] Observer in
'backseat':
End of Game Statement from Lord Lansdowne and Le Monde
Tom Koutsky (tkoutsky@tmn.com)
From my perspective, at least, the most interesting part about
these EOG statements is the revelation as to who the advisors
were. I had suspected the Jurgen/Waid link for awhile, but
as Pohl seemed to drop out and Waid still churning, I began
to doubt it. I do agree that Eric did the finest advising job
of us all.
Honest -- I entered the game with the intention of screwing over
England. How I would precisely do that was uncertain, but I
figured it would be fun to see if I could use the "advisor"
position to box in a power into a conflict he (or she) did
not want to enter. And thus, Lord Lansdowne, the somewhat
incompetent but responsive and active advisor was born.
I had always intended to advise France and held my tongue for
the first few years, as she was already spoken for. By the time
Le Monde was born, my idea there was to see if I could broker
some kind of Franch-English agreement that would, again, keep
England just as boxed into a continental war as before. Eventually,
I wanted to see a French stab of England. Lansdowne would then
have been revealed in a Le Monde special report to have been all
along a French sympathizer.
Why did I pick on poor England and dispatch Lansdowne to its "aid"?
Well, most (FTF) games of diplomacy I played seemed to end
up with a successful England, either solo victory or involved in a
two or three-way draw. So I wanted to see something different.
The best laid plans...Of course, only part of my plan worked.
And not as I expected. Once England got embroiled into the
continental conflict against France, England showed no inclination
to protect himself against Germany at all. I was absolutely amazed that
England placed orders in lock-step with what Pohl and Lansdowne agreed
to -- I agree with le President that this was a fun part of the game. I
commend le President for his always on-point orders, but I
admit that I myself did not believe that England and Germany would
follow everything Pohl and Lansdowne said.
By the time we had done the "Belgium shuffle" and Pohl offered
to sail a fleet into the North Sea, I had Lansdowne accept this
proposal, just to see if England would finally do something else. Well,
as you know it, the Kreigsmarine set sail and it was obvious to all that
the German stab of England was inevitable.
At the same time, I was trying to use Le Monde to broker a French-English
attack upon Germany, but I think I started too late. By the time Le Monde
gained any credibility, it was clear that Germany had England by the
you-know-whats.
My original plan sullied and France under continuous attack, I
took on the role of listful watcher. The spell of Lansdowne
representing Russia was a bit fun, and I enjoyed using the
Lansdowne character to poke fun at ex-President Carter. But I admit that
the judge problems of the last few months caused me to lose a bit of interest.
Here's a few questions I'd like to have answered by advisors/powers:
1. How influential was Lansdowne to England's decision-making? In the
absence of the Scandinavian Treaty (negotiated between Lansdowne,
Pohl and Shadouvian), would England have made a big attempt at
Scandinavia?
2. What are the other advisor/observer pairings? Would Simon let
us know?
For this second question, here are my guesses:
Anneke and Katy were always one
Shadouvian and Richelieu were one and the same
the rest were independents
I enjoyed this game immensely and think the variant has a great
deal of merit. As a relative new-comer to e-mail diplomacy, it
was good for me to get used to using the judge and the style of
play and press. I learned a lot and I thank you all.
Thanks especially to Simon, who thought this up and did a
fine job GMing the game. And thanks to the powers -- moves
were on time and I believe no abandonments!
Best regards and thanks again
Broadcast message from [conrad@apple.com as] Observer in
'backseat':
Simon says "Backseat". Backseat?! Oh yeah. It was six
months ago so I'd
entirely forgotten.
I had great fun in my two game years as "Risa Shadouvian". My
approach was
to try to speak to and influence all 7 rulers, rather than speaking just to
the Russian ruler and the other advisors. Unfortunately I got terribly
overcomitted about then... and of the major items Risa was much the
easiest to drop.
From my experience with those 1st 2 game years I'd say this is a great
variant! If another game of it is ever played I'd love to be one of the 7
major powers and experience what that side plays like.
I had two ideas for variations on this variant. It might be cool to permit
some sort of private communication between an advisor and the major power.
That communication could be unrestricted, or one-way, or limited to one
letter every 2 game years... or whatever. My other idea is to combine
"Backseat Driver" with my "Bourse" - so the
observer/advisors would also be
buying and selling currencies. With either idea there would be many
details to be ironed out.
Conrad Minshall
Broadcast message from [vollman@cpsc.ucalgary.ca as]
Observer in 'backseat':
Why is everyone so surprised about the Jurgen/Waid connection? I
figured that one out in 1902!
I, too, fell victim to the Shad/Richelieu combo. And as far as the
Monde/Lansdowne, I must confess, I didn't know. But that's understandable
because I really didn't care either.
How many people knew of the Picard/Zarg connection?
Jean-Luc
Broadcast message from [Timothy.Ferguson@jcu.edu.au as]
Observer in
'backseat':
Dear all, missive from the Vatican Council, to test if I have the
password correct.
On Wed, 19 Apr 1995, Diplomacy Adjudicator wrote:
> Broadcast message from Observer in 'backseat':
This is inaccurate.
> And as far as the
> Monde/Lansdowne, I must confess, I didn't know. But that's
understandable
Not me, I thought Le Monde was Picard, that is, I thought he was Chief
Editor.
Broadcast message from [muse@crl.com as] Observer in 'backseat':
End-of-Game Statement in 'backseat'
Jeff Jones, appearing as...
What a long strange trip it's been. First of all, thanks to Simon for the
excellent idea of the backseat variant, and for keeping the game going
through many judge problems. Thanks too to all the players and my fellow
advisors for a good game.
My recollections of the early years may be a bit spotty, but here goes. I
chose to advise Austria because it's one of my favorite countries to
play, and I wanted to see how someone else handled it. I didn't press for
a strong alliance with any of AUstria's neighbors at first, because (for
better or worse) I tend to be more reactive than proactive in setting up
alliances, and I didn't want to promise the Archduke to anything that he
didn't want to do. As it turns out, this may have weakened our position
more than anything.
Although I made friendly noises at Turkey early on, I knew that AT
alliances rarely work, and I wanted most of all to find a peaceful
resolution with Russia and Italy. If Russia had made a strong case for an
ART triple, I would have gone along with it, but once Russian armies
rolled into Galicia, I was lucky to find a sympathetic ear from Katy.
SOmewhere along the line, too, I dropped old Zoltan in favor of Katy, who
was much less pompous and easier to roleplay. I do like the idea of Katy
and Anneke sitting down in some Viennese coffeehouse to decide the future
of Central Europe. Too bad she's dead now...
Once we were locked in stalemate with Russia in the east, while Germany
continued to make slow progress in the west, I figured the game was up.
But it's a bit hard to say in that situation "I think we should pal up
with Russia and attack Italy now." That only invites an Italian stab, and
the Russian is hardly likely to take you at his word...so, as usual,
Austria ends up between a rock and a hard place.
I suppose I wasn't totally surprised when Italy finally pulled the knife
out, but I was disappointed. If we had stuck together, we might have been
able to put a crack in the RG alliance and change the balance of the
game. As it was, Italy got nothing but grief for his mistake, Russia got
a few SC's but no win, and Germany laughed all the way to the banks of
the Danube. Toward the end, there just didn't seem much to say; at least
I found out that I was right this time, which is a novelty for me.
Finnish State Radio was also my creation - I'm a shortwave listener - but
it seemed way too cumbersome to repeat, and would have been pretty
blatantly pro-Austrian in any event. Interesting metaphor, bad execution.
Once again, thanks to Simon and to everyone who participated. It's been fun.
Zoltan Karolyi, Graf von Marroszek (diplomat, composer, and gymnastics coach)
Anneke Liebling, Girl Friday of the Austrian Foreign Ministry
Jeff Jones # N4VMD # muse@crl.com # http://www.ipst.edu/~jjones/home.html
Broadcast message from [vollman@cpsc.ucalgary.ca as]
Observer in 'backseat':
Insane? Arrrrrrggghh ... could an insane man win the annual advisor's
tennis match? I think not!
Yes, I was approached by Simon to help out Turkey. I tried, but by
the time I got there, it was all over. I gave it a shot, but in the
end all there was time left for was to squeeze a few jokes in.
General Zarg
Broadcast message from [simon@diplom.org as] Master in
'backseat':
EOG for the Vatican and the Catholic Supremacist League.
I chose, very early, to play both Cardinals, Richelieu and Mazarin. My
original goal was to contstruct a three-way alliance between Germany,
France and England, as I have never seen one in practice, but since that
appeared impossible, I thought to try instead to encourage the relatively
rare FI alliance.
Early on, I arguged with myself, mostly for its entertainment value.
This had the useful effect of fooling certain people as to my continued
presence. Time constraints cut in, partway through the game, so I
allowed Richelieu to be withdrawn back to Italy, then, later, after
posting a few "Has anyone seen Richelieu?" messages, I also retired
Mazarin. I tried to get back into the game later, but my suggestions
were unworkable, as my attention to strategic and diplomatic detail had
lapsed over the interim.
I thank all players, especially Lucutous, who I really think should have
offered to assimilate Germany, at least once.
Thanks also to Simon. I really enjoyed this variant and would gladly
play a rematch.
Timothy Ferguson, Cardinal.
escharf@seattleu.edu
http://www.seattleu.edu/~escharf/
"Hypocrisy is the most difficult and nerve-wracking vice that any man
can pursue; it needs an unceasing vigilance and a rare detachment of
spirit. It cannot, like adultery or gluttony, be practiced at spare
moments; it is a wholetime job." -- W. Somerset Maugham
Tom Koutsky
Lord Lansdowne
Le Monde
tkoutsky@tmn.com
(alias Risa Shadouvian, advisor to Russia)
>
> Why is everyone so surprised about the Jurgen/Waid connection? I
> figured that one out in 1902!
>
> I, too, fell victim to the Shad/Richelieu combo.
> because I really didn't care either.
>
> How many people knew of the Picard/Zarg connection?
>
> Jean-Luc
Zoltan Karolyi, Graf von Marroszek
Anneke Liebling
Finnish State Radio
Information Specialist, Inst. of Paper Sci. & Tech., Atlanta GA
I don't speak for IPST, nor they for me. Trust me, it's better this way.
"The world has arrived at an age of cheap complex devices of great
reliability; and something is bound to come of it."
Vannevar Bush, "As We May Think", _Atlantic Monthly_ 1945.
The following EOG report was sent to me by Timothy Ferguson
(Timothy.Ferguson@jcu.edu.au) and was broadcast by me. -Simon
Back to the Backseat Driver Variant article....