|
Diplomacy is sometimes described as the "Chameleon game" because it is so easy to create variants of it, both by playing on a different map and by tweaking the rules. The evidence of this is on the Pouch's variants page: some 170 variants are listed there, with every imaginable scenario. Unfortunately, however, quantity and quality are not always correlated, and in my experience it's not that easy to find a variant that plays well. A few years ago, when I was at college, (and hence had more free time), I had a go at designing some variants myself. I started with a 7-player version with standard rules, called Heptarchy, which was a lot of fun, although I cannot claim it is balanced. I then tried to learn from my mistakes and created the more ambitious Bretwalda, for 9 players with some different rules. I believe play balance is better here, but the extra rules have meant it hasn't been able to undergo large scale play-testing on the judges. Here, then, are some thoughts of mine on how to make a good variant. I include myself in the audience, so if you're a variant designer and my criticisms seem close to the bone, be aware that my own variants did not always follow the rules I lay out here.... Balance - Tactical and DiplomaticMost variant designers aim at a balanced variant from the start. The idea is that every power should have a decent chance of success, given a board of competent players. The standard map is sometimes held up as a model of balance, other times decried as hopelessly unbalanced. Variant designers often lean towards the latter view, and of course aim to promote their own variants as more balanced. It's my contention, however, that there are two different sorts of balance - tactical balance and diplomatic balance. It's also my contention that variant designers often spend all their energy striving for the former, when the latter is actually more important. I certainly did. Tactical BalanceI define this as how fair, from a purely tactical point of view, the starting position is. All powers should have fair chances to pick up neutral supply centres, and grow early on. No power should be too vulnerable to being swept away by concerted attack before the game has got going, and no power should be completely invulnerable either. Complete tactical balance is therefore only possible on a symmetric, hence abstract board. How tactically balanced a variant is can be roughly estimated from the relative "success statistics" of each power over a large number of games. In my view Standard diplomacy is not very balanced tactically. For example, the adjacency of Venice/Trieste creates problems for Italy and Austria, while France's position is relatively secure and is nearly guaranteed 2 builds. The success statistics bear this out: France is well out front while Italy and Austria lag behind. Yet standard diplomacy is still overwhelmingly popular and seems to work. Why is this? Diplomatic BalanceWhen evaluating a board, I would consider the following scenario. Take a full complement of experienced players who do not know each other, and who all aim to do the best they can. Who is each power likely to want to attack, and who will they want as allies? A board is reckoned diplomatically balanced if there is no clear and definite "favourite option" for each power. It is reckoned diplomatically unbalanced if games with experienced players tend to produce the same alliances again and again. In my view Standard diplomacy achieves this diplomatic balance extremely well. There is no power for which you can say "X should always attack Y" and show that this is always a superior option to attacking Z. It is easy to rule out options (for example Germany shouldn't attack Austria, Austria shouldn't attack Italy), but there are at least 2 viable options for every power when it comes to choosing a first enemy. For far too many variants, however, I believe this diplomatic balance is missing, and it is too easy to identify "best strategies" for at least some of the powers. A variant that is diplomatically unbalanced will quickly become diplomatically uninteresting, as in experienced hands it becomes a mammoth tactical struggle between fairly fixed alliances, and only the introduction of less experienced players who might choose sub-optimal strategies creates any variation from this. However, a variant that is not tactically balanced can thrive and prosper, as Standard has, because the game is about diplomacy. Tactical imbalances are evened out because any power with a stronger tactical position is kept in check by negotiation and co-ordination by their neighbours. In other words, other powers keep an eye on the "stronger powers" and control their growth. Tactical imbalance is more serious in no-press, but even here a diplomatic angle exists, in that it is in the interests of weaker powers to try and control growth of stronger powers. What follows is some thoughts on how to achieve diplomatic balance. I have not considered tactical issues such as "avoid having adjacent home centres for different powers", even though this is a good idea. This is because I do not believe tactical balance is the main problem. Achieving Diplomatic BalanceI believe there is one really key principle here, that needs to be followed if a game is to be diplomatically balanced: 1: Every power must have at least 3 neighbours within striking distance.This is true of standard diplomacy. It is not true of my variants, Heptarchy and Bretwalda, though it is true for all but one power in the latter. It is also not true of most of the variants I have encountered. In fact, I cannot even name one of a similar size to Standard for which it is true, (which of course doesn't mean there isn't one). Why is this so important? First, consider a power with 1 neighbour. That power has only one real choice, attack that neighbour. Other powers know this, including the power in question, and predictable patterns quickly emerge. This leads to a very diplomatically unbalanced game. Second, consider a power with 2 neighbours. Such a power is typically located in a corner of the map. The problem here is that it is usually clearly in the interests of the 2 neighbours to ally with each other in order to eliminate the corner power, and this is a far superior option to allying with the corner power or even being neutral. If the corner power makes any progress against the other neighbour, it may well become impregnable, and you will probably be left in the middle game with a strong power at your back whose only viable target is you. In addition, attacking and eliminating the corner power is often easy, as there are no other nearby powers with the ability to interfere in the interests of the victim. This is in contrast to the usual situation in Standard where 2 powers attack 1 - there is nearly always somebody with a vested interest in helping the 1 to survive. This has important implications. Designing maps where everyone has 3 neighbours is a lot harder than you might think, especially in "realistic" scenarios with real maps and/or real powers. These have an annoying habit of not co-operating with the variant designer. For example, the American continents are a long, thin kind of shape. This makes it very difficult to arrange the powers in a well-connected sort of way, particularly if you try to stay remotely realistic with historical "powers". I spent a lot of time trying to design British Isles variants, and these usually ran into the problem that Northern England and Scotland are also this long-thin shape and that the most northerly power (Scotland in Heptarchy, Pictland in Bretwalda) thus only managed 2 neighbours at most. With the result that it wasn't usually good to be these powers if your neighbours knew what they were doing. In fact, Europe, with its heavily indented coastline and being broadly as wide as it is long, seems especially suited for diplomatically balanced Diplomacy. Unfortunately, even European variants have a tendency to sacrifice this. A typical problem is having Spain as a great power, which is only really next to France and is usually a major cause of imbalance. Turkey can also easily become a problem in the absence of an Italian power (i.e. in any realistic variant set between AD476 and AD1861) 2: Don't overestimate the importance of "far-off units" for diplomatic balance.A familiar pattern in variants is to introduce some territory belonging to a great power that is far away from its homeland, to try and encourage interaction between powers that would otherwise not have much to say. For example, Britain is given a fleet in Egypt, or Austria an army in Belgium ("Austrian Netherlands"). This is fun to have, and is no bad thing in itself, but it shouldn't be regarded as something to change the diplomatic balance of the board. If I have 3 centres in Britain and 1 in Egypt, my strategy is going to be based on what happens in Britain and its immediate surrounds, and what happens to Egypt is of secondary importance, if that. As discussed earlier, Spain is typically a problem power for finding 3 neighbours. Placing a British fleet in Gibraltar does not, in itself, change this. It affects the tactical balance, of course, but diplomatically it is a side-show: no experienced player in charge of Britain is going to base their strategy around its existence. Of course, this is different when there are opportunities for home units and the "far-off" unit to co-operate actively against a goal, such as a British fleet Gibraltar where Spain does not exist. Here it adds considerable possibilities to an attack on France (who is in any case a neighbour to Britain), and as such the above discussion does not apply. 3: Learn from history, but don't be a slave to it.Map variants come in 4 categories with respect to "realism"
Of course, people have different preferences here, but I believe that variants of (1) and (2) will usually get most adherents. These allow for a spot of role-playing and make it easier to create a "game persona", not to mention the chance to re-write history. (3) is of course restricted to enthusiasts who know the work in question, while (4) is, for me, too lifeless to be interesting. It should be noted that abstract variants should in theory be the best, (even symmetric, perfectly balanced variants are possible) but they have a big hurdle to get over to generate interest. Why should I want to conquer that abstract square piece of territory designated as a supply centre? What can I say to persuade my neighbour to ally with me if their other neighbour has an identical position to mine? Let's say, then, that like me you regard variants that are broadly realistic historically as the most interesting. Usually you can learn something from what really happened, so it's well worth reading up a bit to find out and speculate how things could have been different. However, a fully authentic historical variant is usually not a good idea. Firstly, it is a lot of work, and there is always something not quite right about the map (particularly if you choose Dark Ages Britain, as I did, where records are scarce and supply-centre-sized towns even scarcer). Secondly, history has an annoying habit of not being fair, certainly not fair to the stage desired here, where whims in the minds of every individual ruler can have far-reaching effects. Therefore, when history won't co-operate, you have to change it to fit your game. Note that even Alan Calhamer did this, removing Turkish control of Bulgaria and Greece that would be realistic for 1901. It's possible to do this quite a bit and still have a broadly realistic scenario. This is especially important when dividing powers into "Great Powers" and "neutral supply centres", which is often a difficult task from a historical point of view. My advice is simply to be ruthless and cheat. Most people don't know exactly what happened anyway... ConclusionI think it would be really good for the hobby if there was a better range of playable, diplomatically balanced variants available. In my view, the route there is relatively simple: draw your "power adjacency diagram" before you start designing your map, and try your utmost to ensure everyone has at least 3 neighbours, (not counting far-off units). Once that is sorted out, you can start researching your history, apply it to your map, and aim to achieve some measure of tactical balance. Then all that's left to do is to find some players and enjoy some Diplomacy.
|
|
|
Geoff Bache (geoff@goteborg.utfors.se) If you wish to e-mail feedback on this article to the author, click on the letter above. |
