I will be changing destination

[S. Kroeze]

Dear GGS'ers, Diplomacy addicts and others,

More than a month ago our game "SANGLOTS" was terminated. Since some of you expressed the wish to play another Diplomacy game, some of you have been looking for players willing to participate. But by now -thanks to the efforts of Joker and especially M@ni@c- I have only received messages from six players stating their willingness to play another game, i.e. Hobbes, Leland, M@ni@c, Misfit, The Diplomat and The Joker, with Amjayee willing to serve as standby. According to M@ni@c some Dilithium Dad was also eager to play, but since I have still received no confirmation of this interest, my guess is this was just a whim.

Of course we can wait to eternity for a seventh player to show up, but that wouldn't be my suggestion. After all, it is also possible to play Diplomacy with fewer than six players. I have to admit that playing with seven is clearly the ideal, the way this game was originally designed; yet a game with only six is in no way something to be ashamed of.

So -unless somebody strongly disagrees- I will wait another week, until the 9th of November. When no seventh player has been found, I will start a game with six, where Italy is neutral.
Those who prefer to play the game with seven players -and I am among them- are strongly encouraged to try their utmost finding that still missing participant!

When someone wishes to discuss this matter, I kindly request him to use this thread.

Sincere regards,

S.Kroeze

[Maniac]

So, anyone who has an acquantance (horrible spelling:-) willing to join?

[S. Kroeze]

Though our Diplomacy team consists of only six players, I have decided not to delay the start of the game any longer.
Hurray!!!

Gamestart: "L'INVITATION AU VOYAGE"

November 2001
GM: S. Kroeze
Deadline: 18th November 2001, 8.00AM (GMT)

ENGLAND : The Joker
e-mail: bjarkestaunolsen@ofir.dk
FRANCE : M@ni@c
e-mail: peter_steenbeke@hotmail.com
GERMANY : Leland
e-mail: jjakonen@mail.student.oulu.fi
ITALY : neutral
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY : Misfit
e-mail: tkarg@sympatico.ca or misfit_travel@hotmail.com
RUSSIA : Hobbes
e-mail: jcrocombe@dingoblue.net.au
TURKEY : The Diplomat
e-mail: JAHOFFMANN@bsu.edu
standby : Amjayee

Game rating : 675.20

GM-all players: Welcome all! I suppose you will be able to contact one another by e-mail or otherwise. Please check whether I have given your e-mail address correctly!
Any questions can best be answered in the off-topic thread of the GGS Forum: 'I will be changing destination'. Do not hesitate to put questions about rules or other aspects of this game! I'll try to answer them all.

IMPORTANT: Please do not send your orders on the last minute! When they arrive too late -whatever the cause- your units will hold. When you foresee problems with a deadline, please inform me as soon as possible and NOT afterwards. It is allowed to send in temporary orders and to change them later, sending a new list of orders. In that case, please make it clear that those new orders do replace the original set.
I will confirm the arrival of orders within 24 hours by sending an e-mail to the sender. I will not apply this service to orders sent to me less than 24 hours before the deadline, so players sending their orders at the last moment, do so at their own risk.

Players are also allowed to add press/comments to their orders. Yet it remains within the discretion of the GM to edit or shorten such press. Please make it clear to whom a statement is addresed! (e.g. GM-World)

A note about Italy: "Italian units hold in position and defend themselves, but do not support each other. They may be supported by units belonging to any of the players, as with any other units ordered to hold. If they are forced to retreat, they are disbanded."

And: PLEASE do not forget that Diplomacy is a game, that is supposed to be fun!
Good luck! That the best may win!

Best wishes,

S.Kroeze

[S. Kroeze]

I have heard back from one of the people I sent notification to about our Diplomacy game. He has expressed interest in taking the last country. I have asked him to contact Sanders to see if this okay with our referee.

Being Austria Hungary, I gain substantially by not having an active Italian player sitting on my backdoor, but it does change the game dynamic quite a bit.

The individual in question lives in Vancouver, Canada and has detailed familiarity with Diplomacy. I have played with him in both board and electronic versions of the game. He is a ruthless bugger and keen diplomat (something I'm sure we are all pretty good at). Anyway, since the moves aren't due till the 18th, there might be enough time to consider including him.

Is there a web address where we can pull up a diplomacy map? I would hate to agree to coordinate bombing of helpless Russian civilians and then get the location wrong in my moves. ;-)))

You will have learnt by now that players who like to win this game will try to exploit every opportunity to help their fortune a bit. In some situations they will argue one way, yet they will argue the other way when this would suit them better. So the decisions of the GM should be completely predictable and as consistent as humanly possible. A GM who can be influenced by public opinion shouldn't manage a Diplomacy game!

Thanks a lot for your efforts!

Unfortunately it is my point of view that the die has already been cast.
I would definitely have preferred to play this game with seven instead of six players.
Yet the deadline I had set, i.e. November 9th, has past and I have a most rigid opinion about the enforcement of deadlines and other decisions by the GM.
Since Diplomacy is a game of treachery and deceit, it is most important that the decisions of the GM are completely predictable!

So I am sorry about it, but we will have to settle for this game with only six players. I hope we will be more lucky next time.....

The idea of a map is a good idea, but I am not an expert in such matters nor do I possess the necessary software. Perhaps it might be possible to post it as an attachment in the GGS Forum.
When you have any doubt about the position of some unit(s) you can always contact me.

I am really sorry to disappoint you!

Sincere regards,

S.Kroeze

[amjayee]

It's nice the game has started. Sander, could I please receive the game reports too, so I can keep up with the situation of the game, so in case I have to jump in, it would be less hassle for me? Thanks in advance. About a diplomacy map, there are several software designed specifically for that. In our earlier game, some of us were using a program called War Room I found from the net. I don't have the link at hand, nor have the time right now to find it, but I posted about it on this forum. I found that program extremely useful in planning my moves, and it also prevented giving invalid moves. I hope you like it too.

As a side note, I finally received my precious biscuit tin from Amazon today, and I'm about to start playing the long-awaited civ3. Of course, I went to a grocery store and bought a bag of biscuits to fill that empty and thus poor-looking tin of mine. Damn, I paid a lot of money for that. From this I learned, that I will never ever again order products containing cd-roms from USA if I don't have to. I had to pay 22% VAT and and then also customs to get my hands on that tin! The final cost was some 100 dollars. Grrr But then, I'm happy to start playing civ.

[Leland]

See http://www.diplom.org for various diplomacy maps and software.

Anyway, I have recently moved and my rulebook is still buried somewhere... so I hope it isn't too much of a bother if I verify two little details about game mechanics before the game begins.

First, what happens if following moves are issued:

Italy: A Tri-Ser, A Ser-Bud
Russia: A Rum S A Ser-Bud
Austria: A Bul-Ser, A Bud S A Bul-Ser
?

It seems that the army in Budapest is dislodged, but is its support cut? I.e. does Austria still get Serbia? I seem to recall that an army cannot cut support which is directed towards its own province, but does this also apply when the supporting unit is dislodged?

Second, how did disrupting convoys work again? Do I need to just attack a convoying fleet (similarly to cutting support) or is it necessary to dislodge part of the convoy? For example:

England: A Edi-Nor, F Nth C A Edi-Nor
Germany: F Den-Nth

Does the convoy succeed or not?

Thank you for the answers in advance.

[Maniac]

A fleet has to be dislodged to cut the support. Just attacking it is not sufficient. The reason behind this is that armies have their own transport ships. The fleet just serves as an escort. So when one fleet attacks a convoying fleet, the escort keeps the attackers busy while the troop transport moves on.

The answer question on your first question... Well um... Pass!

[S. Kroeze]

Dear Leland,

It's nice to have you joining in!

First, what happens if following moves are issued:

Italy: A Tri-Ser, A Ser-Bud
Russia: A Rum S A Ser-Bud
Austria: A Bul-Ser, A Bud S A Bul-Ser
?

It seems that the army in Budapest is dislodged, but is its support cut? I.e. does Austria still get Serbia? I seem to recall that an army cannot cut support which is directed towards its own province, but does this also apply when the supporting unit is dislodged?


Basically this is the rule:

• A support is always cut when the supporting unit is dislodged
• A support is normally cut by any unsuccessful attack on the supporting unit, unless this attack originated from that same province into which the supporting unit was giving support

How would I adjust these moves?
Italy: A Tri-Ser[#], A Ser-Bud[#] (dislodged)
Russia: A Rum S A Ser-Bud[#NSO]
Austria: A Bul-Ser, A Bud S A Bul-Ser

The attack A Ser-Bud cannot cut the support of the army in Budapest, since this support is given into the province from which this attack originated, i.e. Serbia.

I suppose you intended to have Russia giving this order:
Russia: A Rum S (ITA) A Ser-Bud, resulting in the dislodgement of the army in Bud, in addition cutting its support:
Italy: A Tri-Ser[#], A Ser-Bud
Russia: A Rum S (ITA) A Ser-Bud
Austria: A Bul-Ser[#], A Bud S A Bul-Ser[#] (dislodged)

Second, how did disrupting convoys work again? Do I need to just attack a convoying fleet (similarly to cutting support) or is it necessary to dislodge part of the convoy? For example:

England: A Edi-Nor, F Nth C A Edi-Nor
Germany: F Den-Nth

Does the convoy succeed or not?

It does, M@ni@c is right: "An attack on a convoying fleet which does not dislodge it does not affect the convoy." (XII.3)
So to disrupt a convoy one has to dislodge one of the convoying fleets.

I hope your change of address is an improvement?

Good luck!

S.Kroeze

[S. Kroeze]

My sincere apologies for the late arrival of the game report of 'L'INVITATION AU VOYAGE'. Due to a serious illness one of the players was not able to send me his orders in time. I hope it is clear to everyone that it is not my habit to wait for the arrival of delayed orders. I expect to send you the game report this evening.

Yet I do not think this illness explains missing the deadline. You could have done two things: You could have sent me temporary orders, which you can change as often as you like. I will always confirm the arrival of orders unless they arrive within 24 hours of the deadline. In my opinion one should send one's orders at least 24 hours in advance. Even better is to send preliminary orders immediately after receiving the game report.
Another possibility would have been to inform me about your illness, asking to delay the deadline.

Perhaps you do not like my opinion about how a Diplomacy game should be run. I know tastes may differ here. Yet I know I am quite an effective GM and usually my games run smoothly. I have made it clear from the beginning that my deadlines are 'hard', and by confirming the arrival of orders a player can know whether his orders have arrived or not. I also do not like to make exceptions: when players make mistakes in their orders I do not think it is my duty to correct me, on the contrary! If you are the type of player who prefers "soft" deadlines (i.e., frequent 24-hour extensions, orders due on different days of the week over the course of a game, slow turn-arounds, etc.), then perhaps I'm not the GM for you.

[S. Kroeze]

Is it actually allowed to attach such conditions to your build orders? How detailed may we make those conditions? Is something like 'when Russia conquers Norway and Germany's order A Mun - Bur is successful, I will order this and this; otherwise I will.....' allowed?

Good question!
The answer is: Yes, this is allowed, both for retreat orders and build or break orders.
Be careful with the conditions you report; sometimes the consequences will turn out unexpectedly!

[S. Kroeze]

My builds are as follows:
If I get Rumania, then Build F Sev.
If I get Sweden, then Build A War
If I get Norway, then Build .....

(Is this an appropriate way of listing?)

This way of giving build orders is certainly possible, yet I think you will discover when the game develops that it can be hazardous too; especially when you are losing some and gaining some supply centres elsewhere at the same time.

I usually put it this way:
1. A P 2. F Q 3. A R
Making builds and breaks conditional is definitely a wise policy. Most important is that your orders cannot be interpreted twofold. A GM should follow your orders to the letter!

[Leland]

Alright, I am giving up. The game we're playing hasn't really worked out as smoothly as the first one, and I have become quite turned off by it.

The purpose why we originally decided to play Diplomacy last spring was not only to have fun, but also because it might be a great learning experience with regards to GGS planning. But, it seems that the forum has been inactive for about three weeks. True, I take the blame because I haven't really been part of the team except in the most vaguest sense of the word, but nevertheless kind of begs the question what the heck is GGS all about, playing Diplomacy? Also, in our first game I at least knew most of the players, now its only The Joker and S.Kroeze whom I consider to be familiar with. No offense to the rest of you, I just do not know you yet and it would not be as pleasurable to kick your butts in Diplomacy as Vet, chrispie, Elmo and amjayee. Nothing wrong with anonymous Dip though, it's just that the fact that there have been a lot of problems along the way have kind of squeezed all the fun out of the equation: first we were forced to leave out Italy (that should've been a clue that there isn't enough interest), then there were some trouble getting the game rolling (like the Diplomat's email address... the one provided above didn't seem to work) and now the missing builds have opted one of the players to quit. I am not above these incidents, and I quite regret that I have not been able to keep up proper Diplomacy to the rest of you (yes, the reason why the first round was delayed was my absent-mindedness), but nevertheless I am seriously disappointed by the whole experience. I haven't done any diplomacy this week (apart from one message last Sunday), and I'm not sure what is generally going on in terms of replacements, but I can imagine that if I am frustrated then certainly our respected gamesmaster must be at least equally ticked off and I think it would be just fair to let him off the hook.

Diplomacy itself is a fun game, I have no doubts about that. I started a game at the Pouch (www.diplom.org) and it's been quite exciting. I wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone interested in the game. I have no gripe with S.Kroeze's GMing, he's been about as impartial as a human can be. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the rest of the players, the little diplomacy we've had so far has been enjoyable. But something just isn't right, this game is no longer either fun, educational or exciting. So I am asking the whole thing to be called off. If the rest of you want to continue (which I have no doubt at least the successful nations want to do) I will of course oblige and keep playing the best I can, but in case I am not alone with these sentiments then it would be pointless to drag on a game a majority of us do not enjoy.

[The Joker]

Sad that you think so.

Personally I actually enjoy this game. Although it is not going like I wanted it to.

Anyway, I think it brings us to a much more serious issue: GGS.

Leland is right that nothing constructive has been going on the past 3 weeks. Which indeed is a shame.

The issue is whether we should just abort it all (if we are to do so then let's agree on doing so, and make some agreements so we can stay in touch - I actually like you guys ) or if we should continue in a scaled down version - FreeCiv code or something similar with our personal addons like a political system or a simple raw materials engine.

The last option is what I prefer. But it still will take a lot of work.

And we all are buissy. So it needs dedication.

What do you think?

Everybody (GGS crew) please reply to this.

[Nath]

The issue is whether we should just abort it all (if we are to do so then let's agree on doing so, and make some agreements so we can stay in touch - I actually like you guys ) or if we should continue in a scaled down version - FreeCiv code or something similar with our personal addons like a political system or a simple raw materials engine.

Of course not ! GGS has had some quiet times before. People just happen to be busy doing other things, waiting for someone else to come up with an idea. I think we can continue as before. We still have to clarify the issue of what map to use. Perhaps we could have another vote or something.

[chrispie]

Well, my main concern for a long time has been the forever spiriling growth of the complexity of this project, and the fact that we never seemed to get anywhere. I'm still very interested in GGS, but recent heavy commitments have prevented me from doing any programming at all for a good while.

I'd truely hate to see GGS die, it's a great project with some great guys working on it. I can't promise anything, but it might be possible for me to supply some time from now on to work on the project (depending on how things go for me over the next few months (it's a long dull story I don't think I need to give the details here)).

I've got to say I've read as much as I can on the forums whilst I've not been active, and I've struggled to understand everything such as the discussions on the map, regions, vectors for the regions (or was that areas? lol). Anyway, I really hope GGS can carry on, especially now since we all own a copy of Civ3 ( right? ). Maybe it could do with a bit of an overhual in terms of the complexity issues (i.e simplified for idiots like me) - in an attempt to stir some new interests, we all know that the Civ world is a very rich one, full of many a talented programmer, artist, designer etc.

BTW maybe we can arrange a meeting sometime in the next month or two (long time in advance) so many we can all get a bit excited about what should be the best Civ game yet.

Take care all

long live GGS!!

Chrispie