I will be changing destination

[S. Kroeze]

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.

Dear Leland,

I am truly sorry to hear you do not enjoy the new game. And of course you are free to resign, though this definitely is not the way I think a game should end. I am sure everyone who truly loves this game will agree!
Please remember that we have had a lot of problems during our first game! My guess is that the remaining players now are all sufficiently motivated. I am not kiddng you!

Until this moment I have been seriously trying to find a replacement for Austria. So far without success, yet since my search started on Monday I hadn't expected to succeed that quickly. I am sure we will find someone sooner or later. I would prefer to continue the game, though it should be obvious you, the players, should not play it for my enjoyment. I hoped that was clear from the beginning. That was also the main reason I have not been actively searching for that seventh player. In my opinion, you should have been active at that time!

I had hoped that playing a game together would also help keeping in touch. Because I like you all and would be sorry never to hear from you again.
This was not the main reason, but it was definitely a contributing factor. I am also surprised to hear that you consider M@ni@c as someone from outside. I think he has posted more here the last months than most of us.

I also think the people you are familiar with by now, would have been less so when we would never have played our first game. I am sorry to hear that I had not given the right e-mail address of the Diplomat. Yet I have had no problems contacting him and he has sent in orders....

Probably this message is most messy, but I do not know yet exactly what message I want to convey.

I will say something quite unfriendly: I do not agree with the way Misfit left this game! Especially considering the fact he had played Diplomacy before, I think his behaviour is truly unsporting.
He at least should have known how this game works and how damaging it is when someone leaves. As you all can see, he never asked one question about procedures, rules, deadlines, adjudication etc on this Forum, while I have been most straightforward about how I run a Diplomacy game. Before we started he should have voiced his complaints about the deadline and my two-season system, which is commonly used -at least in the UK and in Holland.
(I hope to explain some other day, why I prefer doing it this way)
Yet when I myself would be a player in a game, I would NEVER ever make trouble about it, when some GM would organise the game using a five-season system. I would be glad he is willing to run it!

As you will have probably guessed by now, his orders arrived too late the first move. I more or less sent him an ultimatum: he could immediately send his moves or I would search for another player.
I have enough experience to know that when a player NMRs during his first move, he is hardly motivated to play. And it is far easier to replace a player before the game has started than afterwards. Yet he did send me his orders, at that moment clearly deciding to play.

The result is known to you all: because of the refused build orders he resigned. By the way, The Diplomat, whose position is probably far worse, never complained about it! Hurray! It would have been far better when Misfit would have resigned a week earlier!

To be honest, I would be disappointed when you left this game now, Leland. The departure of Misfit is his way of showing his power to sabotage this game. I do not want him to succeed!
You once sent me an e-mail that I could ask you to replace some other player, when I needed one!

At least I will ask all players, whether they want to continue or not. In my opinion the game SHOULD continue for those few players who are interested in the game. Negotiating takes time, but sending in orders, never takes more than half an hour! Hobbes and M@ni@c have invested time and effort trying to master the rules! Why should they be punished too?
Let's all think about how to continue!

Sincere regards,

S.Kroeze

PS: How interesting you started this game on the website! Tell us more about it!
Yet I suppose your adversaries were also strangers in the beginning. I hope you came well-prepared to this game!
(That is another reason for being most strict: I wanted you to be prepared. Most reliable and dedicated GMs are rather strict)

And Nath,

Why are you not considering participating? Diplomacy is really a great game, nor is it that time-consuming! Nor is the current position of Austria that bad!

I also hope that GGS will continue in some form. The problem is, I do not know how I can be of any use....

[Leland]

Alright, there's one thing that should be clarified right away before it causes any further grievances between people. The delay for submitting orders during the first turn was my fault, I was the one who forgot the deadline (for some odd reason I thought it was on monday... even though in our last game it was also on sunday mornings). At 4am on saturday morning I received a message from Austria asking me what would my response to his previous message be. He had been waiting for my answer for days, and the only reason why there was no response was my lazyness (well, I could make up an excuse about being busy or something, but that would be rather facetious). If Misfit had not reminded me of the deadline and had submitted his orders instead, I would have been the one who'd have been late. So in all fairness, S.Kroeze, I do think that your opinion regarding the recent resignation has been a little bit misplaced.

Another thing I'd like to clear is that in my previous post I was by no means speaking on behalf on the GGS team when saying that I "do not know" the people. I can see that M@ni@ac has been a terrific contributor, but the fact is that when he has been active, I have not, and hence I haven't personally got to know him (unlike Vet et al., with whom I used to IRC for hours). I hope I didn't offend anyone with that remark.

I suppose that it is entirely my own fault that I have not managed to get into the game. While I was writing this post, I actually found a diplomatic message from my inbox which I hadn't previously read... that should give you an idea of my commitment. As for the Diplomat's email address, I may have been wrong... I have been able to send successful messages in the same address during our last game, and probably now the email was lost for some other mysterious reason. Go figure. But this nevertheless affected the impression I had from the game, since I haven't been able to be sure whether my messages actually arrive or not (*note to self: delayed diplomacy in GGS only over my dead body*). On another note, I am perhaps strange but I use a lot more time in Diplomacy (well, perhaps not in "la voyage" but in our previous game and in the one I'm playing with the judges) than half an hour per day... I seem to recall that amjayee had a similar style of play so I can understand his sentiment for declining the offer when we were starting up a new campaign. For me the time is an issue, even if rest of you seem to be faster thinkers. Maybe that is why I have stressed myself too much about the game and hence been more disappointed when totally unexpected accidents happen (one could argue that these accidents are part of the game though).

(Wasn't amjayee our backup player, by the way? Have you asked him to replace Austria yet?)

You asked about the other game of Dip I started:

There are Diplomacy email-based servers called "judges" running all around the world with hundreds (thousands?) of registered users, and I have had the impression that they are the preferred way of PBEM Diplomacy. The computer does the adjudication so in these games the role of human GM is just to supervise. Judges are very user-friendly to play with, since they don't accept malformed orders, they remind you about deadlines automatically, have a "grace period" instead of just one definite deadline, and have a lot of other neat features. I believe this was what Misfit meant when talking about being unfamiliar to the two-phased system we've been using. At www.diplom.org I found convenient tutorials to get started, and there was also a web-based interface for applying into starting games (I had to wait for maybe a week or so) as well as registering to a judge. Anyone who's really interested in email diplomacy should try it out.

The game I am playing is "shock2" at DEDO judge. You can actually log into the judge and observe the game, though I am not sure if you have to register first. I'm playing as Italy and have been fortunate enough to be among the three leading nations out of six who are still alive. One player resigned during this game already, but this had little impact in the game since that nation is now in the top-3 as well, and is a serious contender for victory. I think that we could actually use the judges to run our game as well, at least we might want to look into it. That way, perhaps S.Kroeze would be able to join the game as well...

Anyway, back to "la voyage". I am not sure how to remedy the situation... I think that personally I have already disappointed my allies (which makes them my enemies, I guess) by ignoring the diplomacy. Misfit's resignation also comes in a bad time (not just the missing builds, but the act of resigning!) for me, and I have practically cut myself from the game because I haven't known what is going to happen. Thirdly, the game is just beginning and I think that it would not be very difficult for us to start all over at this point and hopefully avoid the nasty hassle (I am particularly vexed by the emails that didn't reach their recipients). I will of course continue if everyone else is (I know the responsibility of starting to play, and resigning would only make things worse for the remaining players!), my point here is to argue in favor of terminating this particular game.

Now, if we started a new game I think there could be some things that could make it more interesting and useful:

• Use the judges, if possible. We'd still need a GM, but his responsibilites would be by far easier... and it doesn't really have to be anyone we know, I think that the judges might have people who do GMing voluntarily. Anyway, the main benefit from using the judges would be to make the passing of orders more robust (because you just cannot forget your builds, for instance), yet fair (because it's a computer program).
  
• No matter how long it takes, use seven players. I am in no rush, and that really is a superior way to play Diplomacy.
  
• Maybe we could also try out some of the variants. That way all of us would be pretty much in the same line when it comes to experience. Also, I am trying to think of the educational aspect and what we could learn from the experience in terms of GGS. Playing different variants allows us to compare the different rulesets and perhaps give us a better insight into what exactly makes the strategic and tactical side of Dip so entertaining (or perhaps it's just the diploming...). www.diplom.org has a list of possible variants, I suggest you browse them. Some have exactly the same rules, but a different map, and some have the same map with modifications in starting positions and rules.
  
• Meet me in a dark alley with baseball bats and demonstrate what happens to spoilsports around here.

Just my suggestions. As for GGS, I have no idea what should be done. If you're looking for another project where to embed these ideas, I think Clash would be a better alternative than Freeciv, since Clash already has very similar goals to ours. Me, I don't really mind the unproductivity, GGS is a hobby and I just like to dwell into it every now and then without too much pressure. It would be sad to see GGS wane away completely though...

[Maniac]

If Austria and Germany are gonna leave this game and there will be no replacements, the fun of this game is ruined for me I must say. I only find it a pity for Viriato, since I introduced him into this game. As for Misfit, if I have the power, he can expect a vicious enemy in the SMAC game we're playing in together. If replacements are found for this game, I will continue this game with much pleasure. If not, I would love to join you in a new game. Then it would indeed be neat if we had S. Kroeze (the best GM I ever saw btw, not that he had much competition off course) as a player as well. I would appreciate that very much (even more since we don't have to expect much progress anymore in the CORONEL game, as it stands now, isn't it Kroeze?). Oh yes, Leland, I hope the fact that Glorious France was gonna kick your imperial butt out of this game hasn't affected your decision to resign!

About GGS, well in my mind I consider this project already dead for quite some time. I was wondering when someone would finally dare to say it. I have gathered some interesting information concerning terrain and climate a few weeks ago, but I didn't post it because I considered it wasted time. If the core group doesn't seem to invest any time, then why should I, who is IMHO still an outsider. Of course, if there's interest, I could post the ideas. But, like most others of you, I'm involved in many other hobbies and projects, like reading, Third World development help, SMAC, my exams approaching, chess, philosophizing (my favourite hobby!), Civ3 scenario building IF (very big if!) I would ever buy that game, you just name it! This list just to show I haven't got much spare time to devote to GGS.

Btw, doesn somebody have some mIRC manual for dummies? I absolutely don't know how to work with that program which prevented me from joining into IRC sessions. This of course makes that I don't have a clue what the real activity for GGS is. For example, one time there has been much discussion about Terrain, but it just stopped after a while without a definitive conclusion what direction to proceed in.

(Ex-?)President Maniac of the Third French Republic

[S. Kroeze]

Dear Leland,

By now all others players have given their opionion about continuation/termination of 'L'INVITATION AU VOYAGE'. Three preferred to continue, one preferred to terminate it and also considered resigning. I will also give you my opinion, applying not only to this game but to every Diplomacy game:

"It is my unshakable conviction a Diplomacy game should never be terminated otherwise than by fulfilment of the victory (=18 supply centres) conditions or a draw proposal accepted by ALL active players on the board.
And actually I consider this second solution vastly inferior to the first. Only some unbreakable stalemate position could force me to accept a draw proposal!"

This opinion applies both to participating as a player and to running it as a GM.
So my position will be clear: I will do my utmost to keep this game running and find replacements for all players resigning! I hope those who voted for continuing will help to find them.
I will not deny that I do not think this will be easy.

Perhaps this is irrelevant, but I will not conceal that the game 'SANGLOTS' -the French word for 'tears', how appropriate!- was probably the worst game I have participated in ever. Since I play and GM the game for more than twenty years, I am not entirely sure. Some memories will have grown dim.
Yet I never considered terminating the game!
Resigning, NMRs and termination otherwise than by a generally accepted draw proposal are by all dedicated players and GMs considered bad practice. This is not meant as a threat, but most GMs will place the perpetrators on a 'black list'. Nor do I think I will start a new game with GGS'ers ever again when we do not succeed to continue the present game.

Some of your critique definitely makes sense -though there are also points where I strongly disagree. As with the complaints of Misfit: before starting the game these could and should have been discussed. For example, this was part of a message about starting the game without Italy:

"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! "

At the time nobody complained or disagreed! Nor did I consider it nice behaviour to keep M@ni@c and Hobbes waiting for ever. As you might have noticed: so far the 'beginners' have prospered, while some 'experienced players' have incurred damage.

At the same time I really think you take the game too seriously. Of course you are free to spend as much time on it as you like. Yet I think you are tactically an intelligent player, though perhaps a lazy diplomat.
I suppose you have not yet ever played the game the way it was intended, which is beyond doubt the most exciting: in a room with seven players you can directly communicate with and a GM. During a tournament deadlines for a season (Spring or Fall) pass every half hour -at least during the Dutch championship. Everything: negotiating, writing orders, adjudication, retreats and builds/breaks are executed during that half hour!
I admit one feels completely exhausted after such a game -unless one is eliminated in 1903- but it is perfectly possible! Playing by mail, telephone or e-mail all have its own charm: it will never beat a well oiled 'face to face' game.

I sincerely hope you will reconsider your decision to resign. Even when you do not, I will still think about you as a really sympathetic person, though a bit unreliable Diplomacy player. You are even trying to take the responsibility for Misfits' NMR! I would like to point out he could have sent in temporary orders had he truly cared to avoid an NMR. Sometimes it is perfectly valid to ignore some other power diplomatically. He should never have made his actions dependent upon yours!

Please take your time! Afterwards I will contact Amjayee to decide what to do next.

Sincerely,

S.Kroeze

[Leland]

The French president must surely be jesting, as I am just about to take over his poor land. His army of peasants is no match to the finest men of Prussia!

Anyway, I will of course keep on playing since three out of the six original players agree. Yes, I have only myself to blame for the lack of diplomacy, and at this point I can only hope that I will be able to provide a reasonable challenge to the rest of you. I have not been sending any diplomatic messages in the last week, and I will remain silent until a replacement is confirmed... but once the game gets back on its feet, I promise I will try to be more active. There's one thing that I'd like to kindly ask from my fellow players though: since there was one email that was sent to me which I accidentally ignored, I hope that perhaps we could put the word [DIP] or something similar to the subject lines of all diplomatic mail, so that it'd be easier to direct it into its own folder? I get a lot of spam daily and I'd rather not want this to happen again.

Perhaps there is something to be learned from this game after all... the lack of Italy makes it a whole different ballpark. Germany si now the only country with four neighbours, and Austria is considerably stronger than in 7-player variant (even with the missed builds this year I think Austria is in a pretty good position). France, on the other hand, has a greater incentive to go directly to the Mediterranean than to battle England or Germany, which in turn reflects to the Russian foreign policy... well, I guess we'll just have to play and see how things turn out, it's always easier to analyze the situation a posteriori. Good luck in taking me down.

[Maniac]

Thanks! Though I'm not gonna need it.

[The Joker]

While this might have been the most buissy week of my life, ending with a 72 hour project the weekend, in which I have gotten about 7 hours of sleep - all weekend - I hope I have not missed anything regarding the Diplomacy game.

The last thing I heard from S. Kroeze was that the deadline was delayed, so although I know I should have contacted some of you before, I hope that I haven't missed any.

Good to see some GGS activiy BTW. I haven't got time to participate right now.

I have the 72 hour project in business economics for tomorrow which is not done yet, a paper in social studies for tuesday (no, not done either) and an exam in microeconomics wednesday.

After that I will have some time.

[Nath]

And Nath,

Why are you not considering participating? Diplomacy is really a great game, nor is it that time-consuming! Nor is the current position of Austria that bad!

Sorry, I hadn't noticed this post.

Perhaps over the next few days I'll read the rules from a website and serve as a standby.

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Nath


Sorry, I hadn't noticed this post.

Perhaps over the next few days I'll read the rules from a website and serve as a standby.

Thanks for your interest!
At the moment we do not need a standby, but some one willing to replace Austria-Hungary, which has three units, though it has five supply centres.
I am also willing to send you a copy of the rules of play and the map by mail. In that case I need your address (not your e-mail address!).

In this same thread you can find a lot of information about Diplomacy and the way I manage it. It starts somewhere on page 2, I believe. When you are willing to take over AUSTRIA, please send me an e-mail!

[Nath]

I am also willing to send you a copy of the rules of play and the map by mail. In that case I need your address (not your e-mail address!).

That's ok, the manual's available on the web. I'll read it over the next few days.

[Nath]

Thanks for the information. I can take over Austria-Hungary next turn or whenever. I'm not sure, though, whether turns are once a week or once in two weeks. When was the last deadline? The email says December 2, but I'm not sure if I've misunderstood.

By the way, my email address is aniruddhnath@hotmail.com.

[S. Kroeze]

Dear GGS'ers playing Diplomacy,

Since Nath volunteered to take over Austria-Hungary it seems the game "L'INVITATION AU VOYAGE" can finally be continued again. Hurray!
When nobody objects I would propose Sunday, the 23d of December, 8.00AM(GMT) as the new deadline for Spring 1872.
Having received orders from a few players already, those orders remain valid of course. You can also send me new orders before this new deadline, replacing the old.

I'm not sure, though, whether turns are once a week or once in two weeks. When was the last deadline? The email says December 2, but I'm not sure if I've misunderstood.

Normally we play by weekly deadlines. I hope you will have noticed by now -the previous Austrian player didn't bother to read my directions- I organise the game following the British 2-season system. This means you should give any retreat orders with your Spring (or Fall) moves and build orders with your Fall moves. Both retreat and build/break orders can be made conditional.

No, your conclusion that the deadline was originally December 2 is quite right. The delay is due to the decision of the previous Austrian player to resign, when he discovered his builds were not allowed because he hadn't ordered them.
Resigning for these and similar reasons is generally considered bad practice!

Sincere regards and Thank you, Nath!

S.Kroeze

[Leland]

Alright, the game is on!

I have no problems with the deadline, but the deadline after that should be delayed by maybe a week or so due to christmas holidays. I know I won't be here until 27th or 28th, that leaves too little time for diploming.

[S. Kroeze]

I'm using Realpolitik software which when on the standard map uses the dates from 1901, yet you use 1871 as the start. Why is this? I thought 1901 was the standard game. It is in the other 2 games IU'm in.

This is a rather academic point, but I am just following the rules of play, which say:
"XIV.2 ALTERNATIVE RULES FOR SIX TO TWO PLAYERS
Six players. Eliminate Italy. Italian units hold in position and defend themselves, but....
Five players. Eliminate Italy and Germany as described for Italy above. The first year may be thought of as 1801 and in the six player game as 1870."

Historically this makes some sense. After all, Germany was not united before 1871. At the same time Rome became the capital of Italy. Before 1870 it was part of the Papal States, directly ruled by the pope. Before 1860 both Germany and Italy consisted of some dozen of small states, where Austrian influence often ruled supreme.
So the five-player game tries to recreate Napoleonic Europe, while the six-player game resembles the Bismarckian era.
Historical accuracy remains rather low, though...

Why I prefer, playing the game by mail, to use the two-season system

"XI.1 If two or more units must retreat after a move, the retreats are written down immediately by the players concerned, without diplomacy, and simultaneously exposed, as with movement orders.
XIII.2 As with retreats, builds and removals (adjustments) are written and exposed simultaneously, without any preceding diplomacy."

The only reliable way to ensure that no -actual forbidden by the rules of play- consultation on retreats or builds can be committed is to play by the two-season system. During a tournament players will not be allowed to speak during retreats and adjustments.

Another more practical reason is game speed. When you have separate deadlines for Spring moves, Spring retreats, Fall moves, Fall retreats and Winter builds, game speed will definitely suffer. And my guess is that the number of NMRs will rise, which is always a bad thing!
Here is an example of a schedule of a five-season system:
DEADLINE SCHEDULE (all material is due NLT 9PM EST):
o Spring '05 Moves: 12 December
o Spring '05 Retreats: 14 December
o Fall '05 Moves: 19 December
o Fall '05 Retreats/Winter '05 Adjustments: 21 December
o Spring '06 Moves: 9 January
And this is the work of some extremely well-organised GM! I think many GMs (and players) are unequal to the task.
When you are having a party or some trip, the game will suffer!

I do not want to suggest it couldn't work. I have never played the game this way. I wouldn't make trouble when a GM had decided to do it this way. But when I am GM myself, this is one of the few things I will decide acoording to my personal preferences, because I know from experience the two-season system as a rule can work quite well.
As you will probably have noticed by now, in my view a GM should generally assume an essentially passive attitude to this game.

[H0bbes]

Thanks for both those clarifications. I understand better now.