A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Start a new discussion in the public forum
Post a new thread
If your post relates to a particular game please include the URL or ID#
of the game.
If you are posting a feature request please check that it isn't mentioned in the todo list.
If you are posting a question please check the FAQ before posting.
If your message is long you may need to write a summary message, and add the full message as a reply.
I noticed that Germany is considerably weaker in Diplomacy than it's historical counterpart. In game, Germany can very easily be knocked out by England and France. However, historically Germany was able to fight competently on three separate fronts. Does anybody feel that Germany is a little misrepresented in game? More importantly, are there any variants that address this?
I don't think the actual statistics support your claim.
France can easily be knocked out by England and Germany. England can easily be knocked out by France and Germany. Whenever you have 2 against one, it should be easy. But, it's all about diplomacy and finding the one other player who will help you against the other.
Yea that isncorrect, however I am comparing Germanys power in diplomacy to that in the real world. I'm looking for a variant that gives germany enough power to at least stalemate with both englabd and france simultaneously. 5 starting scs for example. Sure it might seem unbalanced but I'm looking for historical accuracy. Besides, Germanys military might could convince others to join france and England against it.
As Devonian points out, 2 on 1 is a powerful combination. And when you can get a central triple going, if it doesn't look like a central triple, Germany, Austria, and Italy make one hell of a team.
Germany and Austria take on Russia, Italy and Austria roll over Turkey, France goes after England with a bit of Germany help, then suddenly when Russia and Turkey are about gone, Italy and Germany turn on France and what is left of England to wipe the board.
Not a valid comparison as WWI Germany is not Nazi Germany *and* both wars had more a surprise element where as this game has everyone ramped up and headed to war. Diplomacy is not, nor was it ever intended to be, a simulation of WWI. If you want an unbalanced simulation, play another game.
And remember, in WWI, Germany had the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary on it's side. It wasn't fighting alone, so there were other armies to keep Russia busy and plenty of neutral nations between Germany and England so that they really only had two fronts in that war and only one of those was theirs to fight alone - France.
I'm not sure if historically Germany was stronger.
I'm not a real history buff, but I think that in world war I they had Austria, Bulgaria, and Turkey on their side. In World War II they had Italy and Japan on their side.
And, I thought that in WWII the other sides entered the war in a staggered manner, giving Germany an advantage until all allied forces were against them. Russia had a non-agression pact with them, so they invaded Poland. England and France didn't react quickly enough, so they took the lowlands, and then France.
Yes @devonian, but in ww2 they had built up their military immensely. France and england were fighting germany simultaneously for a while before germanys mismanagement eventually helped make the nation cave in.
But Mitimon, this game is set in WWI, not WWII. Spring 1901 is not Spring 1939. Your original question was about the strength of Germany in the game compared to real life. It must include the time period else you could argue that with no US involved, the game is flawed (which the US was in WWI as well, so technically it is).
Allied manpower and production greatly outnumbered Germany's in both world wars. In the end the Allies could starve Germany out. It's not mismanagement, so much as just not having the extra economic capacity to outlast the Allies.
Having played Italy in 1900... yeah, wouldn't be my first pick. I think overall compared to Standard, Italy has a little more of a shot at victory in 1900, but also more of a risk of early catastrophe.
Italy is perfectly fine in Standard Diplomacy. The problem with Italy is that most players are either unreasonably intimidated by the difficulty of playing Italy, or simply just do not understand how to play it. Much of this comes from the mistaken concept that the Lepanto/Key Kepanto are particularly good openings. Italy is extremely versatile, and far too many opportunities are pissed away by players determined to kill Turkey at all costs. Many others are ruined by stab happy fools who think punking Austria for one dot is a clever move. Italy more so than any other nation requires players who can thin beyond the present turn, and put aside the constant worry of where their next build comes from.
Italy and Austria on the linked 1900 map look pretty hard done by, not only because they remain on three starting centers, but also because the perks provided the other surrounding nations.
Was Germany not the backbone of the central powers in WW1? I wasn't aware there were people who disagreed with this. It took British and Russian support to stop France from folding in the initial stages of the war. The idea that more centers would more accurately reflect German power isn't flawed.
Of course, but I think Mitomon's point was that Germany was probably individually the most powerful country in at the outbreak of WWI and that it might be fun to play a variant where Germany has extra centers to reflect that
Remember, there is no technological advantage in Diplomacy like there was in both WWI and WWII for Germany. More centers makes you a target without the individual boost each unit would get from better technology.
"Having played Italy in 1900... yeah, wouldn't be my first pick. I think overall compared to Standard, Italy has a little more of a shot at victory in 1900, but also more of a risk of early catastrophe."
I just pulled down PlayDiplomacy's stats for classic-style games of 1900, and Italy is actually one of the best in terms of overall performance. It ranks 2nd in solos (behind Germany) and 1st in not-losing (where Germany is ranked 2nd).
Powell's stats for 1900 are mostly from Play-by-Email games, which definitely impacts the data. It's not as reflective of the web-style of Diplomacy play. PD's stats are more likely to resemble what you'd hypothetically see on sites like vDip.
PD maintains an archive of all of its finished games, and you can get the statistics if you have a web scraper and are handy with Excel.
The following are a quick summary of stats for samples from 1900 and Classic, only looking at full-press games run without extra variants. GPR is calculated on a 180-point basis (180 for solo, 90 for 2-way, 60 for 3-way, 45 for 4-way, 36 for 5-way, 30 for 6-way, 0 for 7-way or loss).
It's probably about as balanced as Standard. Germany definitely sticks out more in the lead in 1900, but everyone else is a little more even. Being about as balanced as Classic is pretty good, most variants fall well short of this, at least going by vdip stats.
Interesting that among the two sets of 1900 results, each of about 200 games, you get a decently different ordering of nations: GIFEART vs GREATIF.
I've seen quite a difference in the stats for Classic when comparing no-press to full press games. I wonder if varying levels of communication and game speed play a big part in the difference between communities. Also, Powell suggests in the article that 200 games is too small a sample... but it's better than nothing.
I think that, were there a whole lot more 1900 games on record to go by, the pattern would match pretty closely to what we see here. Germany would be in a solid lead, and the other 6 would be fairly close to equal.
That's a pretty stark difference from Classic games, where you have 3 approximate tiers of powers, even at high sample sizes:
-Russia & France -England, Germany, & Turkey -Austria & Italy
With an asymmetric setup, there's always going to be some unevenness, and the hope is that players will do some self-balancing as clear frontrunners appear.
If one is to compare the balance across variants, though, it's probably best to do so using the standard deviation of the seven powers for whatever you're measuring (solos, GPR, or some other holistic score) as a percentage of the mean.
In that manner, using similarly sized samples, 1900 does frequently edge out Classic for better balance overall.
I said this in the sister thread over on the webDiplomacy site, but it bears repeating.
Those of you bemoaning the fact that Diplomacy does not reflect the tactical situation in Europe as of World War One are missing the point. No, Germany does not start with five armies. No, England does not start with five fleets. There are many war games which do a much better job of reflecting the tactics of World War One. But Diplomacy is not meant to be historically accurate in that way.
Diplomacy is meant to evoke the Great Power interactions of the era, on a grand-strategic level. It does this incredibly well, far better than any other game out there, using elegantly simple mechanics.
Amen, Dave. Its also set in 1901, not 1914. While both strategy and tactics are factors int he game, it's called "Diplomacy" for a reason. Creating a variant that seeks to accurately reflect WWI may as well be a two player experience, which is not really Diplomacy, only the movement mechanics.
In an effort to compromise the pro-ads versus anti-ads for games: Post here for your non-live games to cut down on the number of ads but still advertise games. Post game link, WTA or PPSC, and the bet. Note: this doesn't count for special rules games.
Hi all, when Amby and I were recording our recent podcast (diplomacygames.com) the topic of Bourse came up, and I got really excited and thought that I would try to get another game of this variant running...
Awhile back, kaner proposed a Known World gunboat tournament in which 15 participants would play 15 games, one with each nation. I searched back for the thread, then just decided to start a new one. I want to see if there would be sufficient interest in this to try to get it off the ground.
Hi folks, some of you may have heard me talk on the podcast about bringing the WWIV map to a Cold War circa 1984 1v1 variant. Interested in your thoughts about whether I use the standard WWIV map, the v6.2 version (is there any actual difference in the map itself?) or whether the sealane version would be better. Thoughts?
As many of you know, the Calhamer estate is being liquidated and the very first self-published Diplomacy board sold for just over $5000 last week. Well, something else interesting from the same sale - a bunch of prototype maps, these likely being from several years before the game was published.
Is anybody able to make minor cosmetic map changes to the variants, for readability? There's two small things I've noticed:
* Imperial Diplomacy II: there's a connection between Morocco and W. Med, but the map really doesn't show it. * First Crusade: The Sardinia supply centre in the large map is placed in an odd, almost invisible spot.