Talk:Diplomacy (game)

1941 variant?

We all know the traditional 1914 variant, but is there a WW2 variant of dilomacy? I would expect some territory shifting but is there a site with a good picture of the map?

-G Lewis Pulsipher ( see Board Game Geek)published a wonderful WW2 variant many years ago. I have hard copy only. It includes aircraft, and lots of other interesting innovations, yet still with the same mechanics. Balanced ? Maybe not..but lots of fun ! He also did something similar for a "realistic" WW1 Feroshki 23:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Repetition

There are several facts that are mentioned in multiple sections of the article, including victory conditions and unit production. I wasn't sure which to remove, so I just left it for now.

Incorrect map

The map shown on the page is not correct, Finland does not border on Barents Sea in the game. Instead Norway and St. PetersBurg border, which they seem not to on the map shown.

I´ve changed the map for one that is according to such corrections. It looks much better, as well. Doidimais Brasil 23:30, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

The new map is much better, thanks. --Fritzlein 17:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The new map has several provinces spelled wrongly eg stevastopol.

Variants section

I removed the section linking to Global Diplomacy; it seemed silly to have two sections headed "Variants", one of which singled out a specific one of the hundreds of variants to link to. It would probably be a good idea instead to write up individual pages for the more popular Dip variants and list them, but that'd be a fairly hefty undertaking. Psmith 15:01, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the comment "Imperial is a boardgame with enough similarities to be described as a Diplomacy variant.". As a regular player of both, the only similarities are the map of Europe, and the use of armies and fleets as units. Imperial does not contain either of the two elements of Diplomacy that make it the game it is - a negotiation phase, and simultaneous movement. DavidNorman99 (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

1914 or 1901?

I edited the introductory sentence to read that the game is set "at the beginning of Word War I". Before it read that the game was set "at the beginning of the 20th century", and now it says that it is set "at the turn of the twentieth century, prior to World War I". I don't want to get into an edit war, so I am explaining why I think one should say the game is set in 1914, not 1901. I am open to discussing the issue, but if no one responds, I will revert the article to my previous wording. I think it is clear that the game, so far as it has a historical setting, draws its inspiration from World War I. Additionally, the map on the board show Europe roughly as it was in 1914.

What reason do we have for believing that this is a turn-of-the-century game, as opposed to a World War I game? The only evidence that I know of is that game years are traditionally numbered starting in 1901. But as far as I understand, this is pure convention, adopted from the play-by-mail community. Game years seem not to be a part of the historical simulation, but rather a notational convenience. It would be odd if a simulation of Europe at war had a typical running time of 1901 to 1912, given that Europe was not at war at that time! If the game can be said to have a historical setting at all, that setting must be World War I, not a decade prior.

Peace, --Fritzlein 03:20, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reverting, given no opposing viewpoint. --Fritzlein 19:07, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The documentation [1] states that the first set of orders are in Spring, 1901. So, this is the official line. porge 23:13, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gamestart year

The map is neither precisely accurate for 1914 nor 1901, but is closer to 1914. Calhamer adopted the "first turn = Spring 1901" convention in an early revision. (I think this was between his 1958 self-publishing and the 1961 Games Research Inc. publication, but I'm not certain.) In my opinion the current text "set at the start of World War I" is sufficient, as (according to his past articles) this was indeed the intended diplomatic context for the gamestart situation.Barno 18:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A selection of rule sets are available at http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/diplomacy_rules.htm - these show that Diplomacy (called Realpolitik at the time) was initially set in 1914, but by the time was published the start date had been changed to 1901. I assume that this is merely to ensure that the numbering was easier to understand for new players (and when it was first published, there were of course no old hands)

The reason that the map is based upon 1914 and the game starts at 1901, I believe, because the game is suppose to take place before WWI and the map properly reflects this while the problems for WWI didn't start in 1914. Does this help? -thecommunist

Links cleanup

I added text to some of the external links, added a link for the Diplomatic Corps website [warning: I was responsible for this site 1999-2004], and made link formats more consistent. Also corrected a spelling error in an earlier section. Barno 18:55, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hello. We both are trying to improve the external links organization. For instance, I added the long-overdue Yahoo! link to Diplomacy World since DW stopped posting issues at the old link and people might mistakenly think it defunct. I have a question on the new category. Almost anything can claim to be a hobby service, and anything on the web with a 'zine, Yahoo! group, forum, or mail list or can claim to be an international organization with a membership, so what did you have in mind about the new category that won't see everything get dumped into it, essentially un-doing the categorization advantage? Thank you. Wikist 03:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• In the 'Diplomacy' hobby, the term "hobby service" has a specific meaning, dating back to about 1968-70. A service relevant to the whole hobby, such as a centralized listing of zines, an orphaned-games rehousing service, or the Boardman Number Custodian, fits this idea. A zine (or these days a website) which just has some hobby news or its own ratings system isn't a hobby service, just a gaming forum with extra features for its own users. The list in this article now tries to categorize by primary function; I think that DW's traditional position as hobby flagship zine remains intact, DC exists to promote cooperation among local/regional/national/continental hobby groups, and DP (not counting its lack of updates) exists as a hobby-wide resource connecting references, player database, the webzine, and so forth. Most of the other big websites exist mainly for players to play games and to learn about events in their own geographic or online space; their "hobby service" features, if any, are secondary, so they should not go into this group. Barno 17:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Thank you for the clarification on "service," which seems to be the crux. Most 'zines are "places" to play but DW is a service.Wikist 12:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Style of English

I see we have some back-and-forthing between American English and British English spellings. The game was invented by an American and rights to it are currently owned by an American company. Furthermore, the earliest version of the article that's listed in the history is this one, which uses "favorable" (the only instance I noticed of a choice between AE and BE). Given these factors, Wikipedia policy calls for use of AE. I suggest we settle on AE, make it consistent, and avert future reverts. JamesMLane 11:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. Note that, while a USA company owns the primary publication rights, they license rights in other countries to other companies. Waddingtons, at least, uses British English. But AE is the most appropriate standard to use here. Barno 19:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More information

Who makes this board game and do they have a official website? --Joel M. 18:30, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

The "History" section mentions the succession of corporate owners. The official website is less informative than many of the others, but I think your suggestion is a good one, because its connection to the current game publisher gives it a privileged status. I'm adding it to the list of "External links". JamesMLane 02:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Cheating?

Why does the game actively promote cheating? Surely the point of a game is to play by the rules so that the winner is assumed to be the one that played the best, not the one that cheated the best? Maybe I'm just a fuddy-duddy rules lawyer, but surely not everyone thinks it's encouraged to move the pieces around and all that? (I do remain undecided on listening in on private negotiations, since espionage is clearly a key part of diplomacy ;) ) Confusing Manifestation 16:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I've never played in a game where cheating was encouraged, but on the other hand, I can certainly imagine such a thing happening :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I've also never heard of games where you're allowed to move the pieces and stuff. I have heard of games in which anything goes in terms of negotiations, lies and deceit. In one particular instance i remember, the host for the game had made some deals and feigned to go to the bathroom, only to listen to the intercom which he had secretly installed in the main house. Of course, he now knew whether most people were going to keep their deals. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 11:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The statement that this game promotes cheating is based on the fact that it is intended to remove the idea of chance, and to further add depth the creator said that, as cheating is a fact of life, cheating is acceptable, so long as it is undiscovered. Thus, the placement of additional units is likely to be discovered, but a mildly illegal move may not. So, in fact, the statement would more accurately read 'Undiscovered cheating is considered to be a fair advantage'. I'm not sure of the conventions at tournaments, however. Lukasa (13th January, 2006 19:55 GMT)

Actually even in such a prestigious game like chess "allows cheating" (accidental or intentional) if undiscovered for several turns (4 I believe). In Diplomacy normally appeals are only possible before the next adjudication, much like in most home rules of parcheese: once moved there are no revisions. It has a very good reason: that adjudication may disclose secret intentions and therefore replaying a turn would be worse than accepting the cheat/error.

But I would not say it encourages cheating, just that is responsability of the players to realize any such attempt in time (when there's no game master or the GM hasn't noticed). --Sugaar 14:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• At most tournaments, it's true that "anything goes in terms of negotiations, lies and deceit" among the players. Generally a Tournament Director will specify that deceit of the TD is unacceptable; that players are responsible for policing the orders so that a Flying Dutchman, an illegal order, or other violation of the rules will be caught; and that any error not identified before the next season will be allowed to stand. In a house game, cheats such as stealing opponents' orders, adding a spurious unit, etc. are far more acceptable. Many players feel that the only limit to this is that any orders submitted (typically "into the box") are sacrosanct. I was at a housecon last summer where this became a bone of contention... instigated by one of the most experienced players there. Barno 19:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

variant bank

damn its been screwed up for a long time. doex anyone know why it got screwed up/when it will be fixed?

How is it screwed up? Seems to work ok for me, and I am now in the process of taking over its maintenance too. Millis 12:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Number of players

The earlier version of this article stated that Diplomacy is a game for seven players, but the rules allow for fewer. With six, Turkey is removed from the game. With five, Russia is removed. I have played Diplomacy with fewer than seven players many times, and it seems to work quite well with four or more. (Above comment was by editor User:Aetherling.)

Actually the 6 players' adaptation removed Italy, wich became neutral but armed (units hold) and the 5 players' one did the same also with Germany (starting in 1801). The rulebook suggested other possibilities for even less players, even one for just 2, useful only to practice, as there is no possible diplomacy. But, as Barno mentions below, they weren't very much playable. When you have less or more than 7 people, it's much better to play a variant designed expressely for that, like Ancient Mediterranean for 5 players or Hundred (Hundred Years' War) for three, all them available for Realpolitik. --Sugaar 14:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• While there is a small section in the Rulebook mentioning the play-with-fewer options that you mentioned, these are generally considered imbalanced and unsatisfying. In tournaments, when there is not an even multiple of seven players, the last board is not played with five or six players; instead the Tournament Director either plays a spot (usually without being eligible for awards) or asks a local player to play in two games. In postal play and in the PBEM forums that I know, people do not start a game with five or six players, put a Great Power or two into Civil Disorder, and call it Diplomacy. In most casual face-to-face play, a group of five or six is more likely to select some balanced Dip variant than to put Turkey in CD or to close off Russia/Romania/Bulgaria/Turkey. Rather than just revert your edit, I'll add some explanatory text. Barno 02:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above seems to assume that this a game only for serious competition ( eg in structured tournaments) etc where technical " balance" is an issue. However, as both a "fun" game AND as an educational aid, it's entirely playable with LESS than seven players WITHOUT sacrificing any of the original map.Games for less than seven can illustrate the decline of the Ottoman Empire,the Napoleonic wars in Italy and Germany ( in particular). These games require a little imagination and rule modification ( eg *shared* control of the decaying Ottomans, reflecting that empire's descent into ineffectiveness and break up in the 19th century). I would like to say more about this at the Article page, even make a new Article but I lack the confidence , and appreciate this idea may be controversial! Contact me for more...Feroshki 00:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't believe any reliable sources have written about full-map less-than-seven variations, either in the context of educational play or casual just-for-fun play. I doubt that such an article section (or standalone article) could be written without violating the no original research policy which is core to Wikipedia. You might develop such an article and have it published by the hobby flagship fanzine Diplomacy World ( www.diplomacyworld.net ) instead of trying to get it into Wikipedia. Barno 03:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

map 1901 vs. 1914

• I added "(in most details)" to the explanation of it being the 1914 boundaries on the map. I don't have references at hand (I'll search later), but there are at least one or two bits of detail which aren't 1914. I believe one was whether Finland is part of the Russian home territory or has a thick line between Fin and StP. One fact that's not timely for either year is the neutral supply center in Tunis (which ought to be named Tunisia to be consistent with other neutral SCs) -- it was a French protectorate from 1881 to 1956. Barno 02:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Albania was a Turkish posession till 1912, while Algeria ("North Africa") had been French since the 1830's Feroshki 00:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Kissinger, JFK claims

• An editor has added a "citation needed" tag for the claims that Kennedy and Kissinger were fans of Diplomacy. I know those claims have appeared in Avalon Hill promo material since I learned the game in the 1970s. A Google search shows that Hasbro uses (used?) the terms in newer promo, but I can't check that from work right now since Websense blocks it. Nothing else in the search results seems to be directly relevant. Can someone find anything other than the manufacturer's claims to support the mention of Kennedy, Kissinger, or for that matter Walter Cronkite? (Cronkite was also mentioned in Seventies promo for Dip.) 205.247.102.130 18:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Above edit was mine; WP servers logged me off while researching dozens of pages of search results. Barno 18:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You could just change the article to say that AH claimed in their marketing that the game was played by JFK etc. Jooler 19:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• True, but that has less sizzle and less encyclopedic significance than citations that they actually played/liked it. I'll look into it more when I get time. Barno 21:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've found mention of an article with Kissinger's claim, and cited the issue (it's not online, so I don't have the article name or page number yet). I've e-mailed Alan Moon, who for awhile was AH's main guy for Diplomacy, and asked whether their sources were personal letters or interviews or books. Until we have more, I've revised the text to refer to AH's claims rather than saying "it was" or "supposedly". I also added Cronkite since he was mentioned either in the catalog or the back cover of the box. "citation needed" until we get facts. Barno 23:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Alan Moon couldn't help, as he was there only later (something like 1979-83), but he pointed me to Don Greenwood who was in charge of most Avalon Hill stuff in the Seventies. I've e-mailed Don, and if he provides any information, I'll update the article. Barno 14:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Greenwood reports that the claims predate his tenure at AH, and may have come from when the game was published by Games Research Inc. Apparently one of the mainstream magazines such as LOOK or LIFE published the claims in the 1960s. I haven't identified whether the GAMES & PUZZLES article cited the earlier mentions or had a new article. I intend to clean up this section's phrasing soon. Barno 14:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Barno, Blake Eskin researched the Kissinger/JFK claim in connection with that article he did a few years ago and couldn't find any support for it. I don't have immediate access to the link, but I think you know how to find it...if not, email me and I'll try to dig it up. (WP will say I'm an anonymous IP user, but I think you'll remember me as Landru). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.99.34.70 (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hard feelings

The article would benefit from some sort of statement that Diplomacy has got to be the game that generates the hardest feelings, most emotional reactions during play, and the most actual fistfights. Naturally I have no support for any of this but am sure it's true. It's great that the game is all about stabbing, yet stabbing is just uncommon enough that it really hurts when it occurs. Tempshill 16:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• The problem is finding statements of this documented in reliable sources, rather than just asserted in 'zines and private websites. If we can find good citations we can keep such a comment; otherwise it's original research violating WP:NOR (and possibly WP:NPOV). Barno 13:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you want? If you don't have enough with the first hand opinion of actual diplomatists (Diplomacy players) who may write in those sites, what would be valid for you?

I can tell you from experience (my own and that of others) that it hurts specially when you are novice but it always hurts. Some people take it better, some worse. --Sugaar 14:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think hockey actually starts more actual fistfights :) Eleusinian 06:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sugaar, I have over a quarter-century of first-hand experience including several World DipCons. The viewpoints you cite are valid for me (I entered links to them when I was the Diplomatic Corps website's editor), but they don't qualify under Wikipedia's reliable sources policy, which isn't just a suggestion but a requirement. Barno 14:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Barno: I have read all the WP:RS and nowhere it says that veteran online publications with prestige in their field of expertise are non-reliable sources. Notice that none of this material is self-published (unless there's a coincidence between author and editor).

Some sources that are surely very reliable are:

• Diplomacy Archive - I think it's been there for decades.
• Diplomatic Pouch Zine - since 1995!

And probably several others that I can't recall right now. All these are online publications of materials by experts in the field. There are no University degrees for this, you know. --Sugaar 22:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

As a visitor I am a little disappointed that social and psychological aspects of the game are not discussed more.¨¨¨¨ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bububu (talk • contribs) 23:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

It has been nearly three years since this topic was last commented on, but it does not seem to me that the "social and psychological aspects" of Diplomacy merit a place in the article. Convention would dictate that the since the proposed topic is not a part of the articles for Risk and Monopoly or other popular games, it would not merit a place in Diplomacy unless Diplomacy was especially notable for creating hard feelings. Even if this were the case, I do not see why Diplomacy requires special treatment given that "hard feelings" and "social and psychological aspects" are inherent to games in general and do not just come from any particular game. Aulus Hirtius (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Austria

"They often get drawn into a conflict in the Balkans (home of four neutral supply centers) and then find themselves with no friends."

What is this supposed to mean? I don't think this holds any substance. A better sentence would be "Because Austria is most vulnerbale to allied attacks early on, it is difficult for Austria to find peace with bordering neighbours due to this vulnerbabilty."Gagueci 21:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed the whole texts on the powers, for better I think. Most of them wasn't neither sufficiently neutral nor informative. For instance, following your criticism, Austria normally has an unconditional ally in Germany and often another one in Italy and the A-R-T triangle is not necessarily bound to be solved against AH, it depends. Also Austria is a powerful country with more victories and survivals than Germany for instance [2], [3]. --Sugaar 16:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I just rewrote the Austria section because I think it didn't have a sufficiently encyclopedic tone. Remember, everyone, this is an encyclopedia article first, then a guide to gameplay. Keep your tone in line with Wikipedia policy: no referring to readers as "my friend", hold off on the ellipses (the three dots: ...) and please refer to the countries, not their historic leaders. Not every reader knows who the Tsar, the Kaiser and the Sultan were. Polocrunch 17:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Heads of State in 1901

Maybe it's an interesting trivia to mention the following:

Austria-Hungary: Franz Joseph I of Austria France: Émile Loubet Italy: Victor Emmanuel III of Italy Germany: William II, German Emperor Great Britain: Edward VII of the United Kingdom Russia: Nicholas II of Russia Turkey: Abdul Hamid II

Countries

Seems to me like the descriptions of the countries needs to be reworded. They seem kind of biased. To players of different levels of experience, one country may be a lot easier or harder than another country. Is there a better way to phrase them? Like describe obvious strengths and weaknesses. Splamo 14:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• To an extent, I agree. Truth is, though, I think these descriptions are "gamecruft", i.e., a level of detail too fine-grained to be encyclopedic. The descriptions are of interest to players but have little relevance to the historical context... for example, real-world Russian and Austro-Hungarian leaders were constrained more by centuries-old Slavic ties than by tactical considerations of position. These descriptions would be good for a Diplomacy reference (and note that the Diplomatic Pouch's zine section has been revived), but probably can be removed from this WP article. Barno 19:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• I think that if they are re-written to just state obvious strengths and weaknesses and common alliances, then it would be more encyclopedic. Splamo 22:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I am with Splamo and also found that the text was quite biased, like if written by a player with not enough experience or theoretical knowledge. Therefore I've rewritten almost completely the text, based in my several years of experience and my own many (online) readings - but always trying to stay NPOV. Hope you like it. --Sugaar 16:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOR: any research which has not been published, even if it is correct should not be in Wikipedia. --Pak21 16:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There's near nothing published on paper on Diplomacy (except zines). It's a hobby. The best references are possibly in the veteran and obligued reference site Diplomacy Archive. If you can't use that, you can't write anything about strategy that is not decades obsolete. --Sugaar 16:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Which, until a major magazine / newspaper / TV show carries a feature on Diplomacy actually discussing strategy of various countries, is enough reason to cut this section back to just encyclopedic material instead of fan-of-the-game material. The rewritten Great Power paragraphs still feature lots of overgeneralizations that can be overcome by capable and flexible players. And the section is still basically "material of interest only to players of the game", which falls afoul of parts of WP:NOT and WP:GAME. Truth is, good Diplomacy strategy is much less about the early game's geographic constraints and much more about how each player reacts to developments. Often a good game looks very different in 1908 than the players would have guessed after Spring 1902. Barno 14:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that there's no WP:GAME, but I meant a (proposed earlier, I think) policy on games equivalent to WP:FICT for fictional topics. If something in a TV series or a computer game is known or cared about only by fans, it's not encyclopedic. If third parties have covered the matter (not just the show or book or game but the point, in this case strategies of each Great Power) and published it per WP:RS, then it meets WP's standards. Barno 23:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are too bureaucratic. There's no WP:GAME, I have no problem with that: the important thing that is (or should be) behind those policies is that the articles produced in Wikipedia are meaningful, truthful and consistent. You can compare with the article Chess, where a whole section (plus a separate article) are dedicated to strategy and tactics. While we probably won't go as far as that in this article, a basic analysis of the geostrategy of the game is not out of place at all. The only important thing is that it is objective/neutral/NPOV, what is always a delicate matter. In my review I have tried to be as objective as possible and I think I've done a good job without making the section too large.

That's what really matters: that the article is good, that any reader looking for basic info on this issue finds it. --Sugaar 16:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The most important thing, since we're working on Wikipedia and not on a hobby website, is to meet core policies including WP:V and WP:NOR. Chess has a myriad of professionally published books about strategy. The Board and Table Games Wikiproject is developing guidelines which should help us meet policy for the many games whose strategy is of interest only to fans of those games. Despite Sharp's one book, strategy in Diplomacy is closer to the latter category than to the special case of chess. A few hundred words of original research, and original summaries of Sharp's analysis, isn't "basic info on this issue", it's gamecruft. Barno 19:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with Barno on this issue. I have already begun correcting the Great Powers section for its improper tone, but Barno makes an excellent point about content. Almost everything written in this section currently depends upon the individual experiences of the editors in-game, and cites no references. Not that there could really be any in any case, since Diplomacy is a game with huge possible variations in outcome, much of which depends upon the skill of each game's players. It seems to me that we should edit out everything except general remarks on common alliance patterns, very general geographic considerations and statistics (with sources) about opening moves, alliances and wins. Polocrunch 17:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Country Listings

I have changed France's potential for two centres in 1901 to three, since France's opening moves can easily capture Spain, Portugal and Belguim.Monkus 13:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong, mon amí. Unless France counts with great tolerance or (I'd say) active support, or its neighbours play quite badly, France needs two units only to have a chance in Belgium, not counting defense against Germany (Burgundy) and maybe against Italy or England too. France can reasonably secure two dots in the first year (Belgium and one of the Iberian centers or the two Iberian centers but not Belgium) and expect to get a third neutral in 1902.

In contrast, Germany can secure Holland and Denmark, keep good chances in Belgium (two units in the Fall) and even deny Sweden to Russia if (s)he feels like. Germany has two secure neutrals and reasonable options to a third one. France has reasonable options to only two dots instead, the third one has to wait to the second year (if things go well). --Sugaar 21:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's written poorly. Although highly unlikely, it is possible for France to gain three centre in 1901. If one was a newbie to the game then it would be confusing to state otherwise. Stating that it is possible to gain two in 1901, and another in 1902 is misleading. The implication is it's impossible to gain three in 1901, which is incorrect. - Shudda ^talk 03:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

France gets three builds in Winter 1901 once out of every three or four games, not "reasonable options to only two dots" nor "highly unlikely". This is why the entire section on Great Powers is dubious: It's all the original research of one editor or another; none is supported by anything published except for opinion articles on sites like the Diplomacy Archive, not in professionally edited/reviewed magazines. Almost all the content violates WP:NOR and can't really be made to fit within policy. I propose to remove the whole section to meet the policy on original research, unless someone can show a way to make this exessive detail fit within policy (such as one sentence with an external link to the article in Avalon Hill's The General which was at least a real magazine). I'm adding a notice at the Table and Board Game wikiproject. Barno 14:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I really disagree with the 3rd French dot as likely but Sharp (my main source) claims it possible, so I will correct myself.

Just for the record, if Germany makes a standard opening F Kie-Hol, A Ber-Kie, A Mun-Ruh, France will have to cede to German superiority or can force a bounce (by having sacrified one of the Iberian dots) or with English support. --Sugaar 16:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That is one of the key weaknesses of this section: Editors assume there is a "standard opening" for a given power. While some are more common than others, and there are possibilities that are just plain bad, one's choice of opening moves and one's resulting success should be based far more on which neighbors are cooperative and what neighbors are willing to commit to, rather than on textbook defaults based on geographic constraints. This isn't chess where opening moves determine long sequences that are typically changeable only by a clearly inferior move. In the case cited, a player of Germany will often support France there to get an ally for a 1902 attack on England, or a player of England may support France there to get an E/F alliance rather than let Germany get a quick start. Simplifying Richard Sharp's comments about early-1970s play style won't provide much insight into the diversity seen in modern tournament play. Barno 19:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You are basically right, Barno. This doesn't mean that a general overview on the countries is misleading, it is surely of use to the person that is looking just for basic info on Diplomacy. If she/he wants more that's what the external links are for.

In any case, you are using double standards: my synthesis of publicated material is not valid but your own opinions are? Tsk, tsk! --Sugaar 14:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with mentioning common openings. It's made clear that there are an enormous amount of possible moves and that co-operation and alliances are what the game is all about but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be mention of common opening moves. I don't see any reason why giving an insight into modern tournament play would be neccessary when the article is written for those that know nothing of the game. If it's meant as an introduction to Diplomacy then there is no harm in briefly mentioning common openings. - Shudda ^talk 22:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT a game guide, and there's no benefit to the reader to mention some common openings at the expense of others that are similarly common. More importantly, unless you're quoting the Sharp book (or, arguably, quoting articles from the reference sites), it's original research, which is against policy. "For those who know nothing of the game," this whole section gives little or no understanding into the game or why it's noteworthy. Barno 14:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT does not say what you say it says. I'm really tired of people that throws WP pages without any connection whith what they are arguing. Synthetizing a duly documented concept is not "original research": it's adapting it to the needs of a somewhat brief encyclopedic article. Maybe it would be better to quote literally but I think otherwise (in this case) for the sake of clarity and simplicty. I agree that it's a sometimes difficult art to make a good synthesis but that's what we are here: to make Wikipedia a good resource. --Sugaar 14:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Past versions of WP:NOT have in fact said, word-for-word, "Wikipedia is not a game guide." This was a prevailing consensus that has been removed repeatedly by game enthusiasts, none of whom have made a case for complying with WP general standards. Several Wikipedia policy and guideline pages do still make this basic point in various ways. See the WikiProject on Board and Table Games, and see its Strategy section (unless it's been vandalized this weekend) for guidelines that are more consistent with WP:5P. Are you arguing that Wikipedia is a game guide that needs hundreds of words of detail on one portion of Diplomacy's strategy, more detail than most WP admins would find appropriate for any game except chess? Barno 13:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• I removed from the discription of England the false claims that 1. Russia could deny England Norway in 1901, 2. England's help would be needed to deny Russia Sweden in 1901 and 3. England and French could deny Germany Holland in 1901. Not commenting on the original research issue the page is surely better without actual mistakes. 82.181.176.3 12:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Barno, that the entire section on the powers be deleted from the article, as there is too little on each power (nothing in fact, as far as I'm aware at least) that doesn't violate WP:NOT to justify having the section in the first place. I also believe the Strategy section be removed as it violates WP:NOT in the same way. --L337 kybldmstr 05:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

This user plays Diplomacy.

{{User:The freddinator/Userboxes/Diplomacy}}

Feel free to edit.

The freddinator 23:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• I rather like it, but I see the image is flagged as lacking a copyright tag. Your edit summary mentions that it's a piece of an image from the Wikicommons. If you add that explanation in a tag (see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags ), that should satisfy Wikipedia's requirements. Presumably it wouldn't be on the commons unless it's been released for this sort of use. Barno 00:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Image has been tagged The freddinator 00:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"Where to Play" Links

I was looking through the links under "Where to Play" and noticed that many of the links were to foreign-language sites. Seeing as this article is from the English Wikipedia, shoudn't the links be to sites in English? WP:ILL states that inter-language links should only be used to link to pages in another language (on wikipedia) for which there is no current English equivalent. (Note, this WP guide applies to interlanguage wikipedia links, not to external sites, though I would assume the idea would still apply) The freddinator 19:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• WP:ILL is only for wikilinks. Many, perhaps most, of the linked sites that have their main page in a non-English language are multilingual sites that include English pages; often one need only click on a single link to reach the English section for informational pages. Having said that, though, I'm not sure we need the "Where to Play" section at all, as Wikipedia is not a web directory. Links to hobby organization websites and reference archives have more encyclopedic value than links to a subset of the hundreds of Judge sites and player blogs that are Dip-related. While some of the "Where to Play" links are to some of the best-established and most-used sites, some are there simply because their organizer or a player chose to add a link. Barno 13:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• The vibe I'm getting from your response is that while WP is ont a web directory, some of the sites are significant enough to stay on? In that case, we should probably clean up the entire "external links" section. The freddinator 01:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam link

Where is the spam link on the links page I was fixing a link and it told me that I could not since the page was listed as Spam. I searched the SPAM file and could not find any sites that were contained in the edit. B89smith 21:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Even More Userboxes

For those of you who are really, really into Diplomacy and Userboxes:

{{User:CenturionZ_1/Diplomacy-A}}	This user likes playing as Austria in Diplomacy.
{{User:CenturionZ_1/Diplomacy-E}}	This user likes playing as England in Diplomacy.
{{User:CenturionZ_1/Diplomacy-F}}	This user likes playing as France in Diplomacy.
{{User:CenturionZ_1/Diplomacy-G}}	This user likes playing as Germany in Diplomacy.
{{User:CenturionZ_1/Diplomacy-I}}	This user likes playing as Italy in Diplomacy.
{{User:CenturionZ_1/Diplomacy-R}}	This user likes playing as Russia in Diplomacy.
{{User:CenturionZ_1/Diplomacy-T}}	This user likes playing as Turkey in Diplomacy.

Centy 00:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I Changed the flag on Russia from the Russian naval ensign to the Current and Early 1900s flag. Do you mind?Rex Imperator 20:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Rex Imperator, 16:24, September 6, 2007

Well, the naval ensign (blue "X" bars on white field) is the version actually used in the game, at least the most recent version. -Stellmach 14:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the official versions be listed under software?

Shouldn't the official versions be listed under software? --Logomachist 00:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Dont play this game, just surfing through, but I think that the part about santa is inaccurate. Can someone please remedy this?

"All units move simultaneously, with players santa writing down their moves during a negotiation period, and all moves are revealed and put into effect simultaneously."

Thanks. and I hope someone checks this enough to edit this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.52.110 (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It was vandalism; I had previously reverted but the vandal added it back. It should be fine now. If you are not sure about this things check the history of the page by clicking on the history tab above the article. Thanks, Brusegadi 04:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In French

What do you think about [4] and [5]? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.168.7 (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot read French well, but the French Wikipedia article on the game (the first link) looks generally very good, with bits of game development history and fanzines and other goodies. From what little I could puzzle out, I wonder if there might be some strategy-guide-type content that might be edited down. It clearly wasn't as blatant as the "X should always ally with Y and attack Z first" stuff that has plagued this English-language article. Two infobox questions: Does "first edition" refer to the first French-language edition? (I assume so, because the 1961 Games Research version is mentioned, and the locally-published 1958 edition might be mentioned; I don't have it open.) Also regarding the infobox, "number of players" should possibly be just 7, not 4-7. I'm not sure whether the current French rulebook has the variants for 4 to 6 players like the AH and Hasbro rules, but they're considered "real Diplomacy games" only in purely casual play, not in tournaments or most of the organized online groups or face-to-face groups. Barno 02:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The second link, the Palmares article on fr.wikipedia, is excellent and informative, but lacks citations of reliable sources. On en.wikipedia, now that a few years of getting the basics togther has allowed people to get more serious about attribution, there are editors who would nominate this article (if translated into English) for deletion because all the potential sources are fanzines or hobby websites. Even hobby organization websites and hobby archive websites that hold a lot of the hobby's lore don't count for much against the reliable sources policy here. If the French version doesn't hold articles to a similar standard, then I would support keeping that article there. It well describes something of strong interest to a small number of people, and of mild interest to a few thousand people. If that's enough notability for the French project, then the article seems good. For the English project's standards, I'm afraid it would get killed as "gamecruft", and one or two sentences would get merged back to the game's main article. Barno 02:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry for my bad English. For strategy-guide-type, except abberations I think all strategies can be winning strategies but it's not the reason of absence of that : it's especially because French Wikipédia is not a instruction manual, alone the qualities of a good diplomat are developped (by the other example: all the links to diplomat websites are already erased because Wikipédia is not a web book[6]). For the first edition, yes, it's for the first French edition. For the infobox, I correct him (only 7 players), I find too it's more exact. For Palmares, in external links, there is EDA database what it's enough reliable. For French project, the games in Wikipédia are their standards of interest and this article and the 5 articles of the category [7] are accepted by Wikipédia after discussion. If a other article would get killed in English Wikipedia, why don't fusion this in the main article of Diplomacy ? (of course, without French tournaments and more (or not) English tournaments). 86.220.194.229 23:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Strategy guide tag

I don't think there's any strategy guide material left in this article (I went and deleted it all myself, I should know), so I don't think it's appropriate to leave the tag there. The article itself still needs some work (adding citations, some cleanup etc.), but I'm satisfied there's no need for the strategy guide tag anymore. L337 kybldmstr 23:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The article is much more encyclopedic and more concise. That tag is no longer needed, and the tags that remain are still appropriate. I can probably add a couple of sentences of generalization (not fixed patterns of play) about strategy, but at the moment it would be original-research synthesis and I don't want to encourage others to add uncited strategy stuff again. Barno 01:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

To-do

After much stuffing around (including the accidental creation of one or two pages which I've permitted to be SD'd), I *finally* made a to-do list, which should appear at the top of the talk page. Be sure to check it regularly for any updates, and please help do what needs to be done. Also, if you'd like to make a request that would benefit the article, feel free to do so here. L337 kybldmstr 05:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Game play

I've rewritten the Game play section to make it neater and more encyclopaedic; I think it looks great now, but I'm not sure if it's totally acurate. Also, when can a draw be arranged? Because the section isn't clear on that. L337 kybldmstr 09:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Tunis (citation needed)

I can confirm that. The version produced under licence by Gibson's Games most certainly called it "Tunis", not "Tunisia" - indeed, I've never seen a board that did call it "Tunisia". AIUI the colours on the board differ in the Gibson's edition: the map is coloured "politically" with the following colours used for the various Powers: Austria - reddish brown; England - pink; France - blue; Germany - black; Italy - green; Russia - purple; Turkey - yellow; Neutral - orange. (Edited to clarify: those are the colours on the Gibson's board; AIUI they are not the original colours; as a UK resident I have seen only the Gibson's edition.Captain Pedant 08:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The 1961 Games Research Inc board did not use different colors by Great Power. There were depth isolines in the oceans with increasing darkness of white > light blue > medium blue. The 1969 Avalon Hill board (the one in widest use when Diplomacy grew a postal hobby with 'zines and conventions) also did not color the Powers differently. Green land spaces with brown indications of terrain; plain blue sea spaces. Thicker black lines to separate countries and thinner black lines to separate provinces within a country. I own a Dutch set from Parker which uses thick colored lines between countries, but the colors don't match those used on the Gibson's board. ... As for Tunis, all versions that I've seen use "Tunis" rather than "Tunisia"; this is known to be an exception to the generalization that non-home supply centers are named for the nation, rather than the city. Barno 15:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've done some (partly WP:RS-referenced) improvements to the intro, History, and Variants sections. Those still need me to dig out old articles from Diplomacy World, Diplomacy Digest, and Everything... and cite sources for a lot of that content, but it's sourceable. I also haven't gotten to the Richard Sharp book yet. Probably none of those three sections is ready for all the tags and to-do list mentions to be removed, but you might want to review each. Barno (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• After more improvements to parts of the article, I'm removing this from the article's To-do box: "Add a list of territories to the basic setting and overview section". That list wouldn't really be any help to understanding the game, beyond the existing description and list of Great Powers. (Also, I found the Richard Sharp book online and read it, looking for content to ref, but so far I've cited it only in the history of the postal hobby.) Barno (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Variants

I'm thinking that the Variants section should be trimmed down to include only variants which have been commercially released, since there are simply way too many fan-made variants to consider having subsections on them. That, and they're almost all NN anyway. L337 kybldmstr 10:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Diplomacy box.jpg

Image:Diplomacy box.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this game might have been on "Gangs of London" for PSP.

I remember playing Gangs of London and there was a variation of this game on there. I don't have the game any more so I'm not too sure, but it does ring a bell.--Chrisp6825 (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Diplomacy in schools

A user today removed the following paragraph, calling it "baloney":

Diplomacy is sometimes played in high school history classes because of its realistic emulation of events and diplomacy between nations. It helps students better understand the politics involved in World War I and World War II.

In fact this is true, but I'm at work and don't have sources handy. Can someone find such a reference? Over the weekend, if I'm around a computer, I hope to review the Richard Sharp book and find relevant mentions to cite for this and other points related to this article. I'm sure there are other mentions, but most are in 'zines or forum posts. I didn't add the removed text; I'm just working to include appropriate content without getting everyone's WP:OR in. Barno (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I found The Oxford History of Board Games at a library and added a few sentences that I could add using that book as a source, but I didn't notice a mention of being played in schools. Barno (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Starcraft Diplomacy

I think its worth mentioning that Diplomacy spawned a whole genre of Starcraft maps. It seems to be limited to starcraft as well. There are countless versions going back from the early days of Starcraft with diplomacy rune to the present with diplomacy infinity. and others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.185.104 (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The Starcraft iteration of Diplomacy is really only Diplomacy in name, and has little to do with the rules or even basic design philosophy of Diplomacy. In Starcraft, the game is far more of a military simulation, using concepts such as unit types (that is, units with varying strengths and weaknesses), fortifications, and resource acquisition rather than focusing on diplomatic interaction. Often games pass without any negotiation whatsoever, or with rigidly locked teams. Further, the resource system completely rewrites the flow of the game, with armies often times exceeding 200 men per player and having little to do with the number of controlled supply centers. Although I used to enjoy playing those maps and found out about this board game through them, I feel that it's not worth mentioning because it has so little to do with the game that it might as well be called something completely different. The information about it in the article is completely misleading.--72.220.81.102 (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The Game of Diplomacy Notability

I propose that the article on the book The Game of Diplomacy (linked from this article) be deleted for lack of notability. Discuss here. -- Meyer (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• The book is mentioned in many issues of several professionally edited/published magazines; in a number of issues of Diplomacy World, including periods when it was recognized as the flagship publication of the hobby; and in hundreds (probably a few dozen in my collection) of amateur 'zines. As I go through sources, I'll add references when I can. It's on the edge of notability by WP guidelines but I think it can be demonstrated. Barno (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• I concur that the book doesn't have enough notability in and of itself to sustain an article, and should be merged here. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I've contested the prod placed on the book's page as I'd rather it went through AfD rather than simply be deleted, specifically given the time elapsed since there's been much discussion of this on either this page or the book's talk page. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Problems with external links

The "Play online" section included two links that didn't also appear under "External links" so I added them. However, I think use of external links in this article needs to be reviewed in light of Wikipedia external links guidelines. My take on the guidelines as they apply here is as follows:

1. Inclusion of external links should be discouraged in favor of references. That is, rather than including just a link with "here's such-and-such site", incorporate information from the site into the article and give the link in the form of a citation. → A lot of the article's external links can be converted to references.
2. Where external links are called for, list them in the External links section rather than scattered in the article text. → Most of the "Play online" section (and others?) should go away (keeping the links in the External links section) unless it's rewritten to cite information appearing on the online play sites.
3. Keep external links to a minimum. → Convert links to references, don't throw links away. External links section should be a list of sites that were not sources of information appearing in the article, but might be of interest to thoses wanting to learn more about the topic.

-- Meyer (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Supply centers

What do supply centers actually do? the article doesn't say. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

never mind, changed section heading. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Complete absence of luck?

This is misleading. The game does not use randomization devices such as dice rolls or card draws. But it is a simultaneous-move game of incomplete information, and therefore (i) the optimal strategies for players will normally involve randomization or deception (ii) the outcome for any player will depend on the choices of others, which are (at least from their POV) uncertain. Hence, players can be lucky or unlucky. Compare, say, paper-rock-scissors. Again, no randomization as part of the game, but, I would say, a player can be lucky or unlucky.JQ (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The argument is that the determining factor is your skill at reading the other players, interpreting their overt language and their tells. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

A standard game theory analysis says all this cancels out, leaving luck as a residual.JQ (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the "absence of luck" description makes sense. First, it's colloquial luck, not requiring diving into game theory. Also, that game-theoretic analysis isn't the final word: Are the players playing in equilibrium? Are they boundedly rational? I think you could even appeal to Harsanyi or Aumann to argue that players might not be randomizing even in Nash equilibrium. Describing deception and other's choices being uncertain from my POV as "luck" is counter to the normal use of the term (even if we might model them that way). CRETOG8(t/c) 07:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Webdiplomacy

The web diplomacy map really sucks and is unreadable. Maybe we could use a Playdiplomacy.com map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.184.209 (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

New Diplomacy Map

I made a large Diplomacy map a while ago that I never used. Feel free to use it in the article. Zhatt 21:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)