HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Via:        UK.AC.LEEDS.GPS;  8 JAN 93 15:05:24 GMT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:03:59 GMT
Reply-To:     amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
From:         amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
Subject:      Re: Historical Variant?

> From: Michael Norrish <Michael.Norrish@nz.ac.vuw.comp>

> Mark> I could snail you a copy of the Perestroika rules if you want to
> Mark> retype them Michael.  The main problem with Perestroika is that
> Mark> the rules have been constantly revised so that it's difficult to
> Mark> get the latest set of rules.  I have a reasonable newish copy if
> Mark> you are interested...
>
> I have a copy myself at home, although I'm not sure of the vintage of
> this. I'll check the version number, and let you know. You don't know
> of any plans for electronic variant banks I suppose? :-)

There are two problems with an on-line variant bank.  Most variants use
different maps and, at the moment, there is no satisfactory way of
distributing the maps.

Secondly the people who have access to large private collections and who
also have email (Per Westling (Swedish Variant Bank), James Nelson (UKVB)
and myself) do not have the time to retype rules to create an online
bank.  (If we had time I suppose we could look into the possibilities of
scanning variants in, but we would then have to decide where to store
these variants, and this doesn't solve the map problem.)

   So no on-line variant bank in the immediate future.

Mark.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via:        UK.AC.LEEDS.GPS;  8 JAN 93 15:26:23 GMT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:24:40 GMT
Reply-To:     amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
From:         amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
Subject:      Re: A very special new game in EFF judge

> From: IMEF2@EARN.EBCCUAB1
>
>         I have created the game "blind". At first, "blind" seems a standard
> gunboat game with white press. However, it is only aparently. In fact the
 judge
> will not moderate the game, but it will be moderated by my own hand.
> The judge will only serve to the purpose of mail between players.
>
>         The rules I want to apply are mainly these:
>
>         1) Every country "sees" his own provinces and those bordering them.
>
>         2) Everybody "sees" what is around his own units, wherever they are.
>
>         3) The ruler of a country sees his homeland and bordering
> provinces, even if they have been taken by another power (the citizens still
> contribute to inform their legal goverment).
>
>         4) Rule 3 applies even if the country has been eliminated.
> This gives some role to those countries being eliminated which can pass
> information to a power in order to disloge his first invader.
>
>         5) About movements, every country will be informed about the succes
> or not of their movements, and if failed, of the reasons of the failure.
> They will also be informed about the opposition they have found when
> entering any site.
>
>         There are other rules which consider the role of spies, but I would
> suggest not to apply them at the first game, moreover if there is no judge
> to control it.
>

There are many blind variants.  Maybe someone (ie Per) should make a
definitive listing of all the different games.  I prefer the STAB series
to any of the rest.

Mark
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l,rec.games.diplomacy
From: nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca (Nick Fitzpatrick)
Subject: Re: The relative merits of NMR
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:09:13 GMT

In article <199301081330.AA26650@world.std.com> David C Kovar <kovar@WORLD.STD.COM> writes:
>(and I believe Joel Furr wrote the >>   N. Fitz.)
>
>>Let me give another case: someone's down to one army.  In a supply center,
>>true.  They give up and quit.  The other players wait 10 days for them to
>>go CD, then ask people to take over.  People eye the army and decline.
>>I'm playing an army in 'light' on the Washington judge and hey, there's
>>NOT a lot I can do with it.  Which is more realistic?  People waiting 10
>>days to two weeks for the army to go CD, or the army just holding?  Makes
>>darn poor sense for 35 units to grind to a stop because that Russian army
>>holed up in Berlin isn't issuing orders.
>
>  I think the solution is to encourage people to take over such positions.
>I've taken on one or two because they're very low maintenance and it helps
>other people out. I think we can convince a few other people to do the
>same thing.
>
I think the solution is to restrict the creation of new games while
there are plenty of openings (especially at Washington)!

Nick

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l,rec.games.diplomacy
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 09:17:47 -0500
Reply-To:     Scott Robinson <robinson@NEXT532-2.GSFC.NASA.GOV>
From:         Scott Robinson <robinson@NEXT532-2.GSFC.NASA.GOV>
Subject:      Q: Diplomacy AZ

Greetings!  I beg your forgiveness for being such a newbie, but I
have a couple of questions --

1. I've noticed that various FAQs and discussions refer to something
called "Diplomacy AZ", but have never seen any hint as to where it
might be available via FTP.  If it is available, is it a single file,
or a whole collection of files?

2. Also, is there a source in the US for the files that the FAQs say
are stored in Germany?  I can't see wasting all those expensive
electrons to get stuff that might also be closer...

Thanks.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:14:17 EST
Reply-To:     "J. Gaston" <CC017221@BROWNVM.BITNET>
From:         "J. Gaston" <CC017221@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Position in 'beetle'

I just joined this list. Could someone tell me what it's all about?


                              Thanks,
                                   -"j"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 11:59:30 -0500
Reply-To:     David C Kovar <kovar@WORLD.STD.COM>
From:         David C Kovar <kovar@WORLD.STD.COM>
Subject:      EFF Judge

  It was handling messages just fine earlier today. I had it down for
the last hour or so to install the new Diplomacy A-Z files and
to try and clean up the flist for the data directory. It's back up
now.

-David
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 13:08:19 +0100
Reply-To:     loeb@geocub.greco-prog.fr
From:         Daniel LOEB <loeb@ORGANON.GRECO-PROG.FR>
Subject:      Warp Weekday Game
              6 Jan 1993 06:02:44 GMT <9301061153.AA14835@geocub.greco-prog.fr>

Daniel Shoham says:
>48 hours without NMR is _plenty_ of
>time for most of humanity to get orders in.

In a no-press game, perhaps. However, if people actually want to
negotiate, then each "round" of negotiation will take at least a day
if the players are not on the same continent. A complicated situation
may need several "rounds" of negotiation.

Moreover, note that some players do things other than play diplomacy
on occasion. ;-)

Note also that setting deadlines in the afternoon makes sence only for
players in the US. Moreover, look out for blips in the network.

Joel Furr says:
>Continuing on my pro-NMR and anti-Status Quo crusade, I'd like to report
>that *four* games I entered as a result of desperate pleas for someone to
>come in and replace CD powers have been SITTING there for over a week
>..... And, since many of the games on the Washington judge no longer have
>moderators, there's nothing we can do short of begging the Washington
>judge operator to step in and shorten the grace manually.

Please notice that EP house rules normally require a game master.
I don't think that two wrongs make a right.
Basically, a game with an interested GM should never suffer unduly
from these problems. The GM has the right to EVICT players from a game
without waiting for the grace period to pass.

Note however that replacement players are normally allowed an
automatic extension of the first deadline in order to give them time
to get acquainted with the other players.

Yours, Daniel Loeb                              loeb@geocub.greco-prog.fr
HOME    150, cours Victor-Hugo; Appt D45; 33000 Bordeaux France
WORK    LABRI; Universite de Bordeaux I; 33405 Talence Cedex France
PHONE(H)+(33) 56 31 48 26, (W)+(33) 56 84 69 05, (FAX) +(33) 56 84 66 69
-------------
      "BUSH AND QUAYLE, JUST SAY NOE!"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:58:18 EST
Reply-To:     "Richard V. Lamb" <USER60T4@UMICHUM.BITNET>
From:         "Richard V. Lamb" <USER60T4@UMICHUM.BITNET>
Subject:      Historical Variant

Here is a message I sent to Brent Tweeten about the kind of game he's
describing.  If you object to discussing it here, I'll refer him to
rec.games.board.

Rich

---(Forwarded from: Richard V. Lamb@UMICHUM.BITNET, Dated: Tue, 5 Jan 93
    14:56:42 EST)---

What you want in terms of historical balance in the time period of Dip
already exists, but not as a Dip variant.  It's a game called Pax Brittanica,
where the powers are balanced historically and economics are *very* important.

I'll respond later in full about it.

Rich Lamb

cc: bit.listserve.dipl-l
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:21:00 EST
Reply-To:     "PLUTO::DELEMOSM"
              <DELEMOSM%PLUTO.decnet@APRINT.DHMC.DARTMOUTH.EDU>
From:         "PLUTO::DELEMOSM"
              <DELEMOSM%PLUTO.decnet@APRINT.DHMC.DARTMOUTH.EDU>
Subject:      Rating for HoF

I've been following (somewhat) the discussion on how to award points for
Diplomacy play.  Perhaps this has already been discussed, but I was
curious if anyone has ever tried a very simple method: Award points for
Supply centers.  For each supply center above the number the player started
with, award 1 point.  For each center below the starting number, subtract
1 point.  No points are deducted once the SC count has dipped below the
country's starting number (3, 4 for Rus).  This way, players who are
immediately wiped out, or take hopeless positions are not penalized for
being immediately attacked and decimated or helping out in a situation
that no one else wanted, whichever the case may be.
On the increase side, someone who takes over a strong country gains points
not for the win, but for the increase in size over which he presided.
I think this may be an incentive to go for a win over a draw, but I may be
wrong.  Additionally, players who pick up a country in 1902 and win garner
high point totals.
Obviously, this system would favor frequent players (5 games with an increase
of 3 sc's is worth more than 1 win), but if this is a concern, a simple average
can be used (total points/games played) where each iteration of running a
country counts as a "game."
I apologize if this is too simple to inspire enthusiasm, but I am curious as
to what others might think.  In the long run, of course,  it's rather a moot
point.  Those who compile the stats are the ones who need to worry about these
issues, not those who simply enjoy the game.

Marc
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via:        UK.AC.LEEDS.GPS;  5 JAN 93 17:36:50 GMT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:35:31 GMT
Reply-To:     amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
From:         amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
Subject:      Re: Game aargh! not eligble for EP (was 24-Hour Warp With NMR)

> From: Joel Furr <jfurr@EDU.DU.CS.NYX>

> I had a thought earlier this morning regarding the use of NMR in games.
> The reason NOT to use NMR is because it may significantly alter the
> outcome of games and damage the integrity of what Diplomacy is all about.
> Then it occurred to me that at least one of the games I'm a replacement in
> has NO original players still in it and some of the games are on their
> second iteration of replacing all the players.  This is the flip side of
> NMR: is a game that winds up including twenty or thirty players during its
> course still a worthy lesson for the readers of EP?  Probably, but not in
> the same way that a game that went from start to finish with the same
> players.  I think NMR has minuses, true, but I think that under some
> circumstances, the pluses outweigh these.  I'll be interested to write up
> 'aargh!' when it's all over and see how it worked.

In postal play almost all US games use Standby players (although not always
for 1/2 center positions) with the standby being called after an NMR.  Most
British games do not use standbys at all so powers who NMR! go into cd.

There are some interesting comparisons that can be made (another article I
have thought about writing, but not written yet.  Maybe some time...).
It seems to be the case that there are fewer drop-outs in British games then
US games.  That's right.  Games which have no sb players have fewer dropouts
then games which use SB.

Of course we need to take into account the fact that games which use SB last
longer than those which don't but even so it appears to be the case that
games with no SB have fewer dropouts than games with SB.

Is this a reflection on SB vs no SB games?  A reflection on the way games
are run in Brit vs US or a reflection on the kind of people who play dip
in the UK vs US?  I don't know.

I suspect (but again I have never had the time to check the figures) that
players who standby are more likely to drop out of games then the original
players.  This is the only way I can explain games which have more than 10
players in them.

Very few games have more than 15 players in them.  Should you rate games which
have so many players?  AN interesting question.

NB.  On the ratings I am preparing for EP games I am keeping track of those
games which have NO DROPOUTS.  I *suspect* that games with no dropouts are
more likely to end in DRAWS than games which use STANDBYS.

I suspect that NMR games will have a higher pecentage of WINS
then NO-NMR games.  In order to check this we need details for NMR-YES! games,
which is (IMHO) a good reason for giving such games EP NUMBERS and tagging
them (if the Custodian so wishes) irregular (as described in an earlier post).

Mark.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via:        UK.AC.LEEDS.GPS;  8 JAN 93 15:49:03 GMT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:47:34 GMT
Reply-To:     amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
From:         amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
Subject:      Re: The relative merits of NMR

> From: Josh Smith <irilyth@EDU.CLAREMONT.FENRIS>

> [Having established that Joel doesn't particularly care about whether EP or
>  the Hall of Fame include NMR games, I'm shifting topic here, and have
>  changed the Subject line to reflect that.]
>
> Joel Furr (jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu) writes:
>
> > Okay, then, let me clarify. [he does; snip]
> >
> > 4) I'm willing to argue long and hard with any snobs who tell me that
> > Forever-And-A-Day-With-A-Cast-Of-Dozens games are "better" and "truer to
> > the spirit of the game" than NMR.
>
> Well, I hope I don't get classed as a "snob" for my opinion, but I prefer
> noNMR games to NMR, but not because I think they're more Pure or Blessed In
> The Eyes Of The Lord or whatever. I do think noNMR is truer to what I think
> Diplomacy is "about", to the reasons I play the game, though of course other
> people may play the game for different reasons.


I personally prefer NO NMR games to NMR games.  I've played in many NMR games
and have won several NMR variant games.  I'd rather win a NO NMR game
though, is it really a win if you win because someone NMRs at a vital
stage in the game or someone drops out leaving you able to take their centers?
NO NMR games are more difficult to win which is why I prefer them.

> When my ally gets abandoned and taken over, it's true (as I think Joel
> mentioned) that there's no guarantee that his replacement will be interested
> in continuing our alliance. However, I at least have the chance to negotiate
> with the new player, and if he seems intractable, I can rethink my relations
> with the other players. It's disruptive, certainly, but no more so than an
> NMR: someone going CD is effectively equivalent to the player being replaced
> by someone who refuses to negotiate or make any alliances. Either way, the
> old alliance is in danger, but I'd much rather have at least a chance at
> persuading the new "player" to help me out.


If NMR games use standbys (which they should do where possible) then
powers won't go into CD.  Powers may NMR once, but I would hope that
replacement players would come in as the game progresses.  (I'm not too much
in favour of NMR + no standby games over the net.)



Mark
Xref: sparky bit.listserv.dipl-l:512 rec.games.diplomacy:830
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l,rec.games.diplomacy
Subject: Re: Historical Variant?
From: Michael.Norrish@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Michael Norrish)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 21:09:45 GMT
 u> <C0GB2B.GA1@comp.vuw.ac.nz><C85PERWE.93Jan7154450@kol13.IDA.LiU.SE>
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Victoria Uni. of Wellington, NZ.

>>>>> On 7 Jan 93 14:44:59 GMT, c85perwe@IDA.LiU.SE (Per Westling) said:

Per> In article <C0GB2B.GA1@comp.vuw.ac.nz>
Per> Michael.Norrish@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Michael Norrish) writes:

Per> There are 1000+ variants around.  Some has been made in attempt to
Per> make Diplomacy more realistic.  But if you do this you should ask
Per> yourself if it's not better to try another game instead?  The basic
Per> idea in Diplomacy is to simulate the Diplomatic process, not to
Per> simulate WWI or even the 1870-1914 period.

Well, that as may be, but couldn't one at least try to simulate the
diplomatic process a little more realistically? Diplomacy, (the game),
so often leads to the elimination of players early on and the
accompanying creation of quite enormous powers that it bears little
relation to any realistic situation. Even during the cold war, with
two enormous superpowers dominating the world, there were plenty of
minor states around. (Of course, this is due to a lot of factors that
I imagine would be pretty difficult to simulate in a mere board game,
but I can dream can't I? :-)

Michael>    I think the game Pax Britannica tries to attempt this. I
Michael>    haven't played it, but it is of about the right period and
Michael>    as I've heard, it finishes when everything escalates into
Michael>    global war. I imagine it doesn't have rules that are as
Michael>    nice as Diplomacy's though. So does anyone want to port
Michael>    PB's nice features, (colonial stuff etc), to a Dip
Michael>    variant?

Per> Yes, PB is a nice game.

Michael>    That, I think would be the real win. I'd like a historical
Michael>    game that was simple to play, that looked as if it might
Michael>    almost be a simulation of the period but which wasn't so
Michael>    honour-bound to the period that players had little choice
Michael>    but to recreate history exactly.  Is it possible to come
Michael>    up with such a game?

Per> I don't think PB would be a hit as a Diplomacy variant for two
Per> reason.  PB uses written agreements that is almost binding (with
Per> severe penalties if you break them) and during wars there are
Per> this attack-everything effect I don't like.  One of the beauties
Per> of Diplomacy is that you have to trust people in what they say.
Per> Sure you can make up a written agreement.  But just like in the
Per> real world, there are no police to punish you if you break them,
Per> at least if you are a major power.

Well, I'm not proposing that PB be adopted wholesale. Does it rely on
the fact that agreements are written, or could this be changed to
Diplomacy style practice?

Michael.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 10:46:38 +0100
Reply-To:     Lars Henrik Mathiesen <thorinn@DIKU.DK>
From:         Lars Henrik Mathiesen <thorinn@DIKU.DK>
Subject:      Vote on: Future of DIPL-L

   Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:04:28 GMT
   From: Nick Fitzpatrick <nick@WATFROST.UWATERLOO.CA>

   So I am not declaring the vote open.
This word  ^^^ should be ``now,'' right?
   --------------------------------------------
   Should the Usenet link for DIPL-L be moved from bit.listserv.dipl-l
   to rec.games.diplomacy?

   YES   or     NO
   --------------------------------------------

I vote NO. When I joined DIPL-L, I had the impression that it would be
a forum for informed discussion. In my opinion, informed discussion
should presuppose that people have acquired, *read*, and at least
*tried* to understand the relevant parts of the basic material and
whatever else is easily available: the rules, the Judge info files,
the FAQ, and the A-Z.

This is not quite how things seem to work at present, but linking to
r.g.d will not help at all.

In fact, I would rather see the list moderated, even draconianly so,
or at least a dweeb-filtered. Then I could read DIPL-L with pleasure
and scan r.g.d with nn. (This would be sort-of similar to one of the
functions of Chapter Two, but with the usual publication frequency of
that esteemed publication it can be hard to keep a discussion going.)

I am not so sure about the death of DIPL-L, either. For many years,
the mainstream newsgroup sci.lang has languished in a mire of usage
flame wars, rehashings of cute commonplaces, and the occasional
epistemological/methodological grudge match. Then, a year or so ago,
two brave volunteers created the moderated LINGUIST list --- which is
now the largest on the Internet, according to a survey.

Lars Mathiesen (U of Copenhagen CS Dep) <thorinn@diku.dk> (Humour NOT marked)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l,rec.games.diplomacy
From: nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca (Nick Fitzpatrick)
Subject: non-judge EP games in Hall of Fame (was NMR, games with many replacement players, and Hall of Fame)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 01:48:54 GMT

In article <1ii2v5INNiki@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> PL436000@brownvm.brown.edu (Jamie) writes:
>
>I admit I have a vested interest. I would like my share of the
>three-way draw in "Masters of Deceit" to one day count in my
>Hall of Fame rating (it doesn't count now because it wasn't
>a JUDGE game, but Nick is working on including nonJUDGE EP
>games for the future. Eh Nick?).
>

Master's of Deceit (aka mod) is already in the Hall of Fame, (though
it was the only non-judge game).  Ken told me about it.  I will
accept any non-judge EP games for the Hall of Fame, if people wish
to send me End of Game summaries.

Nick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:34:30 EST
Reply-To:     Nick Fitzpatrick <nick@SUNBURN.UWATERLOO.CA>
From:         Nick Fitzpatrick <nick@SUNBURN.UWATERLOO.CA>
Subject: Re: Game 'qhorse' on the Washington judge needs a moderator

Joel Assumes:

	So far, five of seven powers on the game "qhorse" on the Washington judge
	have voted in favor of slashing the grace period for moves from one week
	to two or three days.  However, we have no moderator to do this for us.
	If you would be willing to assume the moderatorship of "qhorse", we would
	greatly appreciate it.

As posted to qhorse, when it first started, (and I know that
Joel was NOT an original player, however I am sure he read the posts
when he ordered the history of qhorse from the judge when he took
over whatever position he is playing)
, and also as posted to rec.games.diplomacy, atlease twice since
Christmas, Ken Lowe is the moderator of qhorse, see him!!!

Nick
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l,rec.games.diplomacy