From: bz556@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joshua E. Randall)
Subject: Diplomacy - Time for and Update - Deluxe  (long)
Reply-To: bz556@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joshua E. Randall)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 00:11:00 GMT


This was written just after I read message 17176, so it does not respond to
anything after that post.  Disclaimers aside, read on.

I am somewhat surprised but very pleased at the number of replies
to my recent posting Re:  Diplomacy - Time for and Update? and the
new thread it has spawned, Deluxe Diplomacy.  I'll try to respond
to each person's comments in turn and then make some general
statements of my own.

Roger Leroux, John of Gaunt (Snoopy), and jjfink (Joel) agree that
the present Rulebook is somewhat legalistic and difficult to
understand.  Snoopy emphasizes the need to clarify the rules more
than change them.  I agree with him; this is perhaps the most
important thing Avalon Hills could do to make the game easier to
comprehend.

Michael Urban mentioned that AH ought to supplement the Rulebook
with an "informal introduction" to the game.  Actually, Michael, AH
already does offer just such an item.  It is a one page summary of
play that was included in the boxed set I have.  However, it spends
too much time promoting the game and not enough explaining the
basic moves.  Perhaps the "revised" Rulebook could begin with an
Introduction that tells the object of the game and the things
Fleets and Armies may do, while the full rules could cover obscure
situations and the vagaries of Support and Convoying.

Bas de Bakker, on the other hand, thinks that the Rules as they
stand are "few, precise, and very complete".  While I agree that
they are few and complete, I would hardly call them precise.  In
fact, Bas, from what I gather, there are some rules which are
disputed due to their vagueness--the author of the Gamer's Guide
mentions at one point that he disagrees with the inventor's ruling
in a certain situation.  It is ironic that if a player writes an
order that "admits of two meanings", it is not followed, while if
AH writes such an "order", we (the players) have to muddle through
what it means before we can play the game!

Moving on to the Gamer's Guide, Roger Leroux believes that the
openings won't have changed very much.  Snoopy says pretty much the
same thing, adding that just because the Rulebook/Guide is old is
no reason to update it; a revision would be necessary, however, if
there was a flaw or change to be made.  Well, Snoopy, there is
really only one flaw that I know of (and that one regards the shape
of the pieces), so you've got me over a barrel here.  I still think
that changes could be made to the quality of the writing and
perhaps the layout as well.

Snoopy also says that there are no substantive rules changes, only
variants.  While I agree, I think that these very variants are what
should be in the "new" Gamer's Guide.

What shouldn't be in the Guide is the juvenile humor present in the
cartoons and elsewhere that Roger Leroux comments on in his post. 
While I accept the fact that Diplomacy is a game and is supposed to
be fun, the Guide is supposed to tell you how to *win*, not list
"Playing Possum" in the table of contents along with "Playing" each
of the Great Powers.

Joel (jjfink) wants--and so do I--more information on what moves to
make and diplomacy to conduct between the Fall of 1901 and the
elimination of your first victim.  Joel also wishes that the Guide
writer would explain the reason behind some of his edicts, such as
"Italy should never stab Austria in the opening" and so forth.  The
part of the Guide that tells how to play each country is the best,
but it would be so much *better* if the author would have done what
Joel mentioned!

Bret Pettichord suggests writing your own Guide.  Well, I would do
that, but...

...Bas de Bakker says there is a new Gamer's Guide in the works,
and Brian Youse announces "Deluxe Diplomacy".  This is exciting
news to me, even if the new version will be in the fifty to sixty
dollar range, as Christopher K. Farrell and Andrew Weber state.  I
guess that's the price you pay for progress.  There is some
speculation as to whether the deluxe edition will use the old-style
wooden pieces or not.  Personally, I like the new pieces better,
although I wish they'd supply enough for a full game <grumble>. 
Andrew Weber thinks that the update might use the "traditional"
map.  If this means the 1958 map, I must recoil in horror.  I
*hate* that old thing; IMO it is unbalanced.

And now for those general comments I promised.  The Rulebook
doesn't need to change much, although it could stand to be gone
over with the help of Strunk and White.

The Gamer's Guide should be completely overhauled.  Perhaps a new
one could contain (1) a history of the game, (2) ways to exploit
the rules to your own advantage [not cheating, just how to play
well], (3) specific tips on playing each country, (4) more specific
tips on playing each country, and (5) a sample game [preferably
*not* one in which some players forgot to submit orders, as that
seldom happens in a face-to-face game].  The emphasis of the Guide
should be mostly on FTF playing.  Although I realize that many
people like play-by-E-mail better, FTF is the way most people
learn, and is the "pure" form of Diplomacy which a "Gamer's Guide"
ought to tell you how to play well.

The set itself could stand a few more pieces, as I said earlier. 
The map is fine the way it is (it is even quite pretty, in a
useless sort of way).  And the cover art could probably use and
update from the 1950s line drawing, but that's a minor point.

Well...keep up the good replies, especially those concerning a new
Gamer's Guide or Deluxe Diplomacy.

Maybe if we reach a concensus, we can send a letter to AH telling
them how much we just *love* their game, but we have a few
suggestions for the next version....  :-)
-- 
Joshua E. Randall
bz556@cleveland.freenet.edu
My motto:  "Eenie weenie teenie beanie"  --me, myself, and I