From: c85perwe@IDA.LiU.SE (Per Westling)
Subject: Re: Guess what: NMR
Reply-To: c85perwe@und.ida.liu.se
Organization: CIS Dept, University of Linkoping, Sweden
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:18:48 GMT

In article <9301081336.AA11320@smaragd.zfe.siemens.de> Robert Rehbold <rehbold@SMARAGD.ZFE.SIEMENS.DE> writes:

> Having read all this "NMR is good/bad to the spirit of the game" discussion
> I want to throw in my two Pfennig (no cents in Germany :-) :
> 
> Diplomacy is a board game. I.e. FTF (face to face), i.e. you have (hopefully)
> seven players sitting at a table or doing private negotiatons in the corners of
> one room. NMR is simply not happening in such an environment. What can happen
> is that somebody who has been stabbed leaves in anger before his/her units
> are completely finished off. If no substitute player is available (usually not)
> there is no other possibility but to let the country go CD. However everybody
> else *knows* that the country will remain CD for the rest of the game and can
> act accordingly. Of course some immediate neighbours will be able to take a
> bigger advantage than others, but the others at least know and may try to
> rebalance the game. People usually don't leave the table because "their workload
> has gotten too high, they caught a flu, they lost mailing connections etc.".
That NMR does not happen when playing FtF is not true.  If you play in
a tournament with timelimits it might very well happen that a players
makes an NMR.  Often it is clarified what will happen in the
tournament rules.

Sometimes perpetual orders is allowed, ie a player may leave a written
set of orders for several turns, but often the CD rule is used. 

I also know that replacement players is used sometimes, if such can be
found.

BTW, Board game == FtF is not true.  Compare Postal Chess.

> 
> In comes Diplomacy as a PBM (play by mail) game. NMR as a surprise CD enters
> the scene. And a NMR can happen to the best player if he/she didn't get the
> results, gets ill, can not look at his/her mail for a while. Compared to the
> FTF game a PBM game -even with NoNMR- is a slightly different thing (you can
> spent hours to analyze the outcome of dozens of your move possibilities on most
> of your opponent's moves; you can interact more secretly etc.etc.) but IMHO
> with NMR it's really quite different from FTF. Not worse, just different.

There are ways to avoid this problem.  Eg require the GM to confirm
receiving orders, NMR-insurance (the GM contacts players that hasn't
delivered orders and charge a small fee for this), sending your orders
several times etc.

> Now the question seems to be whether PBM should be as similar as possible
> to FTF or not. In what the judge calls a 'standard game' (normal map & powers,
> private communication lines, NoNMR) I see the most similar version. Adding
> a rule that lets the other players reenter their moves if a power gets CD (of
> course *before* their former moves got processed) instead of having a
> replacement player take over may even add a little more of the FTF feeling.
> NMR moves the PBM game away from the FTF version.

In FtF dimplomacy between moves and retreats/adjustment is not
allowed.
In FtF diploimacy rounds is 15-30 minutes.

So says the rules.  Anything played by (E-)Mail will be a step away
from this so one have to adapt the rules.  This has been done, and the
Mail community has come to different conclusions than the E-mail.

Let me also note that PBM in some ways improves the game.  Eg you get
more time to plan and diplomatize.  And you can easier make schemes
behind the back of other players, as they can't see who talks with who.

> While I have tried up to now not to show any preferences I am aware that
> people out there may already have gotten foam on their mouth from what I have
> written so far. To those let me repeat what somebody posted some hours ago:
> Please keep this discussion objective and don't flame; argue instead.
> Thank you!
> 
> Ah, and now for the fun part -please let me first put on my asbesto suit-
> crrrck, zzziiiipp - ok: I prefer NoNMR. Because I like to be surprised by
> players' moves, not their non-moves. However I do agree that 1 SC positions
> may be allowed to go CD *by the GM*, especially in gunboat no press games if
> the player drops out. But I have participated in/observed several games where a
> 1 SC player managed to survive quite a time - even into a draw (ha, Austria with
> 16 SC, me as Italy with only F Tun, but the stalemate was there and Italy was
> included into the draw). So don't underestimate 1 SC positions if the SC is
> an interesting one (e.g. Mun, Por, Tun, ...). Having a skilled player play
> such a nation vs. playing it as in CD can drastically change the outcome of
> a game. Summarized, I like the EP houserules and prefer NoNMR with replacement
> players a lot over NMR.

The record is the one center Italy who was replaced (in a NMR game by
the way, by Mail) and that new player managed to win the game in the End!

Regardless what one prefer, when you start a game you know the rules.
You know if it is NoNMR, NMR, No Standby, No Press whatever.

Personally I find it strange the move to make the EP houserules THE
standard set of rules for the WHOLE community.

I support Mark Nelson's suggestion to give almost any e-mail game an
EP number and note if it is NoNMR or NMR or whatever.  The custodian
of the Hall of Fame can then decide which games to include in any
scoring.
The same applies to eg the opening statistics.  You don't really think
there are no difference between Austria's openings in a NMR and a NoNMR
game, do you? 

> Robert
--
Per Westling              |
Mardtoprsgatan 15         |  c85perwe@und.ida.liu.se
S-582 48 LINKOPING        |  In praise of Idleness -- Bertrand Russel
SWEDEN                    |
Stuff regarding DPP may be sent to x90perwe@ida.liu.se instead.
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy