ARMISTICE DAY 3

2

A Diplomacy zine from Stephen Agar, 47 Preston Drove, BRIGHTON, BN1 6LA. Tel: 01273-562430. Fax: 01273-706139. Email: stephen@armisticeday.com

EDITORIAL OF SORTS

Well, this isn’t going to be the longest issue I’ll ever produce as time has been very short over the past month. Most of my efforts have been at work helping to negotiate the new licence for Consignia PLC to run a postal service from 26th March onwards. A great deal of negotiations towards the end (including a 16 hour meeting!) but we got there. At the same time we were also restructuring the old Post Office, moving several billions of pounds worth of assets around, and I had to do all the documentation for that as well. To say nothing of the various commencement orders for the new Postal Services Act, which we had to agree with DTI. All very exhausting. On top of the above, I also made the mistake of putting 26 of my old games and music papers on sale at ebay (the Internet auction site). The problem was that all the auctions ended at the same time – do you know how long it takes to pack 26 items sufficient to go through the post without damage? Bloody ages. And all of this was not helped by the fact that I spent nearly a week being very ill with some flu-like bug that also attached the throat making eating solid food almost impossible. So, with work and illness, there really hasn’t been any time for diplomacy at all this month. TO an extent that explains why the waiting lists are virtually unchanged – I simply haven’t had the time to go hunting for more new subscribers this issue – but I will try and have another big push this month to get the lists filled. Having said all that, this issue was finished by the Monday evening after the deadline – so why are you reading this over a week later? It was fate. I couldn’t print it at work on Tuesday as I had to take the day off to look after the kids because Esme was ill. I couldn’t print it on Wednesday because I was at a drinks thing at the DTI to celebrate the launch of the new postal regime. I couldn’t print it on Thursday, as my father was arriving that evening to stay with us for the weekend. I couldn’t print it Friday because I was on leave. So it all goes over to the following Monday! All very irritating, I know – but players were sent their game reports last week by post or email, so that hasn’t been affected. Following on from the bits and pieces about nostalgia for the toys of our youth, I found myself buying a few old Beano, Dandy and Victor annuals recently – the ones I could remember getting for Christmas present when I was 8 or 9. I was just curious to read them again and see how they looked when viewed through the eyes of a middle-aged man. At least they will hold their value and should be able to resell if I feel like getting rid of them sometime. It was funny how I could remember the covers of books I probably haven’t seen for the best part of 30 years. Nothing to note on the hobby news front, other than the imminent re-emergence of Mike Dean and his old zine

Psychopath. I don’t remember Psychopath myself as it was around during my absence from the hobby in the 80’s, but it is always a good thing when an old editor returns. Shame that we don’t get any new editors any more though. As this hobby slowly fades away, it struck me when reading through the zines I have received over the past month, how few zines ever bother to review (or even mention) the other zines that are around – all of which gives the impression that the hobby is smaller and more fragmented than it really is. Even someone like Neil Duncan, who used to be relied on to print at least a page of zine reviews seems to have given up. Well, I haven’t got much space left, but here goes…

SOME ZINES SEEN No one can accuse Obsidian1 of being one of the more mainstream zines around – but Alex Richardson shows a commendable amount of determination to keep going. Issue 108 is only a 3 page issue (game reports separate) a d if I am going to be honest the zine does seem to have been beset by delays in recent years – but it has a hardcore following who have been with Alex for years and who appreciate his sense of humour and the fact that he is one of the nice guys in the hobby. Lists are open for Diplomacy, Aberration III, Breaking Away, Civilization, Eat Me!, Grand Slam, Middleman, Sopwith and Tribute. A varied selection indeed. Alex laments the loss of single-games zines – thinking that perhaps this is the way to encourage people to start editing. I agree wholeheartedly. My first zine was a two-age, one game zine called Pigmy back in 1977. Some of the people reading this even used to receive it! A warm mention for Smiffy’s Marvellous Electronic Gamezine2, especially as you can have it as a neatly printed A5 booklet if you prefer. A large 48 pages, though 30 pages are various game reports of very cosmopolitan selection of games (no Diplomacy, but hey, let’s give the guy a chance). I particularly liked the pieces on self-fellatio, masturbation and sexual harassment – but then what else would you expect from SMEG? There isn’t enough space left to do justice to Graustark3 No.718 – a zine which is already my favourite of all the zines I receive. This zine is fun to read – witty cartoons, anti-religious right politics and book reviews of the sort of books I may just go out and buy. A shame that I am one of only two people in the UK who get to see it! Pete – offer John a trade immediately! Ode4 224 has to get a quick mention – if only to comment on the fact that John Marsden has changed the zine’s layout for the first time in 168 issues. And it looks good – it makes the zine look quite fresh.

1 Alex Richardson, 9 Bridge Street, Hitchin, Herts, SG5 2DE 2 Richard Smith, 106 Bracklesham Close, Sholing, Southampton, SO19 8RX. 3 John Boardman, 234 East 19th Street, Brooklyn, NY 11226-5302, USA 4 John Marsden, 91 Westwood Avenue, Lowestoft, Suffolk, NR33 9RS

ARMISTICE DAY 3

3

DIPLOMACY – UK EDITION 1962 INTELLECTUAL DIVERSIONS

I believe that this is the first UK edition of Diplomacy and the first to be published outside of the United States. The gameboard is copyright 1961 by Games Research Inc. (but made and printed in Great Britain) with cartoons on the board by “timothy” – though I strongly suspect that the board was commissioned by Intellectual Diversions Ltd for the UK market. The rulebook is copyright 1962 by Intellectual Diversions Ltd and differs from the 1961 Games Research Inc rulebook in layout. As can be seen, the map is a completely different design both from the US Games Research Inc. design (which had a topological map) and from the brightly coloured political map used in all subsequent UK editions. This edition uses the US colours for the various powers (dark blue for England, white for Russia), but the pieces themselves are the familiar bullet shapes for armies and flat pointed pieces for fleets. The pieces were made of a hard shiny plastic and wrapped in paper inside their compartments in the box. The game board uses the same colours for the various powers, with both Russia and the neutrals being white. It is clear that the subsequent UK board was a redesign of this board, changing some of the colours and making a greater distinction between neutrals and Russian provinces. It appears that this gameboard was only used for one year.

THE 1971 RULEBOOK

BY STEPHEN AGAR The history of how Diplomacy came to be published is fairly well-known. In 1961, Games Research acquired the rights to Diplomacy and brought about the first widespread release of the game. The box was redesigned, but the map and the rules used were the same as Calhamer's 1959 version. However, in the course of the 1960’s many ambiguities and problems were discovered with the rules – mainly as a result of the explosion of PBM Diplomacy in the USA. Consequently, postal GMs had to have quite long house rules detailing how they rules on these ambiguities – and as different GMs had different views this led to a degree of divergence in how Diplomacy was actually played. For those of us who started playing Diplomacy after the major rules revision in 1971, it can be quite surprising to find out how it was played in the 1960’s. Indeed, I have a whole A4 folder full of excerpts from US zines in the 60’s discussing various house rules issues. For example, Brobdingnag No.84 had an article some 26(!) pages long commenting on the various issues on which leading US GMs interpreted the rules differently. The various different interpretations were named after their originator (e.g. Koning’s Rule, Boardman’s Rule, Beshara’s Rule etc.). During the summer of 1970 two different draft revisions were prepared – one by Rod Walker (publisher of Erehwon) and another by Stephen Manion (a Harvard student commissioned by Games Research Inc.). In the autumn Rod combined the two different drafts into a working draft, which Stephen Manion then refined into a final draft over Christmas 1970. All of this was done taking on board suggestions from Allan Calhamer. The rules finally appeared at the end of 1971. Whereas the

ARMISTICE DAY 3

4

1961 rulebook ran to 8 pages, the 1971 edition was 11 pages long. Once it appeared in the US, it was quickly adopted in the UK. The new rules were more detailed and a lot clearer than the 1961 version – so what were the areas of uncertainty and what was decided? • It was finally settled that a dislodged unit attempting

to move could not stand-off another unit (Koning’s Rule adopted).

• A dislodged unit cannot give a valid support

(Miller’s Rule adopted, Boardman’s Rule (which said the converse) not followed even though it was preferred by Rod Walker).

• A convoyed attack does not cut the support for an

attack on the body of water containing the convoying fleet (Brannan’s Rule adopted).

• The convoy of an army with two or more possible

convoy routes will fail if any of the convoys is disrupted (e.g. F(NTH) C A(Bel)-Lon*; F(ENG) C A(Bel)-Lon; A(Bel)-Lon; F(Nwy) S F(Den)-NTH).

• If two units try to retreat to the same space, neither

succeeds and they are removed. Allan Calhamer preferred giving the player’s a second chance to retreat elsewhere, but the postal GMs didn’t like the idea as it would delay the game.

• Support in Split Provinces: The new rules clarified

that (for example) a F(Mar) can support an action anywhere in Spain, even though it could only move to Spa sc itself.

• Retreats: Players were now allowed to abandon a

unit rather than retreating it (called by many the “fast retreat home”). This was included largely to help out the PBM GM’s who didn’t know what to do when no legal retreat was ordered. Until then various US zines had various rules for bringing about automatic retreats.

• Exchange of Spaces; This was permitted (a) where

three or moves pieces were involved (e.g. F(AEG)-Smy; F(Smy)-EMS; F(EMS)-AEG) or (b) where convoys were used (e.g. F(NTH) C A(Bel)-Lon; F(ENG) C A(Lon)-Bel). However, the coastal crawl (F(Spa)sc-Por; F(Por)-Spa nc) was not allowed (contrary to the practice of most US GMs).

• The Beleagured Garrison rule was adopted: namely

a unit attacked from superior but equal forces from two sides was not dislodged.

• Victory: The original rules stated that the winner

was the first to have a majority of the pieces on the board. This was altered to the first player to control 18 supply centres – a very unpopular decision with US GM’s at the time (including Rod Walker).

THE STRATEGIES OF THE ANCIENT MEDITERRANEAN

BY DON HESSONG

At first glance The Ancient Mediterranean board looks like it's divided into two halves. In the east there's Greece, Egypt and Persia, while in the west are Rome and Carthage. It's easy to assume that in this game there will be two sub-campaigns, one in the east and the other in the west, which may or may not spill over into each other during the game's early stages. Then the winners of each half will start fighting in the later stages of the game. This situation would be similar to the original game of Diplomacy. On the other hand, many people assume that Rome and Carthage would make great allies and steam-roll across the board. However, there is at least one problem with this alliance. They have no common enemy. They can't attack a mutually accessible victim and carve it up between them because no such target exists. There is an area in the middle of the board where they can provide some degree of mutual support, but this area is small. This does not necessarily mean that Rome and Carthage will always be at war. Most players are aware that to fight one against one without an ally is futile and self-destructive. What happens in the west depends, to a great extent, on events in the east. With three powers in the east one might assume that two of them will ally against the third. This does happen often enough, but there are complications. If either Egypt or Greece ally with Persia against the other, the gains in the early game are good, assuming Persia's ally is not getting pressure from one of the western powers. But the problem is that whoever Persia's ally is, cuts Persia off from the rest of the board once the first victim has been eliminated. This leaves Persia in the position of having only one possible avenue for expansion, the original ally. And it leaves the original ally in the position of being sandwiched between Persia and the remaining western powers, which will usually prove to be detrimental. Egypt and Greece may decide to ally against Persia, but this alliance has its difficulties too, in that both powers have to turn their backs to the western half of the board. The Triple Alliance Strategy One way to avoid these pitfalls (not that it's possible to avoid pitfalls in Diplomacy) is to arrange an alliance structure that accounts for the fact that not all enemies or allies will be on the same half of the board. In The Ancient Mediterranean this includes any three-way alliance where one of the allies is not adjacent to the other two partner powers. For example, in a Greek-Carthaginian-Egyptian alliance, Greece is not adjacent to either of the other two allies. Greece would aid Carthage in an attack on Rome and aid Egypt against Persia. Naturally, the Carthaginian-Egyptian border would be a neutral zone.

ARMISTICE DAY 3

5

Rotating your perspective for each power one spot to the right will create a new triple alliance consisting of Persia, Rome and Carthage. In this alliance Persia would support Rome in an attack on Greece and at the same time help Carthage against Egypt. Again the two powers that are adjacent would require a neutral border between them (in this example I consider Rome and Carthage adjacent). There are a total of five combinations of this triple alliance structure and any given power can be a member of three of them. This can make for some interesting games given that different players will negotiate for different alliance combinations. Of course this only describes the beginning game. In the middle game, the other two powers will have been eliminated and the triple alliance will have to sort itself out. A Word About Armies In The Ancient Mediterranean there is a lot of fleet action that happens in the middle of the board. But don't forget the flanks. Every power has two flanks, however narrow, which can be attacked by land. Usually at least one, if not both, of these land areas is either under attack or being used to attack. So don't neglect the armies. Greece and Persia especially, have a larger land-space to sea- space ratio than it appears and if you are stuck with too many fleets bottled up behind the lines, those enemy armies can roll around the flanks before you know it. The Ancient Med website is at: http://www.rockford.com/donhesso/ancient.htm

THE BEST DEFESIVE POSITION

REVISITED

STEVE COX The time has come, I think, to inject some facts into your debate about which country has the best defensive position in Diplomacy. Those that follow are extracted from my ageing copy of Richard Sharp's database of postal games, as slightly added to by me. I have considered only the 362 games in which there were no dropouts. Toby Harris suggests that we should find out which country has been eliminated least often. This information is shown in the first two rows of Table 1. France easily beats Turkey here, and England is merely average. Austria is clearly in a class of its own, being the only country that is eliminated in more than half of its games, but perhaps this is only because it so often succumbs to the early bath, as row 3 of the table shows (joint first eliminations count for both countries involved). If it manages to survive the first few years, Austria's chances must surely improve. Row 4 of the table considers only those games in which each country was not eliminated first, or joint first, and shows in what percentage of them the country was subsequently eliminated. France wins again, with Turkey slipping below Russia, although it is

still just above England; Austria almost rejoins the pack, but the three central powers (AGI) all have a poor life expectancy. A E F G I R T Number of eliminations

220 174 112 176 173 159 158

% eliminations 60.8 48.1 30.9 48.6 47.8 43.9 43.6 Number of first eliminations

118 64 32 52 41 62 51

% eliminations if not elim first

41.8 36.9 24.2 40.0 41.1 32.3 34.4

Table 1

ELIMINATION DATA FOR 362 GAMES WITHOUT DROPOUTS Table 1 takes no account of how long each country survived, but this is surely relevant, so I have also produced Table 2. In this, the 'survival rate' for each country is calculated by dividing the total number of years that the country survived in qualifying games by the total number of years played in those games. Only 79 games without dropouts are considered because I don't have data on elimination years for the rest. A E F G I R T Survival rate in all games

54.0 83.4 85.0 76.3 83.8 83.1 86.6

Survival rate in games in which the country was not eliminated first

76.7 90.7 90.6 83.8 85.2 89.4 89.6

Table 2

SURVIVAL RATES IN 79 GAMES WITHOUT DROPOUTS

Clearly, France's position is now under threat, and it is beaten by Turkey if we look at all games, and by England if we look only at games where each country was not eliminated first, or joint first. Overall, France still has the edge because of its much lower number of eliminations, but the disappearance of its advantage when we look at survival rates suggests that, when it does come under pressure, France's collapse is more dramatic than that of England or Turkey (history gives the same verdict!), and this suggests another way in which we might assess each country's defensive strength: Look at every year of every game and assign a score to each country which is equal to one divided by the number of centres the country owned in that year, or zero if the country had been eliminated. At the end of each game, multiply the total of the scores for each country by the number of years it survived. The result is the 'defence rating' for each country for that game, and the sum of the defence ratings calculated for a particular country for all games is its overall defence rating. The country that ends up with the largest rating is the best in defence. Fortunately for my housework schedule, I don't have the necessary data to do this.

ARMISTICE DAY 3

6

TRIPLE ALLIANCE – WWI STYLE

BY JAMES MARTINELLI Even though I have never seen this alliance done before, thinking about what a player could do with this alliance is almost scary. However you need 18 supply centres to win which would mean that someone would have to backstab another player somewhere along the lines, maybe after taking down two other countries. But this is how I recommended you go along with this plan. Germany should take France from the north, above the Swiss Alps, while Austria helps with Italy and Russia, the same with the Ottoman Empire. With this, some one would have to also make a fake alliance with some one else. Maybe Germany could make one with France to go against Austria or England, but you would need to have one of the other powers on your side during the campaign. But this is what could be the opening moves for every team. Germany – A Munich moves to Burgundy, F Kiel moves to Holland, A Berlin moves to Prussia. This move puts a lot of pressure on the French to move their army from Mar up to protect Paris. With these moves, Germany could be in Paris by Fall 1902, as long as France does not make an alliance with Great Britain and Russia against you. Austria – F Trieste attacks Venice. A Vienna moves to Galicia. A Budapest moves to Rumania. These moves would also put pressure on Russia and Italy. Italy can no loner move out of Venice and if they did in S 1901, they have already lost it. Also, if Russia moves A Warsaw, they will now have to move it back to face the new Austrian army. Also, although Moscow will maybe support, Prussia and Galicia could double-attack Warsaw. The reason I choose to move Budapest to Rumania is for two reasons. The first is to keep Russia out of it, if they even do move in, and then later when Turkey takes Bulgaria, Turkey could help take Rumania for the Austrians. Turkey – A Constantinople moves to Bulgaria, F Ankara moves to Black Sea, A Smyrna moves to Armenia. This opening move also puts more pressure on the Russians and they would have to abandon any anti-German or British plans they had. It also really puts a nail in the coffin for them since no one could get to Russia in time to save them. Rumania, Armenia, and possibly F Black Sea, could later triple-attack Sevastopol in S 1902 and Russia has already lost one of its home supply centers. However there are some things that could mess this plan up for the Triple Alliance. One could be that France and Great Britain teamed up against Germany and they move A Paris to Pic and A Mar to Bur, keeping the Germans out, and Great Britain moves into Norway later and could have an army in Denmark unless Germany takes it. Germany is the most susceptible to defeat in this game then anyone else. Also, these moves leave Italy to do whatever it wants, and with Turkey and Austria focusing on Russia they could easily use the Lepanto opening, since Greece would be open.

Later plans…Turkey and Austria split up the Balkans so that Turkey gets Greece and Bulgaria and Austria gets Serbia and Rumania. They then split Russia up too, maybe giving Warsaw to the Germans. After they easily dispose of Russia they would move on to Italy. It would make sense that when Turkey re-supplies, it does so with F Smyrna to maybe force the Italians away. It would also make sense that Austria move F Trieste to Adriatic some time, and re-supply with A Trieste so that the two can take Venice. Although there are some problems getting this alliance to work at first, once the Juggernaut starts to move, there is no stopping it, unless a stab from one of its own, like Austria stabbing Germany and then maybe Turkey returning the favor. However if the alliance falls apart in the middle of the game then Germany and Austria would most likely fall because the other countries would ally on a common hatred against two countries. I have been on the opposite site of an alliance formed by hatred of me, and I will tell you now that nothing can break up an alliance formed on the basis of mutual hatred unless you are taken out, although I was thankfully not taken out but got close to death. Also, if you are already having dreams of grandeur and already imagining the Turkish, German or Austrian flag next to victory, let me provide you with a famous quote to bring you back to earth, “The best laid plans of mice and men often fail.”

LETTERS

ALEX BARDY Thanks for the Mango review. Mango and John Wilman's The White Cat are positively babies in today's zine scene, and truth be told the total zine readership isn't exactly growing is it? Of course, 'twas heartening to read Bruce Edwards' letter re. his 'discovery' of the more casual postal gaming scene through Flagship, but even that magazine seems to be dying a slow, ignoble death... Neil's comments re. the contrast between internet games and the postal scene struck a chord, especially when John added his tuppence-worth about GMing standards on the web. Almost like books, postal zines seem set to keep plodding along regardless, an archaic throwback to times long past. Which is why I find the fact that Graustark is still going absolutely incredible, especially amongst a dwindling base interest. Indeed, I've been considering doing a little survey, initially among Mango readers but it might be interesting to broaden it a little... I'd like to get a 'snapshot' of the social standing/interests of the readership with a view to publishing a summary of the results for all to see (average age, no. of children, etc). We'll see what happens, though... SA I suspect the results are a bit predictable. Most people will be in their thirties or early forties; most will be married or in a steady relationship, with a hardcore of about 25% who are probably terminally single. Nearly all will be graduates, and most very middle class. Practically no one will be under 20. And there’s probably

ARMISTICE DAY 3

7

more in the forties than in their twenties. Oh, and 98% will be male. Well, that’s my prediction…

SIMON ROBERTSON Like Alex Bardy, I am often saddened by the expensive clothing "toys" etc which children seem to get nowadays (When I was young everyone we were all poor and couldn't afford luxuries). My gut reaction with my own children is usually along the lines of "they've got too many books/games/toys already they don't need any more". I am basically of a mean disposition, and can't imagine where in the house there is to put it anyway. But then I consider that I would happily buy myself a new computer game (for example), without thinking twice about it, so why shouldn't I be happy to spend similar sums on my children. I think the "problem" is we all have much more disposable income than our parents did when we were young. SA Well, the average person in full-time employment is considerably better off now than 30 or 40 years ago. And there is far morechoice when it comes to consumer goods – be it food, clothing or toys. Of course, the poor still have it rough. In recent yeas I have finally reached the stage of my life where I earn more than I spend – a novel position to be in and I only hope it lasts. Your review of Abstraction II was fascinating, so please could I go down on the waiting list, no preference as to country (and please stop printing interesting stuff about any more games which I haven't got time to play)

SIMON IVES One thing I meant to put in my last letter was a note about collectable cards, following on from your reader's reminiscences about toys, comics and the like. Did you collect those cards that came with a disgusting bit of pink bubble gum? There were numerous sets - Batman, Beatles, Monkees, sci fi, WWII, Thunderbirds etc. The very first ones I collected were American Civil War cards which came with a Confederate "banknote" as well as the gum. I got talking to an old friend at a wedding back in the summer and he remarked that he'd recently bought a Civil War set in an album for some £250! It didn't come with the Rebel money though! SA I remember I had a complete set of Captain Scarlet and Superman cards, but much of the time was spent filling a sticker album of the first division teams. I was really into football (from the ages of 8 to 10), but then I grew up.

ALLAN STAGG Thanks for AD2, which is already establishing a high standard. However, I must comment on one particular part which, unfortunately, meant that I could not safely leave the zine where the children might find it. I refer of course to the picture of James Hardy - what are you thinking of Stephen?! So much for producing a family magazine - I could not even show this to the cat! SA Many apologies. I try not to let my editorial standards drop so far again.

Interesting that your comments about your toys generated so much correspondence - obviously found an area of common interest there. I wonder if, in 30 years time, our children will be fondly reminiscing about their Gameboy and Playstation games. SA I don’t see why not. There are already people running Spectrum and ZX81 emulators on their Pentium IV’s just so they can play Jet set Willy or Manic Miner

TONY DICKINSON Reading your playlist I am most impressed ... Chumbwamba (even spells it correctly i.e. not ChumawUmba!), Manics and Kirsty McColl (very sad way to go) ... anarchistic tendancies no less ... so living in Brighton - have you ever bumped into the Leve11ers? Hehe had to ask ... mind you they are touring very soon, I have York and Notts booked. SA I have a couple of Levellers LPs, but nothing to shout home about. I can’t say that I do have anarchist tendencies (hell, I’m a lawyer!), but I’ve always enjoyed good old fashioned socialist protest music. I particularly like Phil Ochs. However, my favourite is Don’t Mourn – Organize! – songs by the executed left-wing songwriter Joe Hill (Smithsonian Folkways SF 40026) – which any self respecting leftie should track down immediately. Strange that the US has in the past produced so much good left wing music without any significant left wing to speak of.

DAVID OYA Thanks for another very lovely issue of Spoff, or whatever you're calling it this year. It's not really my kindathang, but I'm sure it'll do very well. I don't want to trade, taverymuch, but I've sent you a copy of the current Wimm? for your delight and delectation and hopefully a review that will bring in two or three enquiries from balding accountants wanting to know what scoring system I favour for postal arsemunching. I meant to send you one last week but with my usual stunning efficiency I left you off the list. SA I am surprised you don’t want to trade David. After all, I thought that if I didn’t exist you would have had to invent me anyway.

MARK STRETCH Good to see Toby mention me in his letter. Perhaps I've become a hobby institution in my old age if I merit a mention from Toby. From reading his letter, it sounds like he is jealous if you ask me. After all I don't recall that he's ever won a settlers event in his life. Still there's plenty of time for him to continue trying. Re web zines, I personally find it far more satisfying running a website than a zine. I'm currently running far more dip games than I ever did in OMR and my site has far more visitors than OMR ever had subbers. The biggest asset though is that I don't have to do it all the same time (unlike a postal zine) and thus the work is more spread out and thus easier to manage. Plus I am getting paid for it (though not much I admit) which helps.

ARMISTICE DAY 3

8

SA I suppose it all depends on what you find satisfying. I like actually holding a zine in my hand that I have produced – I am a stationery junkie. A web page is all too nebulous for me. I didn’t know Tom paid his GMs? Tell, me more!

MIKE DOMMETT Lindsey Davies' novels are not as good as they were - since he got married a lot of the tightness seems to have gone out of the stories - reread the earlier ones, and you'll see what I mean. SA Err… I always assumed he was a woman.

CHRIS DICKSON I have put in a bid for your Auf Heller und Pfennig on E-Bay. I'm not sure whether I'll get it or not. If I do, would you be prepared to consider the payment method of "take it out of my Armistice Day sub"? Surely a rarity even for E-Bay. I must admit that it's only the second thing I've ever bid on - and the first was a domain name for the company. (We didn't get it.) SA I buy far more on ebay than I should – usually filling holes in my record collection (got the elusive Billy Bragg / Oyster Band Ballad of a Spyctacher at last), buy copies of Diplomacy (David Oya will be pleased to know I had 23 copies the last time I counted), and buy the odd remnant of my childhood. So far I’ve sold about 30 items to make space and raise funds to buy more crap. I mention that principally because I'll probably be at MasterCon when the auction closes. If some swine snipes me out by tenpence at the last minute, then so it goes; I have put in a sensible proxy bid and won't be bidding again if someone outdoes me. It is a very good game, but it's also rather a large game and space in my games cupboard now comes at rather a premium. SA If you really really want something you have to be online when the auction closes. It is quite fun watching an auction for a week and then going in at literally the last minute and bidding 50p more. The E-Bay domain name microeconomy seems remarkably scary. It could well be that all the good deals have been done and it's only the suckers who are trying to get involved now for the last bits of chump change - or it could be that there really are some bargains out there. Who's to say? SA Hmmm. I’ve got a few domain names I don’t want anymore – I’d never thought of selling them. Anyone want postalgames.com? E-Bay in general is also a remarkably cultural and scary place. I find it difficult to get used to the habit that 90% of the feedback is at least as complimentary as "Insanely great trader, 110% recommended, ******, AAA+++++" - I fear that if I call someone "good" or "satisfactory" then it will be regarded as a damnation with the faintest of praise. Still, I imagine few bidders would have "Bidder got payment to me before the auction even started!" amongst their feedback. SA I promise I will put that up. Hang on… done it!

On other technological matters, I have to admit to amusement that the same column of print can include a declaration that the zine is intended for people born in the '60s and a couple of paragraphs about your leeching exploits with Napster. This is surely the most extreme about- face in outlook since Nick Parish went directly from a croquet match to an Alice Cooper concert! SA On the contrary, I reckon that there are an awful lot of 40+ professional males who spend far more time alone with their PCs than they do with their wife. I know I do. Mind you, you always have been an extremely early adopter when it comes to technology - I wouldn't be surprised to hear that you've decided that a new zine really requires another new computer. SA Funny you should mention that. I was considering an Athlon 1.33GHz DDR just for the hell of it – at least Esme would get this one (so there is something in it for her too). She reckons that we don’t need any more computers in the house, which I think means she isn’t entering into the spirit of the thing. I've never actually done the Napster thing myself, which is a bit of a shameful admission for someone who makes their living online, though this is partially because I've heard so much about the legal problems which have dogged it that I assumed it had been a busted flush three times over by now. SA Seems to be going strong despite everything. Then again, I have only ever been interested in very obscure or deleted recordings, which don’t seem to have been pulled yet. I would never want an MP3 in preference to a proper CD. I don't fancy the chances of their latest proposal to the recording industry of the USA which is a one-off cash payment of a billion dollars in return for, essentially, the complete dismantling of the paradigm that people "should" pay for music, though you've got to admit that there is logic in there. (Somewhere.) SA They’ll end up with a subscription model of some sort – and I’ll stop using it. Not that I object to paying – it’s just with a subscription model I doubt that you’d get people online with the sort of music I’m after. Another reason why I've never dabbled with Napster is a vague feeling of not knowing where to get started. Supposedly Napster isn't just for music - files of all types are prolific there; apart from the obvious "d0nkey pr0n" jokes, I've heard tales that there are strong file- swapping communities for recipes and for needlework patterns. Perhaps this is where the Zine Archive should live one day rather than overflowing your basement? SA A lovely thought – though the likelihood of Caissa or Turn of the Screw ever making it online is small. Seriously, locating 700+ particular songs strikes me as rather an impressive achievement, even if it wasn't all that hard work. You hear from time to time about people who have spent years trying to do this, albeit a collection of singles - you have the advantage that you can just place

ARMISTICE DAY 3

9

all 700 on a single playlist and recreate listening to radio 1, 2 and, well, the Light Programme from any point in the past fifty years with just a couple of clicks. (Minus Noel Edmonds and the Hairy Cornflake, of course.) I'm still tempted to require evidence before I fully believe you - perhaps you should set up your own mp3 server as a perk for Armistice Day subscribers! Do you take requests? A copy of "Pass the Dutchie" by Musical Youth in 1982 would be an entirely adequate proof of concept as far as I was concerned... SA http://www.armisticeday.com/dutchie.mp3

JOHN COLLEDGE Further to last month's comments about my World E-mail Championships game, France went into anarchy a couple of seasons ago. You can imagine our surprise when he suddenly burst into life again and not only moved, but got a build! SA The GM of our game resigned hour moves from the end – when I was on 13 centres! That really pissed me off. I’m up to 17 centres now, with one season left to play. I do think that the standard of GMing has not been great.

FRED C. DAVIS JR. Glad to see a new Dipzine starting up in these days of rumors of the death of the hobby. I was very pleased to see that you’ve chosen “Abstraction” as one of your first games. I also appreciated the review of “Abstraction” which you printed. Even I had forgotten some of these points, and this review refreshed my mind on certain matters. I’ve always thought that “Abstraction” was my best variant design, and I’ll be looking forward to seeing how this game goes. SA This variant would be played a lot online if it wasn’t for the A/F rules, which still require a human GM. By the way, my favorite toy when growing up was my set of Lionel trains. We kept setting them up every year at Christmas until 1949, when I gave them away to a good friend who had children. Now, I’m sorry I did so, as I see the prices for Lionel cars and locomotives. I subsequently joined a couple of other friends in building an HO gauge full-scale railroad in a basement. When that gang broke up in 1955, I took all of my own equipment, plus the lion’s share of track, for myself. I’ve set up a small part of this track on a ping-pong table when we owned a house on Clairidge Road, but it’s never been out of the box since we sold the house and moved out here to an appartment on Wheaton Way. I keep saying that I’ll set up part of it in the room Kevin left behind when he got married, but my bad back and left knee have kept me from doing so. SA My father told me that he had many of the issues of the Beano from the 40’s, including the early annuals (currently going for £700-£1,200 each). I never really got into Hornby Trains though – I always preferred militaristic toys – hence, Diplomacy (which is a wargame, whatever people say).

JOHN BOARDMAN My parents were also in school at the time of World War I. My mother once told me how children were asked to bring to school the pits of peaches and plums. These were allegedly being collected because from them could he made a particularly fine charcoal for use in the filters of gas masks. Willy Ley, who was at that time a schoolboy in East Prussia, once wrote that German children were also being told to collect peach pits; from them could be made a high grade of machine oil. These varying reasons led me to think that the collection of peach pits was one of those pointless wartime activities whose main purpose was to give everyone a sense of participation in and support for the war effort. Rationing regulations may have the same purpose. SA Well, rationing was necessary in the UK in World War II – and didn’t end until the early 50’s (which was one of the reasons why Labour lost the 1950 election). I suppose in the early stages of the war the British public felt a sense of participation from all the bombs falling on British cities. My family, like yours, seems to have spaced its generations in such a way as to be too young for one war and too old for the next one. No Boardman has died as a result of warfare since 1864, when a great-great-uncle died of typhus in a prison camp in Richmond. That was also the last time in which Americans had any direct experience of the effects of war on their home ground, which may be why American politicians seem to he so much more trigger-happy than those of most other major nations. SA Interesting perspective. I think the current crop of US politicians may well be willing to participate in war by remote control – but seem disproportionately worried about soldiers getting killed. Why send Cobra Helicopters to Kosova if you daren’t use them in case they get shot down? High altitude bombing is far safer from a CNN perspective. Personally, I supported the action in Kosova – although had the west acted when the original Serbo-Croatian conflict broke out, then many lives may have been saved in the long run. Nice to type this on the day that Milosevic has been arrested. A local game-shop proprietor has informed me that, of all the games in print from Avalon Hill at the time of their acquisition by Hasbro, only Diplomacy and Acquire have been kept in print by Hasbro. Such popular postal games as Colonial Diplomacy, Machiavelli, Britannia, Pax Britannica and Empires of the Middle Ages are now all out of print. SA A real shame – it is easy to see the second-hand value of these games going up quite a bit. Empires of the Middle Ages already costs a fortune second-hand. Your mention of the “snippets of American culture” in Graustark reminds me of a joke that our northern neighbors tell on themselves. “Poor Canada - it could have had French culture, British government, and American know-how. Instead, it has French government, British know-how, and American culture.” Actually, I am

ARMISTICE DAY 3

10

not sure about that remark. I don’t think there are any American-made cars that sell in Great Britain the way the Jaguar sells here. SA I have never thought British “know how” was so bad – there was this little thing called the industrial revolution after all. In the 20th century I think the British were good at inventing things (the computer springs to mind), but very poor at exploiting them. En Garde! seems to be much more popular in (Great Britain than in the United States. Its original American publisher went out of business years ago, but I see many mentions of its postal play in British ‘zines. SA Yes, it has a wide following here – well, I know of about 5 or 6 campaigns going on at the moment. The way in which the provinces and sea areas in Abstraction II are laid out is contrary to the idea with which Allan B. Calhamer designed the original Diplomacy board. He deliberately had large areas around the edges of the board, and smaller ones towards the centre, to force the play of the game towards the centre. This is why he abandoned his plan to start with a British supply centre in Ireland, or to begin with a British fleet in Gibraltar. Also, in his original design Switzerland was not impassable, but was a supply centre with a neutral army guarding it. That Swiss army could not be moved to rebuilt, but could be supported in place by an of one of the players who did not want to see that supply centre in hostile hands. Once the Swiss army was dislodged, Switzerland was lust like any other originally neutral supply centre. SA I wasn’t aware that Switzerland originally had a standing army, though the 1958 rules I have seen clearly show it as a supply centre. Do you have a copy of the 1953 (?) rules available – it would be fun to try and get a game started. Maybe Allan could help if he still has copies of an of the early versions of Diplomacy in his files – he sees this zine.

WAR IN NORTH AMERICA

BY WILL NESBITT The game begins in Spring 1860. There are 36 supply centres and 19 are needed for victory. Dominion of Canada Home Centers: Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg Units: F-Montreal (South Coast), F-Toronto (South Coast), A-Winnipeg United States of America Home Centers: New York City, Cincinnati, Chicago, Philadelphia Controlled Centers: Boston, Cincinnati, Chicago, Philadelphia, California* Units: F-Boston, A-Cincinnati, A-Chicago, F-Philadelphia (East Coast) [The USA is in civil disorder at gamestart, which breeds a very unique gamestart. The Union controls 5 centers but only starts with 4 units. Although California and Boston are controlled centers, these are not home (build) centers. New York is a home center, but New York is not controlled by the Union at gamestart. Because of the riots in NYC, the Union must "capture" this center to recover it as a build center.] Confederate States of America Supply Centers: Richmond , Savannah, Jackson Units: A-Richmond , F-Savannah, A-Jackson Republic of Texas Home Centers: El Paso, San Antonio, Galveston Units: A-El Paso, A-San Antonio, A-Galveston Empire of Mexico Home Centers: Guadalajara, Tampico, Mexico City Units: A-Guadalajara, A-Tampico, F-Mexico City (Pacific/West Coast) Native Federation Home Centers: Apache, Comanche, Souix Units: A-Apache, A-Comanche, A-Souix [The Souix, Commanche and Apache comprise a land-locked confederation of Native Americans. They do not posess the power to build fleets, but if their ghost dance is successful enough they may force others to build fleets for them. Specifically, if the Indian player conquers Boston or California, the first of these centers that is occupied by the Indian becomes a legal build center for the Indian player. However, the Indian player may only build fleets in these centers.] Neutral Armies Russian A-Alaska British F-Newfoundland Spanish A-Cuba

ARMISTICE DAY 3

11

WAR IN NORTH AMERICA (version 5.2)

By Will Nesbitt

ARMISTICE DAY 3

12

Home Centers Home Centers are listed above, but there are a few quirks here. New York City is in the Union territory but it is not a controlled Supply Center at the beginning of the game. It must be conquered like any other empty Supply Center. This represents the riots in NYC in opposition to the war and the fear among Irish Americans and others that freed slaves would reduce the price of labor. Boston on the other hand is controlled by the Union at gamestart, but Boston is not a build center for the Union. Spokane and Kansas are in the Indian Territory, but these are not controlled by the Indians at gamestart. New Orleans and Florida are in the CSA but these are not controlled by the CSA at gamestart. Like NYC, these centers represent the effort required by these nations to mobilize for war, as well as the factions that were opposed to war within these nations. Like Boston, these centers are not build centers, so should be adjudicated as any other neutral center. If the Indian player conquers Boston or California, the first of these centers that is occupied by the Indian becomes a legal build center for the Indian player. However, the Indian player may only build fleets in these centers. Neutral Powers The neutral units are on permanent hold and must be dislodged in order to take the supply centers. The Neutral Units can be supported by active powers. If the Russian Army is forced out of Alaska and has a legal retreat, the army will attempt to retreat to an open SC. Otherwise it will retreat off the board. If ALASKA has not been conquered by a North American power by winter 1867, it will be purchased by the US and will become a US build center. Of course if the USA is no longer in play, then Alaska will remain a Russian province. Cape Horn and the Oceans As you recall, in 1865, there was no canal at Panama. The only way for ships to leave the Pacific Theater and enter the Atlantic Theater was by the long and arduous journey around Cape Horn. The Pacific Ocean borders Alaska, Bering Sea, Panama, the Pacific Coasts, and Gulf of Tehauntepec. Among other bodies of water, the Atlantic borders the Davis Strait and Panama. Cape Horn borders only the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans. Fleets that are in "Cape Horn" are considered somewhere between Venezuela and Columbia off the coast of South America. Fleets that are in the Oceans or Cape Horn are essentially considered "off board". Any number of any fleets from any nation may ply these waters during the same turn. Additionally, nothing can prevent a fleet from entering these waters. However, fleets at Cape Horn, the Atlantic or the Pacific can not be used in any supporting actions, and they may not participate in any military actions including actions against each other.

Fleets on the board may support fleets that are trying to return to the board. Fleets at "Cape Horn" may convoy if other normal conditions are met. Coasts Florida has one coast. Toronto and Montreal have two coasts (north and south). Philadelphia has two coasts (east and north). Nicaragua, Honduras and Mexico City have two coasts (Atlantic and Pacific). Bodies of Water Gulf of St. Lawrence borders Upstate, Toronto (sc), Montreal (sc), New England , Newfoundland, Grand Banks and Davis Strait. Chesapeake Bay borders Richmond , Philadelphia, the Grand Banks and the Sargasso Sea. Great Lakes Upstate borders Toronto. Because of Niagra Falls, fleets must enter Upstate or Toronto (south coast) to move from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to access the Great Lakes. Michigan borders Toronto. However, fleets in the Great Lakes may legally move to any of the following provinces: Toronto (sc), Wisconsin, Chicago, Michigan, Philadelphia or Upstate. Designer’s Notes I believe that to be a valid variant, the variant must introduce more than just a new map. It must offer some new tactical consideration, and some fundamental change from the original. On these counts, War in North America offers some interesting aspects to consider. Firstly, War in North America is a 6 player variant - something to play when you can’t find that 7th player for Diplomacy but you don’t want an unoccupied position. Secondly, the layout of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans create a map without Diplomacy’s infamous “Witches”. The Canadians and Mexicans are at the top and bottom of the board, but the layout of the map ensures that they must deal with more than one front. Finally, there is a new/unique province: “Cape Horn”. Because there is no canal at Panama, ships following a southerly passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific (or vice-versa) must leave the board and journey round the Cape. Standard European Diplomacy is a balanced game, but perhaps Austria-Hungary has the most difficult position to play. Because of my special fondness for historical accuracy, in this designer’s opinion this slight imbalance is quite proper, as Austria-Hungary did not survive the Great War. Similarly, in War in North America, the Indians, Texans and Confederates are perhaps faced with a more difficult task than the Canadians, Union or the Mexicans. However, if all players are aware of a positions inherent weaknesses, less pressure is brought to bear on weaker positions, thereby strengthening these positions to equality. One of my goals with this variant was to be as geographically and historically accurate as possible, while still achieving a playable, enjoyable game. Abe Lincoln

ARMISTICE DAY 3

13

was determined to maintain the Union, and never considered permitting a peaceful secession with the Confederates, even though many Federals and Rebels longed for a peaceful separation. Unlike Austria and Italy—who are probably best off co-existing and cooperating from the outset—I purposely designed the map so that in the long term, the Union cannot suffer an independent CSA. I tried to remain geographically true, and a few provinces might need a little explanation. Cincinnati: Cincinnati is designed to illustrate how the Ohio River is a convenient 19th Century highway from Pennsylvania to Missouri. Natural Boundaries The provinces between the Plains and the West Coast indicate the difficulty of crossing the Rockies, while Gadsden doubles both as the “pass” where Interstate 40 now runs as well as the location of the actual Gadsden Purchase. The Bayou is an obvious natural boundary between New Orleans and Galveston, just as the Badlands are a natural buffer between the Great Plains and the Canadian heartland. Upstate is surely separate from Boston and NYC because of the Alleghenies. Canada South of the St. Lawrence River New Englanders and Some Eastern Canadians will notice the absence of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island north of New England. In some iterations of this game we have had a province there. If you add a province north of New England, it clutters the map, but adds little to the game. No matter which name you choose, it adds a lot of letters in a small space right beside the already crammed “Gulf of St. Lawrence”. NorthWest Passage Also missing from Canada and the Great North are the islands between the Baffin Bay and the Bering Sea. But adding Baffin Island, Victoria Island, Ellesmere Island and others adds nothing to the game, as these islands would be “impassible”. The Beaufort Sea, Bering Sea and Baffin Bay were almost impassible to wooden ships of the era, but when you figure that it takes 2 and a half years of game-time for a fleet to move from the Davis Strait to the Pacific Ocean, this is probably not entirely unrealistic. Matagora Bay Matagora Bay is exaggerated in size, but not so much in effect, as the line of thin islands along Texas’ Coast separates these waters from the Gulf of Mexico. Seattle, Washington In the game California is a U.S. possession at gamestart. California and Oregon were both U.S. States at the start of the Civil War. However, you may notice that California is actually California plus Oregon. Seattle, Washington is labeled Oregon. The map is designed so that Mexican, Indian and Canadian interests collide in the Pacific NorthWest, and that’s why there are only 2 provinces for these three states. I did not choose the name “Washington” because in areas where European-American dominance was not already established, I tried

to select Native names. (For example, there is no British Columbia, Alberta or Montana.) I did not choose to name the province Seattle because Diplomacy has a naming convention whereby home centers are cities and other supply centers are regions or countries. City Centers Of course, I broke this convention in New Orleans. While I had no problem labeling Jacksonville as Florida, I couldn’t name New Orleans “Louisiana” because the Bayou (half of Louisiana) was its own separate province. Boston was left as is for two reasons: Massachusetts is too many letters to fit near that small province, but also because in some variations of the game, Boston has been a Union build center. Southern Supply Centers My apologies to residents of Atlanta, Raleigh or Charlotte; I selected Savannah as the name for this province for several reasons, both personal and historical. Unlink Atlanta, Savannah has no abbreviation conflicts and is a port (a pretty important one at the time). No disrespect intended to the other contenders, but I love Savannah’s Southern charm, which is well preserved down by the River, and Savannah (not Charlotte or Raleigh) was Sherman’s goal in his push to the sea. Jackson won out over Mobile for two reasons. Firstly, we had a “Mobile Bay” body of water on the map and I tried to avoid possible abbreviation conflicts. (I liked Mobile Bay because there was a Civil War naval battle in Mobile Bay, but the game is probably better off without Mobile Bay.) Secondly, Grant’s battles in Shiloh and Vicksburg were efforts to ultimately capture Jackson—not Mobile. Capital Cities? Austin and Washington D.C. are not on the map for similar reasons: the infrastructures in these cities were not well developed in 1860. These cities were not crucial to the regions where they are located. Obviously Philadelphia was a much more important city for the Union than Washington, though Abraham Lincoln was obsessed with keeping Washington in Union hands. (It is fortunate that the U.S. capital was moved from New York to Washington D.C., because Maryland and Delaware would have surely seceded were it not for Lincoln’s decisive maneuvers to take and hold these states. Delaware is a small state, but was home to one of the New World’s largest gunpowder factories. If Maryland and Delaware had joined the Confederacy, Kentucky may have went Southern. If Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware had rebelled, Ohio may well have followed Virginia’s example and split into North Ohio and South Ohio. (Cincinnati is farther south than Alexandria Virginia, Robert E. Lee’s hometown.) [Also check out the excellent homepage for this variant: http://www.ralgames.com/WINA/]

ARMISTICE DAY 3

14

DIPLOMACY HOUSE RULES Full House Rules are available on request (or from www.armisticeday.com) - these are the contentious bits… 1.2 Deception of the GM is never allowed and in particular it is not acceptable to forge orders from another player. All players must be open and honest in their dealings with the GM. 1.3 The GM's decision is final on any interpretation of the rules of Diplomacy, these House Rules or any eventuality not covered by the two documents combined. Where the GM has discretion under these House Rules, his decision will be final and accepted in good grace by all players. 2.2 The GM must be aware of the real identity of all players. It is not necessary for a player to play under their real name - using a false name / email address is permitted provided that the GM is aware of the true identity of the player concerned. 2.4 In a postal game, if a player changes his postal address he should inform the GM in good time for the other players to be informed with the next game report. In an email game if a player changes his email address he should inform the GM and the other players immediately 3.4 Unless there is a clear instruction to the contrary "Remove A(Par)" means "remove the army that was in Paris before this season, but may not be now." - though if there was no Army in Par at the beginning of the move, but there is at the end of the move, then that A(Par) will be removed instead. 3.5 If a player fails to submit removal orders in an Autumn move (or the country is in Anarchy) then the GM will disband units which are not in supply centres as necessary. The distance of any such unit from the nearest home sc will be calculated and the furthest unit removed. In the event of a tie units in sea spaces are removed first, then units outside the home country. In the event of a tie, fleets are removed before armies and if all else fails disbands are made alphabetically. Thus, England would remove F(HEL) and F(SKA) before A(Pic), but A(Pic) would go before F(ENG) or F(NTH). A(Bel) and F(Hol) would not be removed. 3.6 Orders should be clear. However, the GM will accept any orders that are unambiguous, however badly written. 3.7 It would greatly assist if orders for different games were sent in different emails or on different sheets of paper. Ideally, each set of orders should state player's name, game, country, year and season. 3.8 Implied orders will be accepted, for example "A(Mun) S A(Ruh)-Bur" is a valid order to both units, however, a contrary explicit order (E.g. A(Ruh)-Bel, A(Mun) S A(Ruh)-Bur;) will override an implied order, the unit is not considered to be ordered twice. Thus in this instance A(Ruh)-Bel would be a valid order while A(Mun) S A(Ruh)-Bur would be a misorder. 3.9 A misordered unit purporting to move cannot be supported in place. 3.11 Late orders will usually not be accepted, but the GM reserves the right to accept late orders in exceptional circumstances at his discretion. Therefore you should not assume that it is safe to reveal your plans after the deadline. 4.1 Failure to submit orders by the deadline will result in an NMR (“No Moves Received”) 4.2 The effect of two successive NMR's means that the offending country will be placed in Anarchy. 4.3 When a country goes into Anarchy the GM will apply the “Return Home” rule which means that he will remove all the units belonging to that country from the board and replace them with an army in every unoccupied centre belonging to that country. From that point onward those units will stand unordered, but may be supported by other players. 4.4 The GM will not start a game with a NMR even if it means holding the game over and finding a new player.

6.1 In the rare instance of an error creeping into an adjudication the error should be brought to the GM's attention immediately. Do not assume that someone else will do this. 6.2 Any errors carried over for more than one season will stand, however bizarre. 6.3 Obvious errors (e.g. failing to underline a failed move) should not delay the game and players should submit orders on the basis that the moves printed were correct (even if the game report was incorrect as to the consequence of those moves). 7.1 Impersonation of the GM is not allowed. This is a departure from the traditional rule in postal Diplomacy games. However, given the ease with which the technologically competent can forge emails (and the difficulty of detection by those less well versed in the skill of reading email headers) this rule has been altered to take account of the realities of the situation. 7.2 On the other hand, it would be a shame to outlaw all skullduggery, therefore impersonation of another player is allowed, other than in dealings with the GM. 7.3 Forwarding an email from one player to another player is allowed (though some may think it bad manners!). Of course, recipients of such emails will be aware that the contents of forwarded emails are easily altered. 7.4 A player may “cc” or “bcc” another player in on any emails he sends, including communications with the GM. 7.5 Players must accept that Diplomacy is a game in which behaviour normally deemed unethical in civilized society is permitted. Therefore they should not be offended if others attempt any manner of scams or confidence tricks not prohibited by these House Rules in order to gain an advantage. 8.1 A game may be ended at any time on any terms proposed by any player or the GM by a unanimous vote of the players. 8.2 Normally, the first time a game-end is proposed NMRs will be taken as assent; forgetting to vote, but submitting orders will be taken to be dissent. If the same game-end proposal is then re-proposed the following season then abstention shall be taken to be assent (whether or not the player abstaining on the second occasion voted on the proposal the previous season). 8.3 At his discretion the GM may declare that abstention will be taken as assent on a first vote, so read endgame proposals carefully. 8.4 The GM retains a discretion not to end the game in accordance with an endgame proposal if more than half of the non-NMRing players have made no mention of the endgame proposal in their orders. This is to prevent absurd results. 8.5 The identity of the player proposing the game-end will not be revealed, nor how individual players voted. 8.6 The rules of Diplomacy state that “Draws include all survivors”. However, players may agree an endgame result where surviving players are not ranked equally on the basis that all players are agreeing that if the game had continued it would have resulted in some of the extant players being eliminated. 9.1 A player may sign over control of one or more units to another player at any time and indefinitely, provided that the player so doing continues to receive the zine. In the event that the player giving the proxy stops receiving the zine then the proxy immediately ceases to have effect. 9.2 A proxy arrangement may be cancelled at any time by the player concerned without notice. 10.2 The GM will have a reserved dateline that may not be used by the players. The reserved dateline for Stephen Agar is “Versailles”. 10.3 The names of the seven capitals (Vie, Lon, Par, Ber, Rom, StP, Con) or the seven Powers followed by "(Govt.)" are reserved for the players concerned and are thus guaranteed to be genuine.

ARMISTICE DAY 3

15

MONS REGULAR DIPLOMACY - SPRING 1901

AUSTRIA: Steve Ade, Hill Cottage, Hollow Lane, Chelmondiston, Ipswich, IP9 1HZ (steve@hollowlane.co.uk) A(Vie) - Gal (FAILED); A(Bud) - Ser; F(Tri) Stands ENGLAND: Dave Clark, 74B Chester Road, Castle Bromwich, Birmingham, B36 9BU (daveclarkdiplomacy@ic24.net) F(Lon) - ENG (FAILED); F(Edi) - NTH; A(Lpl) - Yor FRANCE: Jimmy Cowie, 26 Stewart Grove, Danderhall, Midlothian, EH22 1QY (J.Cowie@icscotland.co.uk) F(Bre) - ENG (FAILED); A(Mar) - Spa; A(Par) - Pic GERMANY: Richard Scholefield, 54 Cottingham Grove, Bletchley, Milton Keynes, MK3 5AX A(Ber) - Mun; F(Kie) - Den; A(Mun) - Ruh ITALY: Nick Parish, 1a Wilna Road, Earlsfield, London, SW18 3AY (nick_parish@bankofengland.co.uk) A(Ven) - Tyr; A(Rom) - Ven; F(Nap) - ION RUSSIA: Bruce Edwards, 29 Aeron Close, Barry, South Glam, CF62 7PX (Kactusjak@tinyworld.co.uk) A(War) - Gal (FAILED); A(Mos) - Ukr; F(Sev) - BLA (FAILED); F(StP) sc - GoB lTURKEY: Tim Deacon, 7 Ivanhoe Avenue, Nuneaton, Warks. CV11 4RW (gamesmaster@mr-gm.demon.co.uk) A(Con) - Bul; A(Smy) - Con; F(Ank) - BLA (FAILED)

GUNBOAT DIPLOMACY We have seven players – if you are playing you will find a country allocation enclosed with this issue. Don’t forget I need a pseudonym as well as some orders!

TANNENBURG ABSTRACTION II - JULY 1914

AUSTRIA John Colledge, Dunorroch, 24 Brunstane Bank, Edinburgh, EH15 2NR (dunorroch@pop.dial.pipex.com): A(Tyrolia) S A(Vienna)-Croatia; A(Pecs)-Serbia; A(Vienna)-Croatia; F(Zara)-ADRIATIC SEA ENGLAND Chris Martin, 444 w49th #1AG, New York, NY 10019, USA (tremewanc@earthlink.net): F(Edinburgh)-NORTH SEA; F(London)-ENGLISH CHANNEL; A(Liverpool)-Wales; F(Plymouth)-IRISH SEA. FRANCE John Boocock, 25 Melrose Drive, Peterborough, PE2 9DN (JohnandDiana@tesco.net): F(Brest)-MID-ATLANTIC OCEAN; F(Marseilles)-GULF OF LYONS; A(Lyon)-Lorraine; A(Paris)-Brest. GERMANY Dave Clark, 74B Chester Road, Castle Bromwich, Birmingham, B36 9BU (daveclarkdiplomacy@ic24.net) : A(Berlin)-Kiel; A(Dresden)-Munich; F(Kiel)-Denmark; A(Munich)-Ruhr. ITALY Bruce Edwards, 29 Aeron Close, Barry, South Glam, CF62 7PX (Kactusjak@tinyworld.co.uk): F(Naples)-TYRHENNIAN SEA; A(Rome)-Tuscany; F(Sicily)-MALTA SEA; A(Venice)-Piedmont. RUSSIA Bob Pitman, 19 Honeysuckle Close, Locksheath, Southampton, Hants. SO31 6WF (bob@p1tman.demon.co.uk): A(Archangel)-Lapland; A(Moscow) Stands; F(Odessa)-Romania; F(St. Petersburg)-RIGA SEA; A(Warsaw) Stands. TURKEY Nick Gladstone, 1 Rosemary Terrace, St. Agnes, TR5 OUF (ngladstone@cornwall.gov.uk): A(Constantinople)-Bulgaria; F(Damascus) – CYPRIOT SEA; F(Sinope)-Constantinople; A(Smyrna) Stands. No stand-offs. I enclose a blank copy of the map, so you can draw one of the current position for yourselves!

ARMISTICE DAY 3

16

BACK PAGE

FORTHCOMING UK CONS BayCon Baycon 2001 will be held at the Comfort Inn, Kennford, Near Exeter from 1.00pm Thursday 19th April to 3.00pm Sunday 22nd April 2001 (the weekend after Easter). Bed & Breakfast accommodation will cost £25 per person per night in a shared room or £38.50 per night in a single room. There is a convention fee of £12.50 per person, which is payable in advance (£6 for children under 16; children under 5 free). Accommodation should be paid for at the hotel on departure. Hotel accommodation must be confirmed at least 6 weeks in advance (by Thursday 8th March) to guarantee a room. Currently we have booked the whole hotel but we will have to release any rooms that are not filled after the six week deadline. Send your requirements and registration fee to Rob Chapman, PO Box 98, Paignton, Devon TQ3 2YJ (cheques payable to Baycon), or email: rob@downbeat.demon.co.uk for more details or information. ManorCon XIX 20th –23rd July 2001 at Chamberlain Hall, Birmingham University. One Day Registration - £6 before 31st May, or £8 from 1st June Full Weekend Registration - £12 before 31st May, or £20 from 1st June. Accommodation - £21.50 per night for a single room. £20 per person per night for a twin room £28 per night for a single en-suite room. To book, please return this form to Neil Duncan, MANORCON, 25 Sarum Hill, Basingstoke, Hants RG21 8SS UK. Cheques should be made payable to “The Universities Diplomacy Tournament”. Mind Sports Olympiad 2001 The Mind Sports Olympiad 2001 will be held on August 18-27, at Alexandra Place in London. It will feature tournaments for many mental games, including old favourites such as chess, bridge, go, scrabble and the like. Following, on from the hobby events run there last year there will be many tournaments for hobby games in 2001. Diplomacy: This popular Machiavelian game was first played at the Olympiad in 1999, with Peter Hawkins emerging as the winner. Despite worries before hand that cash prizes might distort the tournament, this did not happen on the day. Dave Horton won the 2000 tournament. The 2001 tournament will be run by myself and Nick Parish on Sunday 19 August, starting at 10am. Following the main event is an intimate diplomacy tournament that evening.

WAITING LISTS 2 Week Deadlines – Email Games 2 Week - Regular Diplomacy: GM: Stephen Agar. Apply to me with country preference. Jimmy Cowie, John Boocock, Bob Pitman. 4 needed. No one else fancy a faster game? Blood & Iron (Rules in issue 1): GM: Dylan O’Donnell. John Boocock. 4 wanted. Looks like this is not going to fill. Oh, dear. ! 4 week Deadlines – Postal/Email Games 4 Week - Regular Diplomacy: Howard Bishop, Neil Hopkins, Ellis Simpson, Mike Dean, Peter Berlin Abstraction II: Tim Deacon, Mike Dommett, Simon Robertson – another 4 and we can have a second game! If not, will any of you volunteer to act as a standby for Tannenburg? The Ancient Mediterranean: GM: Stephen Agar. Rules in issue 2. Graham Tunnicliffe. 4 needed. War in North America: Rules inside. I will run this variant if there is any demand.

DEADLINE

FRIDAY 27TH APRIL 2001 Playlist for this issue: Curved Air – Live; Pulp – This Is Hardore; Slade – Slayed; Kirsty MacColl – Galore; Procul Harum – Procul’s Ninth; The Vapors – New Clear Days; Squeeze – Frank; Free – Fire and Water; Beatles – Rubber Soul; Ian Hunter – You’re Never Alone With A Schizophrenic; Pink Floyd – Meddle; Anthony Phillips – The Geese and the Ghost.

A Diplomacy zine from Stephen Agar, 47 Preston Drove, BRIGHTON, BN1 6LA. Tel: 01273-562430. Fax: 01273-706139. Email: stephen@armisticeday.com

Each issue costs 80p (UK) or £1.59 (US$2.25) per issue. I accept overseas subscriptions via Paypal.com