Openings analysis

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Looking over the literature on Diplomacy openings, I'm struck by the
fact that most of the analysis only covers the first moves. Compare
this with the literature on chess openings - which often look 10, 15 or
20 moves into the game.
I appreciate that there are so many more variables involved in a
diplomacy game, specifically more players and the fact that the talk
matters at least as much as the moves. However, I still think that it
would be possible to further analyse some of the diplomacy openings.
Particularly since several openings seem to lead to common maneuvers in
the first few moves.

In the unlikely event I get a little time I might try to carry out this
analysis. What are the views of this group on this Endeavour.
1. It is almost useless, we've got to play each game as it is.
2. It is only useful in a few specific situations (e.g. Key Lepanto,
Sealion) and these situations have been analysed already. The returns
on analysing other scenarios will diminish fast.
3. It is a promising angle but will be time consuming

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Hi,

I will attempt to answer your questions, but I am a novice, having yet
not played my first game. Some related links, which you probably have
already explored, are given at the end of this posting.

Adam O'Brien wrote:
> Looking over the literature on Diplomacy openings, I'm struck by the
> fact that most of the analysis only covers the first moves. Compare
> this with the literature on chess openings - which often look 10, 15
or
> 20 moves into the game.
> I appreciate that there are so many more variables involved in a
> diplomacy game, specifically more players and the fact that the talk
> matters at least as much as the moves. However, I still think that it
> would be possible to further analyse some of the diplomacy openings.
> Particularly since several openings seem to lead to common maneuvers
in
> the first few moves.
>
> In the unlikely event I get a little time I might try to carry out
this
> analysis. What are the views of this group on this Endeavour.

> 1. It is almost useless, we've got to play each game as it is.

It is not useless, but it may need preliminary categorization. For
instance,
you may need to make preliminary assumptions for a given section of
your
document: such as saying, this section deals with the scenario where
Britain and France are allied, and discusses techniques to most
efficiently
capture Germany, and so forth; in this sense, your document would be
focusing on efficiency and tactics in the opening, given a set of
assumptions
about who is allied. But this would not preclude you from discussion
the
strategic implications of any given alliance that occurs in the
opening.

> 2. It is only useful in a few specific situations (e.g. Key Lepanto,
> Sealion) and these situations have been analysed already. The returns
> on analysing other scenarios will diminish fast.

I personally, have not read all the opening theory that exists on the
internet. Assuming that you either will or have studied the existing
literature, this would place you in the best position to determine
the value of your returns given what you will present in your document.

However, depending on your experience, the simple act of researching,
studying, writing, and the like, obviously will have returns for you,
and presumably there are more returns during the initial phases than
in the later. I, for example, am a novice, thus I learn quite a lot by
reading only one set of articles about the opening; for instance, and
I
don't know the specific link, I have a set of articles by one auther
I've printed out and have read which deal with the opening with respect
to each major power.

But, for my first face-to-face game, I probably won't remember what I
read; instead I will rely on this hueristic: talk to everyone, and
coordinate
the taking of supply centers in the minor powers; the more
coordination
I have with other players and the less quibbling, the faster each of us
builds up more military units in those initial moves.

> 3. It is a promising angle but will be time consuming


Possibly related links:

This book, sold at Amazon.com, for example:
Calhamer on Diplomacy: The Boardgame Diplomacy and Diplomatic History

Articles written by Mr. Calhamer
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/articles_by_allan.htm

Links to many articles related to openings or opening strategy:
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/strategy/opening.htm

Thanks

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

I think there's a fundamental difference between "opening theory" and
"opening moves analysis." Its all well and good to, as Italy for example,
say you're going to play a by-the-book Lepanto opening. But how many times
have we ever seen that happen? Never or almost never. Suggesting moves
through 1903 or later is seldom useful because, as someone has already
pointed out, there are too many moves and too many variables.

What's more useful instead is what I refer to as "opening theory"' which
suggests ways that one can be effective in the opening in order to maximize
options in the midgame. As England, for example, how do you pursue an
aggressive alliance with France? With Germany? With Russia? What needs to
happen on your side of the board and on the other side in order for it to
work? What are your options and when are certain options better than
others? Literature on these issues is much more interesting (and
potentially useful) than plotting an opening through 1906.

-Adam



"Adam O'Brien" <anon101@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106926148.296513.190410@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Looking over the literature on Diplomacy openings, I'm struck by the
> fact that most of the analysis only covers the first moves. Compare
> this with the literature on chess openings - which often look 10, 15 or
> 20 moves into the game.
> I appreciate that there are so many more variables involved in a
> diplomacy game, specifically more players and the fact that the talk
> matters at least as much as the moves. However, I still think that it
> would be possible to further analyse some of the diplomacy openings.
> Particularly since several openings seem to lead to common maneuvers in
> the first few moves.
>
> In the unlikely event I get a little time I might try to carry out this
> analysis. What are the views of this group on this Endeavour.
> 1. It is almost useless, we've got to play each game as it is.
> 2. It is only useful in a few specific situations (e.g. Key Lepanto,
> Sealion) and these situations have been analysed already. The returns
> on analysing other scenarios will diminish fast.
> 3. It is a promising angle but will be time consuming
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

In message <1106926148.296513.190410@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, Adam
O'Brien <anon101@gmail.com> writes
>Looking over the literature on Diplomacy openings, I'm struck by the
>fact that most of the analysis only covers the first moves. Compare
>this with the literature on chess openings - which often look 10, 15 or
>20 moves into the game.

10 moves into a chess game, there have been 20 unit-moves. 20 moves
into a chess game, there have been 40 unit-moves. One season into a Dip
game, there have been 21 unit-moves. One year into a Dip game, there
have been 42 unit-moves. So, it seems, the analysis is about equally
deep.

>I appreciate that there are so many more variables involved in a
>diplomacy game, specifically more players and the fact that the talk
>matters at least as much as the moves. However, I still think that it
>would be possible to further analyse some of the diplomacy openings.
>Particularly since several openings seem to lead to common maneuvers in
>the first few moves.
>
>In the unlikely event I get a little time I might try to carry out this
>analysis. What are the views of this group on this Endeavour.
>1. It is almost useless, we've got to play each game as it is.
>2. It is only useful in a few specific situations (e.g. Key Lepanto,
>Sealion) and these situations have been analysed already. The returns
>on analysing other scenarios will diminish fast.
>3. It is a promising angle but will be time consuming

Nick
--
Nick Wedd nick@maproom.co.uk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

In article <1106926148.296513.190410@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Adam O'Brien <anon101@gmail.com> wrote:

>I appreciate that there are so many more variables involved in a
>diplomacy game, specifically more players and the fact that the talk
>matters at least as much as the moves. However, I still think that it
>would be possible to further analyse some of the diplomacy openings.
>Particularly since several openings seem to lead to common maneuvers in
>the first few moves.

Yes, I think there is more to be done in that direction.

An example of the stuff I'd like to see:

When Austria is allied with Italy or Turkey, she should arrange
to trade Greece for a land dot somewhere (often Bul or Rum). Austria
can't hold Greece very well, and an allied fleet in Greece is no
threat to Austria; this move strengthens the alliance nicely.
This may even hold true when Austria is allied with Russia, if
Russia is building fleets in the south.

This is not really an opening-moves consideration--I often don't
give Greece away until 03 or 04--but it comes up over and over
in various openings, and it's useful to know. I wasted a lot of
energy trying to hold Greece before I realized that it is not
properly Austrian until the endgame (when everything is properly
Austrian, of course).

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@eskimo.com

 

[rs]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Because after your carefully planned opening moves, everything goes to hell
cause there are six other people who's specific goal in life is to screw up
all your plans.


"Adam O'Brien" <anon101@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106926148.296513.190410@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Looking over the literature on Diplomacy openings, I'm struck by the
> fact that most of the analysis only covers the first moves. Compare
> this with the literature on chess openings - which often look 10, 15 or
> 20 moves into the game.
> I appreciate that there are so many more variables involved in a
> diplomacy game, specifically more players and the fact that the talk
> matters at least as much as the moves. However, I still think that it
> would be possible to further analyse some of the diplomacy openings.
> Particularly since several openings seem to lead to common maneuvers in
> the first few moves.
>
> In the unlikely event I get a little time I might try to carry out this
> analysis. What are the views of this group on this Endeavour.
> 1. It is almost useless, we've got to play each game as it is.
> 2. It is only useful in a few specific situations (e.g. Key Lepanto,
> Sealion) and these situations have been analysed already. The returns
> on analysing other scenarios will diminish fast.
> 3. It is a promising angle but will be time consuming
>

 

[rs]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Properly, schoperly. Nothing is 'properly' anyones unless they have the. 1.
Force to take it 2. Force to hold it.

Before you devote an entire game to holding one dot, you need to ask
yourself. How much to I need to spend to do this? How much will I give up
somewhere else if I elect to spend this amount? Suppose I lose it anyway, is
that disaster or annoying setback?


"Mary K. Kuhner" <mkkuhner@kingman.gs.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:cte88r$tkr$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
> In article <1106926148.296513.190410@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> Adam O'Brien <anon101@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I appreciate that there are so many more variables involved in a
> >diplomacy game, specifically more players and the fact that the talk
> >matters at least as much as the moves. However, I still think that it
> >would be possible to further analyse some of the diplomacy openings.
> >Particularly since several openings seem to lead to common maneuvers in
> >the first few moves.
>
> Yes, I think there is more to be done in that direction.
>
> An example of the stuff I'd like to see:
>
> When Austria is allied with Italy or Turkey, she should arrange
> to trade Greece for a land dot somewhere (often Bul or Rum). Austria
> can't hold Greece very well, and an allied fleet in Greece is no
> threat to Austria; this move strengthens the alliance nicely.
> This may even hold true when Austria is allied with Russia, if
> Russia is building fleets in the south.
>
> This is not really an opening-moves consideration--I often don't
> give Greece away until 03 or 04--but it comes up over and over
> in various openings, and it's useful to know. I wasted a lot of
> energy trying to hold Greece before I realized that it is not
> properly Austrian until the endgame (when everything is properly
> Austrian, of course).
>
> Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@eskimo.com