Stalemate Lines Reference?

G

Guest

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

Is there an on-line reference of stalemate lines? I'm hoping for one
that includes lines dependent on certain powers (and their
fleet-building capacity on particular coasts) being eliminated.
 
G

Guest

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

Dvd Avins <dvdNOavinsSPAM@pobox.com> writes:

>Is there an on-line reference of stalemate lines? I'm hoping for one
>that includes lines dependent on certain powers (and their
>fleet-building capacity on particular coasts) being eliminated.

You can start with the articles in www.diplomacy-archive.com,
but I would be remiss if I did not insist that you begin with
John Boyer's 30 year old classic:

http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/strategy/articles/stalemate_crap.htm

The link:

http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/strategy/stalemate.htm

lists them all, and then you can see more of what you actually are
looking for.

Good luck, but please come back to the REAL game when you are done
researching this.... ;-)

Jim-Bob
 
G

Guest

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

Damn straight, Jim-Bob.

"Jim Burgess" <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:d26e06$c4k$1@pcls4.std.com...
> Dvd Avins <dvdNOavinsSPAM@pobox.com> writes:
>
> >Is there an on-line reference of stalemate lines? I'm hoping for one
> >that includes lines dependent on certain powers (and their
> >fleet-building capacity on particular coasts) being eliminated.
>
> You can start with the articles in www.diplomacy-archive.com,
> but I would be remiss if I did not insist that you begin with
> John Boyer's 30 year old classic:
>
>
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/strategy/articles/stalemate_crap.htm
>
> The link:
>
> http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/strategy/stalemate.htm
>
> lists them all, and then you can see more of what you actually are
> looking for.
>
> Good luck, but please come back to the REAL game when you are done
> researching this.... ;-)
>
> Jim-Bob
 
G

Guest

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

Dvd Avins wrote:
> Is there an on-line reference of stalemate lines? I'm hoping for one
> that includes lines dependent on certain powers (and their
> fleet-building capacity on particular coasts) being eliminated.

Personally, I use:
http://www.diplom.org/DipPouch/Online/StalematesAtoY/visual.htm

since it allows you to get to a stalemate article for any part of the
board with a click or two.

Eric.
--
 
G

Guest

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

Jim Burgess wrote:
> Dvd Avins <dvdNOavinsSPAM@pobox.com> writes:

> I would be remiss if I did not insist that you begin with
> John Boyer's 30 year old classic:
>
>
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/strategy/articles/stalemate_crap.htm


The problem with Mr. Boyer's article is the unstated assumption
that you are the power with the lead. If you are, then by all means
follow his advice, and go for the Solo. If you are not, a knowledge
of stalemate lines can be key to preventing the Solo, forcing the
Draw, and being included in it. Only by being able to hold the line
can you force the leader to pull back and give you the opportunity
to reduce the size of the Draw, or achieve your own Solo.

Eric.
--
 
G

Guest

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

Except perhaps for the NMR, there is nothing so sad in the entire universe
of Dip behavior as the practice of draw-whittling.


"Eric Hunter" <hunter90@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:te2dneHejvyhjNrfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
> Jim Burgess wrote:
> > Dvd Avins <dvdNOavinsSPAM@pobox.com> writes:
>
> > I would be remiss if I did not insist that you begin with
> > John Boyer's 30 year old classic:
> >
> >
>
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/strategy/articles/stalemate_crap.htm
>
>
> The problem with Mr. Boyer's article is the unstated assumption
> that you are the power with the lead. If you are, then by all means
> follow his advice, and go for the Solo. If you are not, a knowledge
> of stalemate lines can be key to preventing the Solo, forcing the
> Draw, and being included in it. Only by being able to hold the line
> can you force the leader to pull back and give you the opportunity
> to reduce the size of the Draw, or achieve your own Solo.
>
> Eric.
> --
>
 
G

Guest

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

David E. Cohen wrote:

> Except perhaps for the NMR, there is nothing so sad in the entire
> universe of Dip behavior as the practice of draw-whittling.

Oh, come on, David, you should be encouraging draw-whittling.
It gives you the opportunity to Solo when the person being
whittled tries to throw the game.

Eric.
--
 
G

Guest

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

Jim Burgess wrote:
> Dvd Avins <dvdNOavinsSPAM@pobox.com> writes:
>
>>Is there an on-line reference of stalemate lines? I'm hoping for one
>>that includes lines dependent on certain powers (and their
>>fleet-building capacity on particular coasts) being eliminated.
>
> You can start with the articles in www.diplomacy-archive.com,
> but I would be remiss if I did not insist that you begin with
> John Boyer's 30 year old classic:
>
> http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/strategy/articles/stalemate_crap.htm
>
> The link:
>
> http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/strategy/stalemate.htm
>
> lists them all, and then you can see more of what you actually are
> looking for.

Thanks.

> Good luck, but please come back to the REAL game when you are done
> researching this.... ;-)

The real game involves conducting one's diplomacy from a position of
strength. Impenetrable strength seems nothing to be sneered at.
 
G

Guest

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

Impenetrable weakness is more like it. LOL

Seriously, the most important thing to know about stalemate lines is how to
make them irrelevant to your victory, by either getting past them before
they form, or by making sure you will be able to get 18 anyway.


> > Good luck, but please come back to the REAL game when you are done
> > researching this.... ;-)
>
> The real game involves conducting one's diplomacy from a position of
> strength. Impenetrable strength seems nothing to be sneered at.
 
G

Guest

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

David E. Cohen wrote:
> Impenetrable weakness is more like it. LOL

I'm not looking for 2-sided lines. I mostly want to know when I've
achieved a position wherein I can only be eliminated *when* I choose to
take risks.

> Seriously, the most important thing to know about stalemate lines is how to
> make them irrelevant to your victory, by either getting past them before
> they form, or by making sure you will be able to get 18 anyway.

Well, yes. That's the secondary issue this early in the game. And for
that, I do know want to know what the lines that can keep me out are.
>
>>>Good luck, but please come back to the REAL game when you are done
>>>researching this.... ;-)
>>
>>The real game involves conducting one's diplomacy from a position of
>>strength. Impenetrable strength seems nothing to be sneered at.
 
G

Guest

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

Isn't the whole point of draw whittling that the line could be maintained
either with the whittled Power or without it? If the whittled Power is that
influential, that they can throw the game, that entails rather more risk
than the typical drawmonger is willing to stomach, no?


P.S. It would probably make me angry enough, that were I part of a
stop-the-leader alliance, without a chance to solo, and I saw one of my
alliance partners trying to eliminate someone to whittle down the draw, that
I would attack the whittler, and destroy any chance of a draw. That sort of
thing does not sit well with me at all.


"Eric Hunter" <hunter90@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:w-GdnX0HmuBajtrfRVn-ig@comcast.com...
> David E. Cohen wrote:
>
> > Except perhaps for the NMR, there is nothing so sad in the entire
> > universe of Dip behavior as the practice of draw-whittling.
>
> Oh, come on, David, you should be encouraging draw-whittling.
> It gives you the opportunity to Solo when the person being
> whittled tries to throw the game.
>
> Eric.
> --
 
G

Guest

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

David E. Cohen wrote:

> Isn't the whole point of draw whittling that the line could be
> maintained either with the whittled Power or without it?

Sometimes, but not often. There is generally some risk in
attempting to reduce the size of the Draw. How much
depends on the leader's relationships with the StL Powers,
and the willingness of the Power being whittled to shift gears
and seriously try to throw the game.

> If the whittled Power is that influential, that they can throw the
> game, that entails rather more risk than the typical drawmonger
> is willing to stomach, no?

If the Power being whittled isn't in position to throw the game,
they are not needed to hold the line, and don't deserve to be in
the Draw, anyway. Additionally, people who see the value in a
Draw, often value small Draws more highly than large ones, so
they can be encouraged by the leader to "get the game down to
a 3-way" while planting the seeds with the small Power(s) to
throw the moment anyone moves to eliminate them. There is
an entire game's worth of interesting play that you fail to see
from your "Solo-Only" perspective. ;-)

Eric.
--
 
G

Guest

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

Dvd Avins <dvdNOavinsSPAM@pobox.com> writes:

>Jim Burgess wrote:
>> Dvd Avins <dvdNOavinsSPAM@pobox.com> writes:
>>
>>>Is there an on-line reference of stalemate lines? I'm hoping for one
>>>that includes lines dependent on certain powers (and their
>>>fleet-building capacity on particular coasts) being eliminated.
>>
>> You can start with the articles in www.diplomacy-archive.com,
>> but I would be remiss if I did not insist that you begin with
>> John Boyer's 30 year old classic:
>>
>> http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/strategy/articles/stalemate_crap.htm
>>
>> The link:
>>
>> http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/strategy/stalemate.htm
>>
>> lists them all, and then you can see more of what you actually are
>> looking for.

>Thanks.

>> Good luck, but please come back to the REAL game when you are done
>> researching this.... ;-)

>The real game involves conducting one's diplomacy from a position of
>strength. Impenetrable strength seems nothing to be sneered at.

Sigh, the BEST impenetrable strength is an 18 center victory.
A stalemate line is to be sneered at IN COMPARISON! Not to be
sneered at when compared to being eliminated, of course.

Jim-Bob
 
G

Guest

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

"Eric Hunter" <hunter90@comcast.not> writes:

>Jim Burgess wrote:
>> Dvd Avins <dvdNOavinsSPAM@pobox.com> writes:

>> I would be remiss if I did not insist that you begin with
>> John Boyer's 30 year old classic:
>>
>>
>http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/strategy/articles/stalemate_crap.htm


> The problem with Mr. Boyer's article is the unstated assumption
>that you are the power with the lead. If you are, then by all means
>follow his advice, and go for the Solo. If you are not, a knowledge
>of stalemate lines can be key to preventing the Solo, forcing the
>Draw, and being included in it. Only by being able to hold the line
>can you force the leader to pull back and give you the opportunity
>to reduce the size of the Draw, or achieve your own Solo.

>Eric.
>--

Eric, you know I recognize that all this is maddeningly complex.
You also know that the "stalemate line seeker" is seeking to reduce
that complexity, usually not in a good way.

But I grant that you have a strong point.

Jim-Bob
 
G

Guest

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

Jim Burgess wrote:

> Sigh, the BEST impenetrable strength is an 18 center victory.

Of course. That needs saying?

> A stalemate line is to be sneered at IN COMPARISON! Not to be
> sneered at when compared to being eliminated, of course.

It's early in the game. I'm playing a Witch in a no-press game. *Other
players* are likely to target for elimination anyone they can, hoping to
either solo or reach a 3-way draw. If I reach a minimal stalemate line
from which I can't be eliminated, I will be a less attractive target.
That would make it more likely that I could continue to grow, rather
than being preoccupied defending myself. Having grown, I would then be
in a better position to go for a solo later in the game.

So _why_ is knowledge of stalemate lines unbecoming to an ambitious player?
 
G

Guest

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

Dvd Avins wrote:
> Jim Burgess wrote:

>> A stalemate line is to be sneered at IN COMPARISON! Not to be
>> sneered at when compared to being eliminated, of course.
>
> It's early in the game. I'm playing a Witch in a no-press game. *Other
> players* are likely to target for elimination anyone they can, hoping
> to either solo or reach a 3-way draw. If I reach a minimal stalemate
> line from which I can't be eliminated, I will be a less attractive
> target.

Only if THEY recognize that you control said line, and in NoPress
you have no way to tell them that other than issuing the orders to
hold the line for a year or two.

> That would make it more likely that I could continue to grow, rather
> than being preoccupied defending myself. Having grown, I would
> then be in a better position to go for a solo later in the game.
>
> So _why_ is knowledge of stalemate lines unbecoming to an
> ambitious player?

Because the actions and the mind-set needed to take and defend
a stalemate line are different from those needed to Solo, in most
cases. To Solo, especially as a Witch, you usually need to get
PAST the stalemate line early, before the other side of the board
has resolved, and can mount a defense. It is often advantageous to
skip taking Centers which are your 10th to 15th Centers, and focus
on getting the 18th, first. Then you can pick up the easier ones to
cement the Solo.

Eric.
--
 
G

Guest

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

"Eric Hunter" <hunter90@comcast.not> writes:

>David E. Cohen wrote:

>> Isn't the whole point of draw whittling that the line could be
>> maintained either with the whittled Power or without it?

>Sometimes, but not often. There is generally some risk in
>attempting to reduce the size of the Draw. How much
>depends on the leader's relationships with the StL Powers,
>and the willingness of the Power being whittled to shift gears
>and seriously try to throw the game.

>> If the whittled Power is that influential, that they can throw the
>> game, that entails rather more risk than the typical drawmonger
>> is willing to stomach, no?
>
>If the Power being whittled isn't in position to throw the game,
>they are not needed to hold the line, and don't deserve to be in
>the Draw, anyway. Additionally, people who see the value in a
>Draw, often value small Draws more highly than large ones, so
>they can be encouraged by the leader to "get the game down to
>a 3-way" while planting the seeds with the small Power(s) to
>throw the moment anyone moves to eliminate them. There is
>an entire game's worth of interesting play that you fail to see
>from your "Solo-Only" perspective. ;-)
>
>Eric.
>--

Just for the record there is even MORE interesting play if you
keep both the Solo-only AND the draw whittling strategies in
play simultaneously.......

Jim-Bob
 
G

Guest

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

Dvd Avins <dvdNOavinsSPAM@pobox.com> writes:

>Jim Burgess wrote:

>> Sigh, the BEST impenetrable strength is an 18 center victory.

>Of course. That needs saying?

Well, yes it does....

>> A stalemate line is to be sneered at IN COMPARISON! Not to be
>> sneered at when compared to being eliminated, of course.

>It's early in the game. I'm playing a Witch in a no-press game. *Other
>players* are likely to target for elimination anyone they can, hoping to
>either solo or reach a 3-way draw. If I reach a minimal stalemate line
>from which I can't be eliminated, I will be a less attractive target.
>That would make it more likely that I could continue to grow, rather
>than being preoccupied defending myself. Having grown, I would then be
>in a better position to go for a solo later in the game.

The key here is that you are trying to look "early in the game".
Let's dig into that further. Only Turkey has even a prayer of having
anything like such a minimal stalemate line that you're thinking
about, and even there it is not possible to completely lock things
up until Turkey has (if memory serves) a ten unit line. It is
"design feature" of this game to make this difficult. Turkey's
"early stalemate line" is made more difficult by the placement of
the fleet in Ankara. So, while a good idea in theory, in practice
this still does not make sense..... not as a "stalemate line".

What you really are looking for, I think, is something else entirely,
that I'm not sure is catalogged anywhere, and that is "good defensive
line unit placements" in the early mid-game. For example, France
is helped considerably by placing an army in Gascony for defense.
I now see what you want, but I'm not sure it exists.

>So _why_ is knowledge of stalemate lines unbecoming to an ambitious player?

It distracts from the learning that one needs to place in mind to
move toward tactics that win games. This is most important, I should
say, in FTF games where time is of the essence. If you have lots of
time playing E-Mail games with reasonably relaxed deadlines, you
have plenty of time to study stalemate lines AND more aggressive
postures and play between them with detailed and complex decision
rules. But for FTF, or quick E-Mail games, you need to develop
neural pathways and habits of mind in playing that give some more
priority to offense. In my opinion....

Should I also mention that I'm not a big fan of no-press games either?
Nah, that's OK, I understand that too. For basically the same reason.
Learning by throwing you in the entire pool rather than trying to
learn each part of the game in disjoint pieces....

Jim-Bob
 
G

Guest

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

In article <pvadnfYQffY1TdrfRVn-rA@comcast.com>,
Eric Hunter <hunter90@comcast.not> wrote:

>Because the actions and the mind-set needed to take and defend
>a stalemate line are different from those needed to Solo, in most
>cases. To Solo, especially as a Witch, you usually need to get
>PAST the stalemate line early, before the other side of the board
>has resolved, and can mount a defense. It is often advantageous to
>skip taking Centers which are your 10th to 15th Centers, and focus
>on getting the 18th, first. Then you can pick up the easier ones to
>cement the Solo.

But to know how to get past the stalemate line, don't you have
to know where it is? I've drawn a few promising games because
I didn't know the lines well enough: tried to follow the strategy
above, but had the centers in the wrong order. I think I know
better now, but I got there by looking at the lines....

Also, if you know what line your opponent is trying to hold,
you have a better chance of foiling him than if you're ignorant.

Sometimes I think the main reason Soloists decry the study of
stalemate lines is that they don't want their opponents to know
how to stop them....

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@eskimo.com
 
G

Guest

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

"Eric Hunter" <hunter90@comcast.not> wrote [edited]:

> If the Power being whittled isn't in position to throw the game,
> they are not needed to hold the line, and don't deserve to be in
> the Draw, anyway.

Don't *deserve* to be in the draw? You say it like it is a reward! LOL!
 
G

Guest

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

mkkuhner@kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:

>In article <pvadnfYQffY1TdrfRVn-rA@comcast.com>,
>Eric Hunter <hunter90@comcast.not> wrote:

>Also, if you know what line your opponent is trying to hold,
>you have a better chance of foiling him than if you're ignorant.

>Sometimes I think the main reason Soloists decry the study of
>stalemate lines is that they don't want their opponents to know
>how to stop them....

>Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@eskimo.com

I will admit that Mary has more than a trivial point.

Jim-Bob
 
G

Guest

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

Nah. I know stalemate lines quite well, and it is a good idea for any
player to learn them. My reason is to get past them, and to prevent others
from getting them, which is rather different than the reason some others
learn them.

> >Eric Hunter <hunter90@comcast.not> wrote:
>
> >Also, if you know what line your opponent is trying to hold,
> >you have a better chance of foiling him than if you're ignorant.
>
> >Sometimes I think the main reason Soloists decry the study of
> >stalemate lines is that they don't want their opponents to know
> >how to stop them....
 
G

Guest

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

"Mary K. Kuhner" <mkkuhner@kingman.gs.washington.edu> writes:
>
> But to know how to get past the stalemate line, don't you have
> to know where it is? I've drawn a few promising games because
> I didn't know the lines well enough

I, too, have suffered from such ignorance. Knowing the lines reduces your
chances of failing to solo through allowing your opponents to establish
them. There is, surely, nothing negative about including that knowledge in
the armoury of the ambitious Dipper!

Andy
 
G

Guest

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

"David E. Cohen" <david_e_cohen@yahoo.com> writes:


>"Eric Hunter" <hunter90@comcast.not> wrote [edited]:

>> If the Power being whittled isn't in position to throw the game,
>> they are not needed to hold the line, and don't deserve to be in
>> the Draw, anyway.

>Don't *deserve* to be in the draw? You say it like it is a reward! LOL!

Oh come on, Eric is right. Small powers have as a crucial task
as a draw is approaching to make themselves indispensible.
If they don't they risk being left out. Good play is rewarded,
poor play is not. What's so funny??

Jim-Bob
 
G

Guest

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

A draw (or a survival, or an elimination) isn't a win. If it will be a
12-10-6-4-2 draw, a 12-10-6-6 draw, or a 13-15-6 draw, it makes no
difference. Indispensability only matters if one is a small Power who (a)
is playing with draw whittlers, and (b) cares whether one is included in a
draw, versus being eliminated by draw-whittlers who are doing it for their
own weird reasons, and not as a path toward a solo.

"Jim Burgess" <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:d2bvn7$o37$1@pcls4.std.com...
> "David E. Cohen" <david_e_cohen@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
> >"Eric Hunter" <hunter90@comcast.not> wrote [edited]:
>
> >> If the Power being whittled isn't in position to throw the game,
> >> they are not needed to hold the line, and don't deserve to be in
> >> the Draw, anyway.
>
> >Don't *deserve* to be in the draw? You say it like it is a reward! LOL!
>
> Oh come on, Eric is right. Small powers have as a crucial task
> as a draw is approaching to make themselves indispensible.
> If they don't they risk being left out. Good play is rewarded,
> poor play is not. What's so funny??
>
> Jim-Bob
>