England is one of the powers that doesn't often raise a lot of enthusiasm among players if they draw her in the game. This is mainly because, while it is a power that can do well enough, being in an highly defensible position and therefore a power that is likely to keep a decent player in the game until the end, it is one of the more difficult powers to win a game with. In short, she's seen as 'boring'. Well, no power in Diplomacy should be boring to play; you're doing something wrong if this is the case. And England is just as good a prospect to win the game as any other power. Just think outside the box. In this series of posts, I'll be looking at England's position on the board, her opening strategies, her potential alliances, and a strategy that can lead to victory for the English player. https://assets2.hrc.org/ But first, let's look at how the history of Britain may well give some clues to playing England in Diplomacy. Wait - that
Diplomacy is a complicated game. Now, there's an understatement! However, when learning how to play it, there is one source which can't be ignored: the creator of the game, Allan B Calhamer. https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/ Philosophies If you read anything Calhamer wrote, it seems clear that he had a certain way of playing in mind. Play to solo; if you can't solo, play to prevent any other player from soloing. The objective is to win - to solo - and the secondary objective is to draw, to prevent that other winning; nothing else matters. Stab when you have to; maintain an alliance only so long as it's useful, and keep in mind that 'useful' means until the alliance is preventing you from winning. I call this philosophy Calhamerism . And yet, for a number of reasons, other philosophies have developed, all of which vary from the origins of the game. I will examine the varieties of philosophies in another series of posts, but it is worth summaris