How to Play Diplomacy (part 1): Introduction

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.

Allan B Calhamer (7 Dec 1931 - 25 Feb 2013)
https://haroonriaz.files.wordpress.com/

Having had a break from the blog for a while, thinking about what I wanted to write next and recovering properly from a broken femur, I have decided to come back with a series of articles on playing Diplomacy, but playing it properly. Rather than tips, hints, strategy discussions, etc (there're plenty of those elsewhere on the blog), this is about playing the game the way it was meant to be played.

Now, I'll readily admit that this is my opinion. There is always going to be discussion about the way the game ought to be played. I don't claim there's a definitive answer to every aspect of the game, and the way you play is - or should be - somewhat defined by the context in which a game is being played (we'll look at that more below).

But we have a range of articles written by Calhamer which give insights into his thoughts about how the game should be played, his ideas of play. You'll find them - the ones I've used - listed below. From the thoughts of Calhamer himself, it is possible to find a clear philosophy of play.

Why is this discussion needed?

As I mentioned above, there is - and will continue to be - an ongoing discussion about the way people play Diplomacy. At a later point in the blog, I'll look at different philosophies of play in more detail, so I'm not discussing them here. It is sufficient to say that discussions are lively. 

There are passions involved, you see. And judgementalism. There are enough people in the Dip Hobby that think that if Diplomacy isn't played this way it isn't being played.

My own opinion is conflicted. While I believe there is a way to play the game properly, taking Calhamer's ideas identified in his articles as a guide, I don't think anyone can say that this is the way it has to be played. See? Conflicted.

I do believe strongly that the way some people play Diplomacy is erroneous. See? Judgemental. However, I also believe that you - a player - have the freedom to play in whatever way you want.

So this isn't to series of posts that is meant to be critical (although I can't promise my bias won't come through, especially in the last in the series). Rather it's meant to be a discussion of my own philosophy, and an explanation of why this is my philosophy.

Naturally, I'm right (I believe). My philosophy isn't based on the way I like to play (although I think there is a beauty in playing Diplomacy the way I describe in this series of posts), but on the way Calhamer says his game ought to be played. Whether you agree or not is your choice... but, if not, then please explain why with some reasoning, with references.

Adapting to the Format

The truth is that the way you play a game should be adapted to the context in which the game is being played, to a certain degree. Playing a face-to-face game of Dip, with a group of mates, as a one-off thing, is very different to playing a tournament game. This has to have an impact on the way you approach the game, surely?

I am mainly writing in this blog about playing Diplomacy online, on a website. The chances are, in this context, you're playing a game which is part of a wider rated set of games. Perhaps, then, you'll play differently, as you may want to maximise the result of this game.

Certainly, if you are playing the game as part of a tournament, you'll have a number of factors affecting your approach to the game: the way games are scored in the tournament (if you actually understand it!), the length of time you have to play the game, and needing to survive (as a minimum) all impact on the approach to a game.

The people you're playing against will also affect your approach. Playing a set of newbies, certainly on a website, you may look to play more freely, knowing that there is a chance that one - possibly more - will drop from the game and that your opponents may be less experienced. Playing a set of experienced players, though, you'll probably look to use each player's strengths and weaknesses against them, and possibly be more cagey.

Although I will come back to this in my conclusion, it is worth mentioning at the outset that context should mean something. You need to be careful just how far you go with this, however.

Calhamer's Articles

The articles I have used are listed here:

• Military Intelligence (part 5)
• A Dozen Years of Diplomacy (part 2)
• On the Play of Postal Diplomacy (part 4)
• The Invention of Diplomacy (part 2)
• Objectives other than Winning (part 3)
• Introduction to Diplomacy (part 4)
• The Coast of Moscow (part 5)

This leaves three articles that I didn't use. I should probably explain why not.

• On Strengthening the Hand of Austria-Hungary is a strategy article, written to discuss how Austria could play a little more strongly.
• The Tactics of Diplomacy does what it says on the tin.
• Across the Whole Board (yeh, that's where it comes from) is a dense strategy article about playing the game as a whole.

None of these three articles seem to have any bearing on the discussion of this series of posts.

Heathley Baines (Nibbler)

Editor

The Series "How to Play Diplomacy"

Part 1: "Introduction"

Part 2: "Origins"

Part 3: "Corrections"

Part 4: "Deceptions and Betrayals"

Part 5: "Excuses"
Part 6: "Conclusions"