Pouch Deposits

On occasion, a question or challenge will be posed to the Pouch audience illiciting thoughts, comments, and/or continued discussion. Don't hesitate to respond. Remember, this is your opportunity to be heard, to voice your opinion -- the reader's forum. Let the Pouch ([email protected]) know what you think.

The S2002M Pouch Deposits posed a new question regarding the RT Juggernaut. After just four weeks, the mail bag was full of responses (over 150) ranging from the RT Juggernaut, Diplomacy Etiquette, even Eliminating the Paradox in Diplomacy.

Here's what a few of you had to say:
 
 

Dennis W. Moore, Jr. ([email protected]) writes:

Ya' know, it's just a simple change, but I like the recent tweak on the front page of The Pouch. Getting everything "above the fold" makes navigating the site just that much easier. Thanks.

Response from the publisher, Manus Hand ([email protected]): Thanks, Dennis! I didn't actually know if anyone would notice! Glad to see it was not only noticed but appreciated. I have a couple more equally subtle plans for the front page. Look for them soon....

Alan Richbourg ([email protected]) writes:

Three cheers for Edward, may he reign in prosperity! Very much looking forward to future zines.
 

Jim Cheaney ([email protected]) writes:

Yes, it's easily recognized. The secret is France. What France does will determine the outcome of the game. I believe the RTF alliance is the strongest on the board.

For Turkey, I believe the Juggernaut is vital to survival. I know everybody who will read this has been in a game where Turkey has survived without Russia's help, but that has never been part of my experience. Who else is Turkey going to ally with? Austria or Italy? My only AT alliance (I was Austria) lasted one year. My only IT alliance (with me as I) was even shorter. England or Germany is a possibility, but they will have problems of their own to deal with in the West, plus England is limited by the cul-de-sac of St. Petersburg. Turkey still can't defend against Italy, Austria, and Russia at the same time.

For Russia, the Juggernaut is less vital to survival, but still important. Russia is so close to the Balkan gold mine of SCs that he can't afford to let a hostile Turkey come strolling across Armenia.

The effects of the Juggernaut are this: AI unite to stop Turkey, and EG unite to stop Russia. In order to defeat the Juggernaut, all 4 countries must be involved. This leaves one important Western power with nothing to do but gaze at some very exposed German, English, and Italian backs. France has nothing to lose from the early Juggernaut, and everything to gain. France won't have to face Russia until after Germany is dead, and if France is sharp, he can pick up most of the German SCs before Russia can break through German lines. Or, if France desires, he can pick and choose from English or Italian SCs.

I have never been in a game where Turkey or Russia survived without the Juggernaut. I also have never been in a game where France didn't benefit tremendously from the Juggernaut. If RT recognize the appeal of the Juggernaut for France, they have a powerful alliance for crushing Germany. Of course, after Germany is gone, Russian forces wheel into the rear of Austria, releasing Turkey from its deadlock against AI (unless France has already done so by hitting Italy).

How do I get the Juggernaut started? Well, in a press game, diplomacy is of course the name of the game (as well as disinformation to Vienna, Rome, and Berlin). In a no-press game, as Turkey, I am quite taken with the opening A Con-Bul, F Ank-Con, and A Smy-Ank. The Russian player, who has probably ordered Sev-Bla expecting a bounce, may be quite pleased and wondering what the Turk is up to. Nevertheless, Smy-Ank ensures that Ank is covered, plus already opens up Smy to a build. Then, in the Fall, A Bul S F Bla-Rum and F Con-Aeg is the key to show Russia what you mean.

The same can be done in reverse by Russia in a no-press game. F Sev-Rum yields Bla to Turkey. This is riskier, though, because the prudent thing to do would be to order A Mos-Sev as protection (instead of the usual Mos-Ukr), which gives up any hope of having influence over Gal with A War. So even if Russia is looking for a Juggernaut, in a no-press game, the bounce in Bla may still be preferable to an immediate RT alliance.

Good luck to the new Zine editor...I'm sure Manus' brainchild is in good hands!   : )
 

Bryan Thexton ([email protected]) writes:

I'm not so experienced as many of your readers, but I happen to enjoy playing both Italy and Germany so I'm always sniffing for signs that a couple of border powers think they can role across the map--a juggernaut being the most classic case in point.

I strongly believe that Italy should not role over and die in the face of a juggernaut. Italy should have its antenna picking up every diplomatic vibration, and if there is any question of juggernaut forming, in 1901 Italy should be somehow persuading Austria to let an Italian army cross his northern border. Before the juggernaut can get up a full head of steam (i.e. grab a bunch of extra centres), that one extra army let's Austria put up a much, much, better fight. If Galicia isn't an option, go park in Silesia, this should help get german armies moving east whether or not the Kaiser believes in the juggernaut threat.

If you can manage to be this proactive you have a decent chance of breaking up the juggernaut before it has been welded together by success. Russia can no longer offer Turkey help into the Balkans, while you can suddenly offer Turkey help against Russia. This gambit won't work against every pair of RT players, and diplomatically it can be challenging, but it can work.

As for Germany, well, if Russia and Turkey are allied and you haven't persuaded anyone else to attack them, then you probably deserve what you get. Germany's diplomacy needs to focus on preventing unopposed alliances anywhere on the board.
 

Isaac Nazarin ([email protected]) writes:

Here are my thoughts on the RT alliance:

1. The RT is the most obvious alliance in Dip. When my friends and I began playing the game in 1985, we had no contact with the outside world. Our play was chaotic and often clueless. It was like a Hobbesian "war of every man against every other man," until two of my friends spontaneously formed an RT which predictably rolled its way across the whole board. So the RT's fearsome reputation among some may be founded from such traumatic early experiences. However, I suspect that many players today have learned their fear at second hand.




2. It would have to be second-hand fear, since I have not seen one successful RT in my online Dip career. I have seen a successful RT fear campaign, however, led by England. No bluffing, whenever I start a game now, I check the latest issue of the Pouch so I get an idea of what some guy might be all fired up over.




3. It seems to me that Dippers today shun the whole notion of RT. I have seen a successful Turkish-Italian alliance, but never a successful RT! Connected Dippers actually seem to prefer to contrive novelty alliances like TI. Perhaps they're trying to do something "cool" to get into the Pouch?




4. It seems to me that R is the bigger gainer if the RT works, and the bigger loser if it doesn't, but this simply restates that R is the more "volatile" country to play.

Glad to see the Pouch back in publication.

Edward Hawthorne's ([email protected]) response:

I suspect there are four different ways players learn about the RT and it's effectiveness.

1. By accident or coincidence.
2. From experience as an R or T participant.
3. From experience as a different power that got rolled.
4. Learning about the alliance from the Pouch or second-hand.

Unfortunately, the RT and Western Triple are more prevalent in FtF than PBEM. Especially in the tournament scene. Why? Does one alliance precipitate the other? I've recently attended DragonFlight, Victoria, ARMADA, and PiggyBack tournaments in the past year. Edi Birsan recently attended WDC2002. The RT was an issue at all five events.

You're absolutely right. The RT fear factor can be a powerful weapon (or curse). If you're a western power, it's worth propagating a pseudo RT alliance to help forge a western alliance of some kind. Don't scream too loud else you get a real RT. Even eastern powers can use the RT fear factor as I saw in a recent 1900 game on DPJudge. I can't provide great detail since the game is still being played. Suffice to say, there was no real RT threat so greed took over and the Western Triple dissolved.

Yes, The Zine is back!

Chris Aanstoos ([email protected]) writes:

Very nice issue of the DipPouch. Congratulations, and thank you. And very nice questions (about the RT alliance) put out for readers' comments. They're very tempting so I'll bite.

There's a possible development your line of questions may not have anticipated, as a result of the early and evident R-T alliance. It could result, not necessarily in the presupposed western triple (EFG) as a counterweight, but in the Triple Alliance (GAI) and the EF. In other words, the place may glob up into three big power blocs. How these relate to each other next also has two possible developments. If GAI convince Russia to head for Norway (and EF), then EF are in trouble (unless GAI then side with EF against RT, in which case they can kick Russia all the way out of St. Petersburg).. If instead EF persuade Russia to head into Germany, then GAI are in trouble, as they will get squeezed from both east and west. But the result of that is not necessarily an RT win: EF may in fact be their equal after the squeeze on the central powers.

Also important to consider is that GAI and EF will have an easier time persuading Turkey to split with Russia than the RT will have in trying to break up the other two blocs. This is because they can show Turkey that Russia will outgain him, and use this to engender doubt in the wisdom of staying with Russia. (At that point, watch out for the sudden upsurge of an EFT).

I think for RT to work optimally, an early misstep by Italy is important. If Russia can convince Italy that it is really an IR alliance that will destroy Turkey as soon as Austria is gone, then RT can achieve a very fast start that may be vital to assuring Turkey to stay with Russia. Since an IR is a very desirable alliance for Italy, he will be sorely tempted. His ability to sniff out what is genuine may then be the most crucial factor in the outcome of the game.

Edward Hawthorne's ([email protected]) response:

Definately a very interesting analysis. You're right, I'd not considered an interior alliance working with (or against) the two border alliances. This certainly addresses my question of whether AI should just give up or not. Three power blocks; each vulnerable to the other. Such ally-dynamics quickly breaks down to a matter of position and trust (or deceit).

Multi-alliance layers could also be used to engage the individual powers resulting in the break down of the power blocks. For instance, FGR find each other trustworthy and agree to misdirect their respective neighbors. The true alliance could be between FRA. This would require, as I often like to say, "Perfect Coordination" between the FRA since each individual power is diploming with two other pseudo alliances. Does it have to be so complex? No but it sure is fun.

Jim Cheaney ([email protected]) writes:

I can't agree more with every aspect of Duinlas' article about Diplomacy Etiquette. In a game where personal chemistry matters more than tactical ability, one has to remember that alliances are always shifting. The England that stabbed you last turn may be the same England that you have to ally back with this turn in order to keep Russia from soloing (and this example isn't theoretical; I was Germany in my most recently completed game).

The key needs to be to seperate personal and game personae. Step back for a second and look it from a gamer's perspective. Was the stab preceded by brilliant diplomacy to dupe you? If so, then congratulate them....they are a better diplomacizer than you. If not, then double shame on you! Was the stab tactically and geopolitically sound? If so, then shame on you for not seeing it. If not, then you'll get your revenge soon enough when they're defending their home centers from you or your new allies. Were they convinced to stab you because somebody else talked them into it? Then shame on you for not talking enough, or ignoring some country on the far side of the board.

We are all gamers. We can step back and analyze these stabs for what they are...an essential part of an exciting game that we all love. Tsar Nicholas or Kaiser Wilhelm or President Loubet may be furious, but WE are simply playing a game represented by electrons flying around wires in the 21st Century. This is certainly easier said than done. In a recent Modern game, I (as Britain) wrote a scathing ad hominem press to Spain when he captured Morocco after we had agreed that it would remain British. The next morning, I got up, logged into my email and wrote an equally long apology.

The apology didn't make me feel any better about the stab, but I felt better about my own humanity and maturity.

Edward Hawthorne's ([email protected]) response:

I agree with you and Duinlas. The bottom line is, Diplomacy is just a game. If players take gaming too seriously, they'll have more personal grief and misery then reward or success with this hobby.

The point is, harsh words or tactics do not yield positive results. As the saying goes, "You can catch more flies with honey then with vinegar."

"Mark T" ([email protected]) writes:

I have a suggestion for the paradox rule resolution. When I was looking at it, I thought that the French Fleet in the English Channel should have been forced into retreat because of the German fleet from Belgium supported by the German Fleet in the North Sea. The convoy of the French army convoy to London takes place, according to the rules, and is supported by Yorkshire, thereby forcing England into retreat. The attack on London cuts support for Wales moving to the English Channel. As already mentioned, the French fleet is displaced and forced into retreat. The German fleet in Belgium moves into the English Channel, as the English fleet is not strong enough to defeat or hold them at bay. Or, no one ends up in the English Channel.

So, the final positions would look like this:

French
A-Yorkshire
A-London
F-Brest or North Atlantic

German
F-English Channel
F-North Sea
or
F-Belgium
F-North Sea

English
F-Wales

The rule is esentially one of a double attack. What do you think?

Simon Szykman's ([email protected]) response:

In your resolution, the fleet in English Channel is dislodged, and yet the convoy is allowed to succeed. Something along these lines was suggested by a couple of different people in the original responses to this article. Personally, I think that the rule which says that a convoy is disrupted when one of the convoying fleets is dislodged is an important one. Eliminating this rule would fundamentally affect the dynamics of the game in very common situations. Given that convoy paradoxes are very uncommon, I would be very hesitant to eliminate a rule that comes into play (no pun intended) quite frequently. Thanks for the message!