Letters

Steve Turner [11/06/03] [replying to a question from Jim Burgess: "Who do you think is the best GM and/or organizer on Dip 2000?"] writes -
"Very difficult one to answer. I've been GMed by Tom Tweedy, Richard Hucknall, Paul Prebble, Mark Stretch, Jan Willem Omlo (JW), Michael Barnett and Duncan Proffitt (Dunx). I've never had problems with any of them. Mark and Dunx have the best turnaround times. I've never known Richard Hucknall to make a mistake.
Dunx is also the organiser of the Open Tournament on the site (aided by Jeff Gryzbowski).
Some GMs have added extra to the site.
Tom Tweedy runs the site and is probably the best to ask. Having said that Tom would probably say the site runs itself and he has no control of what the GMs do :-) But final decisions are always down to him.
I introduced the new map, faster games, gunboat (no press) and coloured in maps.
Mark Stretch does the hobby news pages (which I think is what we get in our weekly updates).
A.N. Other does behind the scenes admin work but he has to remain secret on that.
Karl Georg Ohrn does the Eagle Ratings which have evolved from the Wilman points system that Paul Simpkins introduced (Paul manages the ratings page). This is very popular with the players.
To me the most important additions are the secret programmer who has automated the waiting list and added the Message Board, and Tom Craig:
Tom Craig introduced us all to Active Server Pages and wrote some code that nearly all the GMs use. Tom Tweedy was limited in who could GM on the site because GMs had to make their own webpages and the first GMs were pretty much technophobes. With TC's method it is very easy to have the games on the website (he also provided a link to a graphics program to convert the bmps to gifs) which in turn allowed more GMs to join the site. Dip2000 wouldn't be the site it is today without TC - in my opinion. It just couldn't have the number of players it has - and possibly 20 players in the 2nd round of the WM!"

[Tom] Yep,this letter reminded me, all the above never got any praise from me over the years, but they [and my other GMs] certainly have deserved it. I do know I couldn't have managed Dip2000 without their input, and constant reminders [nit-picky lot]. Take a bow, fellahs, yer doing a grand job.

Mark Boyle [29/11/02] writes -
"Been to see the "Chamber Of Secrets" yet? I went on Saturday - a curate's egg I thought, far too orientated towards the 2 second attention spans of Yankee audiences, and I got the impression of a rushed job because they were too busy ensuring the special effects were right (granted the Basilisk was well done, Dobby was well done, and the Basilisk).
To be fair, it is the weakest of all the Potter books and so they were always going to have their work cut out. But by that same token, they ought to have given it as thorough a job as the first, but they cut it to pieces for the sake of action, action, action. The role of Ginny Weasley, one of the main characters of the story, is cut so far down that it makes the whole business surrounding the Diary too reliant on happy coincidence after happy coincidence.
Most of the cast were as good as last time, though Ron Weasley's "cowardly lion" routine grated after the first million grimaces. The kid playing Colin Creevey was spookily close to the book character mind! I liked the intro of poor old Errol, the owl with landing "issues", and the film Moaning Myrtle is better than the book - her tendency to change mood from pathos to psychosis in seconds was inspired, and made up for the absence once again of Peeves - once again Rik Mayell filmed his parts, once again they were all cut out of the final release - what is their problem I ask?
Biggest disappointment was Snape. Has he gone soft or what? I was looking forward to his appearence behind Harry and Ron, just as they're gloating thinking Snape's been sacked as in the book. Alan Rickman's position as the heir to Christopher Lee seems somewhat in danger. Maggie Smith and Richard Harris were their usual faultless selves.
And missing out the Valentine's Day scene (one of the funniest moments in all the Potter Books, and necessary in order to him to discover by chance that ink soaks into the book without staining) was a real waste.
Wasn't the least surprised to find Kenneth Brannagh's ability was overblown. I'd have had Rik Mayell for that (remember Captain Flashheart in "Blackadder"?). Heck, I'd have had Mayell reprise his Alan B'Stard role in "The New Statesman" to do justice to the role of Lucius Malfoy. Jason Issacs is just a pretty face and no talent, wholse portrayal of Lucius Malfoy was disturbing for all the wrong reasons. Am I the only one that thought he played the part GAY??? I was waiting for him to offer Harry a Bertie Whatshisname's All Flavour Bean and a ride on his broomstick... (Issacs couldn't even get his son's name right, calling him Jacob in the book shop instead of Draco!).
There is some fun to be had inadvertantly from the glaring continuity howlers: eg. in the polyjuice potion scene, Ron dashes into one cubicle, but after Harry is transformed, he come out of the one Hermione dashed into. The transformation class scene is best of all - the bit part pupils change positions repeatedly between camera shots whilst Harry, Ron, Hermione and Draco remain in place, whilst Susan Bones of Hufflepuff (who is director Columbus's daughter) manages to switch from a Hufflepuff tie (the correct one) to a Gryffindor one mid-scene!
My impression was the same as after seeing "Lord Of The Rings", ie. I felt let down, yet wanted to watch it again and again. Round 2 over the Potter vs Gandalf cinema prizefight looks set to go to LOTR, unless they really bitched that one up.
PS Did you know both films had 4½ hours of scenes canned...so what are they doing with the extra hour from each then??? Is this the old "Director's Cut" routine 5 years down the line? Hmmm...."

[Tom] Personally I don't think there is any prizefight between the two films - not regarding the viewing public anyway [trophies are another matter]. I think the public will go and see both films as they'll both be hugely entertaining. Most certainly I'll be buying them both. I don't think they'll EVER manage to make a better screen version of Lord of the Rings.
Four and a half hours of scenes cut! Oh no, what a waste. I hate it when they try and fit films in to Theatre times. I was glad when they brought out LOTR in three hours, thinking they'd left everything in. So I was surprised when they brought out the 'Extended Edition'. I bought that edition of course, but must admit I couldn't spot the difference - not yet anyway.
I enjoyed ALL the Harry Potter books [couldn't put them down] and read them one after the other. I've even pre-ordered the next in hardback. So, yes, I'll be waiting for the Director's Cut if they bring one out. Thanks for a great review Mark.

Pete Smith (player) aka Mad Tankie (GM). [26/09/02] writes -
"The other day while checking up on a foe, I had to trawl though numerous EGS (End Game Statements) from games in which he had played in. While reading, it struck me that quite a few players, who are still playing on this site, have failed to send in even a one line thank you EGS for some games. As a player, I always send in one when a game is finished, or more often than not, when a game is still on, but I am dead. I say what I think of the GM, and I try to explain my game plan to the rest of the players, and also use it to sum up how I thought the other players played. It only takes 5 minutes ( I can die very fast), but when the game finishes, it can really be the topping on the cake. I think that it helps you to be a better player.
As a GM, I expect an EGS, even if its only "thanks". I would expect that if any player had a grievance, or think that something should be highlighted, then they should air it, so that I could improve as a GM. A lot of hard work goes into some of these games, and I do think that its only polite to acknowledge this"

[Tom] I agree with you totally, Pete, about putting in endgame statements - but I can see how it might become a chore for others. Half of them mention the fact they can't remember what happened half the time anyway. :-)
Also, a lot of players try Diplomacy for the first time, find they don't particularly like it, and we don't see them again on dip2000 after they finish their games. I know... shocking eh...?

Gary Moriarty [17/09/02] writes -
"I read somewhere that an army could not refuse a legitimate convoy order. Do you agree? For example: A German Army is in Belgium. French armies are in Picardy and Burgundy and a French Fleet is in the English Channel. The German Army in Belgium is ordered to Picardy to cut the possible French Army Picardy's support of French Army Burgundy. The French player gets cunning and orders French Fleet English Channel to convoy German Army Belgium to Picardy, while French Army Picardy moves to Belgium. In this example, the French Army Picardy and German Army Belgium exchange places. I'm interested in how you would adjudicate the above moves."

[Tom] This is actually a very interesting question. The 1971 rules say...

**4. AMBIGUOUS CONVOY ROUTES.
If the orders as written permit more than one route by which the convoyed army could proceed from its source to its destination, the order is not void on account of this ambiguity; but if any of the possible routes are destroyed by dislodgement of a fleet, the army may not move.
Example 12. ENGLAND: A Lon-Bel, F Eng C A Lon-Bel, F Nth C A Lon-Bel; FRANCE: F Bre-Eng, F In S F Bre-Eng. The order to F Nth would normally succeed, but since F Eng, which was dislodged on the move, was also ordered to convoy, the convoy is disrupted and A Lon fails to move. If F Eng had not been dislodged, the convoy would have succeeded.**

Now, I think this rule was meant for *more* than one convoying fleet moving a unit e.g. F[NTH] C A[Edi]-Nwy; F[NWG] C A[Edi]-Nwy; A[Edi]-Nwy.
However, it has since been taken to mean land *and* sea movement, as in your example above. I've always stated I will *never* allow the unwanted convoy order - it being clearly unfair - but a few of my GMs have disagreed with me.

Now the new HASBRO pdf file [found on my 'Houserules' page] has come to my rescue and has saved the day. It says:-

**LAND AND CONVOY ROUTES
In some rare cases, orders are written so that an Army could arrive at its destination either by land or convoy. When this happens, the following qualifiers apply:
* If at least one of the convoying fleets belongs to the player who controls the Army, then the convoy is used. The land route is disregarded.
* If none of the convoying Fleets belongs to the player who controls the Army, then the land route is used. However, the player controlling the Army can use the convoy route it he/she indicated "via convoy" on the Army move in question.
This prevents foreign powers from kidnapping an Army and convoying it against its will.**

As for the multiple convoy rule, that has been tidied up as well. It now reads...

**MORE THAN ONE CONVOY ROUTE
An Army convoyed using alternate convoy orders reaches its destination as long as at least one convoy route remains open.
Orders can be written to permit more than one route for convoying an Army from its origin to its destination. The Army is not prevented from moving unless all routes in the order are disrupted.**

So, my original feelings have been vindicated. :-) However I'm still not too sure how our Adjudication Program will adjudicate it. I'll have to keep an eye open for it.

Paul Prebble [06/09/02] writes -
"I read with interest Peter's letter and your response. My opinion is that the warmth of the site comes from the relationships between the players and their servants, the GMs. Signing up for a game, gaining confirmation of that game, etc. are merely mechanical administration tasks which have to be performed but which need to be done in an organized, efficient manner - sounds like the attributes needed to justify a system! The site warmth comes about from the specific and often idiosyncratic communications which need to take place when a game is starting, running, ending or just plain falling apart. I have had the pleasure of GMing several players more than once and the relationships start to build. That's my three-happence. Keep up the good work, GM Number 5 Prebble Senior."

[Tom] Thanks Paul. What you say about the automation only extending to game starts is true - we don't use it for anything else. But my worry is the size of the site - is it getting too big? Is the size making it less personal? If it isn't at the moment, what size can it get to where it *will* make it seem less personal? You see, I can't stop it, and my GMs say not to close waiting lists and don't turn anyone away.

Peter Ptashko [04/09/02] writes -
"Though I am generally in support of the automated system, I believe it is going too far. These flag message and block GM commands are ridiculous and I think they go too far. The site is becoming far too dependent on this system for its running. If something were to go wrong with it we would be in serious difficulties. I also think that the site is becoming more and more formal, cold - much like the judge system. I joined this site three years ago because it was nothing like that system. I'm not saying I don't enjoy it here still, but I think we need to seriously evaluate our position and stop thinking about how many players we can attract to the site - as is listed on the home page - and instead try to keep some vestage of human control and emotion to the site, as I think we have at the moment. Further progress in way of the automated system may take us off this route, however. Much like the problems many players have with me, this concern is shared by many."

[Tom] You bring up some good points here Peter - all of them are fair comments, and things I've been worried about myself. Let me answer them in order...

• [a] I'm putting the flag message up on the front page at the moment because one of my players [who regularly gets his orders in] is just about to get himself greylisted because system emails are not being answered by him. He obviously signed up for a game once and didn't confirm a gamestart. I've tried writing to him myself because I'm worried but he's not answering *my* emails either. The system gives them 30 days to reply - that's a long time.
• [b] The block GM and block player commands were only introduced because so many players / GMs said they wouldn't play with each other again. I couldn't keep track of them all, but the system can. It's a service - players and GMs can only give the command themselves, I have nothing whatsoever to do with it, so I don't know who dislikes whom.
• [c] You're quite right, the site *is* becoming dependant on the system. And yes, I'm worried I might go down ill and can't do the site any more. But it's been set up in such a way that if for some reason I have to drop everything, the site can be transferred to someone else [say Steve Turner or Richard Hucknall :-)]. Even then, someone with a lot of time on their hands could start doing the games the old way [Tom Craig volunteered to do just that recently - beware what you ask for TC :-)].
• [d] Yes, I must say I have to agree with you again - I'm worried that the site might be getting 'too cold' as well [although I hope the message board has gone some way to alleviate that]. But you see - and this is the crux of he matter - the site has just grown too big for me to control it properly - the way we set out for it to do. The only way we could ever get back to that is to start turning people away... have less GMs... less games... is that what we want? You see, that's just it... I have *never* tried to attract players to the site. I've never done it for the glory. I've never even submitted my site to the search engines. The players just come...

Mark Boyle [05/04/02] takes me to task for not putting up any news of Richard Sharp's illness and so writes this - RICHARD SHARP & DOLCHSTOSS

Paul Simpkins [15/02/02] regarding the latest stats predictions writes -
"Remember the good old days - Xmas 1999? My predictions? This next month will see the 200th gamestart. This year will see the 1,000th new player, This year will see the 20th GM ( even allowing for a couple of GMs that did it and didn't like it). A couple of days ago there were 71 players on the waiting list.
This is boom city Arizona. If these figures keep going at this rate you will see 100 gamestarts in 2002, 1500 players by end of 2002. The figures for 2005 are not just difficult to imagine they are difficult to begin to imagine. (just for fun 1000 gamestarts and 4,000 players, 100 GMs). Keeping stats is now 4 hours a week to track births and deaths plus another 4 hours to update and upload every month. I guess all the others who contribute to stats spend the same or more.
Keep this email in a safe place and bring it out 35 months from now."

[Tom] Heh heh - er, you're not funny Paul! There HAS to be a ceiling here surely? I mean, come on, there MUST be a sod's law or something that says there can only be a certain amount of nutcases out there playing diplmacy, have a computer, and enough luck and briains to search and find the dip2000 website. YOU'RE the statsman, wotta the chances?!

Ally Bain [09/02/02] in response to Rick Lawrence's Obituary kindly writes -
"I read the sad e-mails showing on the site. I never met the fellow but I imagine, looking at the e- mails, he was a lovely guy.
The reason for me writing to you is about comments you said at the end.
Having played Diplomacy, face-face with friends, for twenty years I was not aware of internet games. Having only bought a PC a couple of years ago I looked at the internet this year. I looked at a number of sites and without any doubt I thought this one is better than the others. To mention the reason, I will say those that I liked:
a.. The maps looked good
b.. Easy to look at other games being played
c.. Good fun reading about GMs
d.. Attractive pages on the site
e.. Fun reading other comments
You also mentioned about meeting people in games and due to the fact you get on well, you make new friends. Due to Forgotten Sons, I have met a number of players and a few of them and I have become good friends.
If you ever wake up and think you're wasting your time about the site, then please bang your head on a wall, sit down and remember good comments said about the site. ;-)"

[Tom] Many thanks for the kind words, Ally. I guess we don't realise sometimes what connections or differences we make in life. I've never thought of gaming, and maybe dip2000, as such a high priority in life - it's strange to realise it makes any difference and what lives it touches. I've been lucky here I guess, there's some good players and GMs who have joined the site.

John Marsden [16/11/01] editor of the UK PBM zine Ode writes -
"I recently took over from Richard Sharp responsibility for the Postal Diplomacy Statistics, a task that is withering rapidly! In the editorial in Ode last week I wrote:
"However, once I've dealt with the backlog, there is the question of the validity of the exercise for the future. It looks certain the number of Diplomacy games recorded in 2001 will be in single figures; the last time that was the case was 1971. When you consider that many of the best players no longer play postally, yet are still active, it is time to recognise that "Postal" Diplomacy really is limited now. Yet, how valid is the current dividing line? Realistically, to me, there is little difference between games in Armistice Day (which is mainly distributed as a pdf file (but I have a hard copy because it saves on internet access time and printer ink)) and games in Psychozine, yet the first qualify and the second don't.
My inclination would be to think that it is time to face facts and include pbem Diplomacy games that are recognisably run in a similar fashion to postal ones. The criteria I would use are: British (or Irish) based human GMs; standard rulebook interpretations, and named players.
I would welcome all comments on this, before I do anything precipitate."
To that, Mark Stretch has commented:
"Interesting to read your thoughts re including email dip games in the ratings. Bear in mind that the Dip 2000 games would all fall into that category and there are an awful lot of them. So you'd be giving yourself a fair bit of extra work. Otherwise it seems reasonably sensible to include them to me.
Mark"
Your comments would be welcome, as would any of your players, were you to bring this to their attention."

[Tom] Hello John. In actual fact your stats may already have PBEM diplomacy games included... as way WAY back when I was editing 'Dib' I did in fact run email diplomacy games on one of the bulletin boards. It was all explained and full games published in Dib's of the time and all had 'Boardman Numbers'.
In actual fact I was only thinking the other day whether our games should carry Boardman Numbers [by all means include dip2000 games in your stats if you so wish - though it has to be said, a lot of my GMs live overseas], but the thought of all that work putting Boardman Numbers into all the pages of the old games fills me with horror!
But I'll take any advice. Anyone else have any comments on dip2000 games also being included in the UK PBEM stats with 'Boardman Numbers'?

Mike Allaway [09/09/01] writes -
"You old reprobate.  I hope this reaches you.  There I was, sitting at the computer doing yet another internet seach on the diplomacy hobby and there you were.  Just so you don't think this is some unknown weirdo - I'm Mike Allaway of Pyrrhic Victory fame."

[Tom] Old reprobate indeed! Actually I was only just thinking of you a couple of days ago. Pete Birk's Greatest Hits hit my doormat with a big article on PV in it the other day [I don't remember which issue number though]. He's reminiscing on old zines in every issue [though I haven't seen him do Dib yet].
How did you find my name? Using a 'people finder'? Or did you find my website, dip2000? Surely you're not trying to find your way back to diplomacy after all this time are you?
Mind you, a lot of us are - a few of the old fogies have been dragged out of retirement and are GMing on the site. It's the hobby rejuvinated again - or so it seems. :-)

"Just thought I'd drop you a line from sunny Pittsburgh USA (88 degrees today - 85 tomorrow) and hope you can find the time to write back."

[Tom] Bloody hell Mike, that's too hot for me I hope you have air conditioning in car and home. No civilised place gets that hot.

"A brief update - I've been married 16 years and we have a 13 year-old daughter.  Working as a research chemist again and coaching football (or soccer as they try to call it over here) to a bunch of aggravating girls."

[Tom] A 13 year old! My god, has it really been that long? It sounds like you're having a great time out there though. Coaching a football team of girls must be fun. Seriously. I watched the girl teams at the olympics and it was like watching the 'old style' football again - good fun, no histrionics, fighting and suchlike. Apart from the last 2 England games [5-1 eh! :-)] I haven't enjoyed watching the game for some time. You sound like a lucky man - you rotten sod.

Toby Harris [20/07/01] writes -
"Hi Tom, just read Diplomacy 2000 for the first time, and have to say it's a really well-produced online zine. Certainly the most well-presented & user-friendly I've seen. Bet you're glad to no longer have to collate sheets of A4, staple them, pack into envelopes, lick envelopes & stamps and trudge to the post box once a month !! It seems the e-zine is now well and truly here, and a good thing too.

[Tom] You're right about being glad I don't have to collate, staple, stamp and post now, Toby. But having said that, with the website now gaining popularity [bigger than I thought it would get], it's almost as much work. One good thing about it though, is I can farm a lot of the work [news, stats, GMing] out to nice friendly helpers. Thanks for the kind words about the site though.

"Couldn't help notice Paul Simpkins' comments about the WM99 tournament and thought you might want an answer from the horse's mouth. Paul may not remember but I used to 'sub' to his zine "Bruce" as a teenager, after the fold of Watch Your Back. (It's at that time I also joined Brian Frew's VVV.)
I say 'sub' but it was more a case of not having much cash and getting "expelled" from Bruce for being something like 10p short for the next issue .... I'd heard he was a bit of a skinflint ;-) Met Paul's brother, Nick, at Midcon '86. We got on well and allied for the whole game we played. If my memory serves me right, Paul was on the Midcon comittee back then.
Anyways, time moves on and I was 34 three days ago ... and probably still one of the Dip hobby's "younger" members :-) It's only the European mainland who have younger Dip hobbies - the average age of the French and Swedish players tends to be late twenties.
The Worldmasters tournament, back to the point in hand, was the most tremendous advanmcement I have ever seen the Dip hobby take in the 25 years I've been playing the game. We've seen the hobby do all sorts of things but nothing in the scale of what the Worldmasters achieved in it's first year. Taking things back one step, in 1998 Cat23 (a US-based Dip forum, managed by Ray Setzer) opened up a 7-a-side Dip tourney on email. The way it worked was that the 15 teams (105 individuals) were all copied on every adjudication and we all got bogged down with some serious junk emails. The following year, Ray & Emeric Miszti transformed it to the Worldmasters website and I jumped on the bandwagon with the offer of helping to point players towards it. 553 players (79 boards) is by far and away the largest tournament the world has ever seen.
Problem is that with so many players there was inevitably some "dead wood". No offence to those who this refers to, but half the games in the first round ended in an outright win .... compare that to Manorcon / Midcon where we have seen less than 10 outrights from all games & rounds of both conventions in the last 10 years. The semis were harder, obviously, with only the strongest 49 results succeeding to this round, though even these games contained an average one or two players who'd clearly gotten there by a lucky break in the first round. Recognising these players was key to winning that round and getting to the final.
And then the final itself. My reason for quitting the final was that by this time my inbox (a work email address) was full each morning and I was spending all day diploming instead of working. Combining this with the timing (last November / December) and understanding my job (marketing database sales) we were approaching year-end fast and the figures needed attention. Whilst winning a Diplomacy World Championship (and they don't come any bigger than this) was an ambition from childhood, my job and success at it is more valuable.
At the time of my resignation, yes, I believe I let Germany into NTH and Paul asked why. France, as you commented, and I didn't get along too well. Straight into ENG. I recall that the Autumn orders were F(ENG) s German F(Den) - NTH and, frankly, there aint a whole lot you can do to stop this move whilst still covering London and taking Norway. I think that answers the question.
But even at this stage (France in ENG, Germany in NTH) I honestly felt that England had the best position on the board. Crazy notion perhaps but hear me out. A final like this (from previous experiences of top boards throughout Europe) tend to be "stop the leader" campaigns. By that, it helped my case to Italy & Turkey to immediately work together and pile into France & Russia respectively. This was in place before I quit the game and all England had to do was clutch onto her home centres long enough to watch F/R pull back (Russia also took Nwy in 1902). It was then only germany who needed bringing back on side, especially as Italy had taken 3 French centres well early in the game.
This takes nothing away from Lee - he played it superbly. He also got Germany on side who, I would add, was in the same WM2000 team as France and was stuck to his side like a loyal limpet. I couldn't see myself achieving this and Lee played it superbly.
Once the motions of 1902 got rolling, England was always going to be around at the end of the game. Transforming that to an outright win demonstrated Lee's own command of the game and the reasons why he was number 1 on the Compuserve forum.
Diplomacy's a funny game and every game is different. Losing NTH & ENG is not so serious that it's game-over for England. World Dip Con '99 in Namur gave me the same problems (France supporting Germany to NTH in 1901, and Russia plumping for Mos-Stp) and with the current World Champ (2000) , Simon Bouton, as Germany you'd have thought England should collapse quickly. On the contrary : E/F/G all survived to the end of the game, and Austria & Italy (who remained allied throughout) topped the board and both went onto the final, top table. Ironically enough, these two players (Christian Dreyer & Leif Bergman, both Swedish) went on to be 1st & 2nd in the World Championships that year.
As has become to the habitual annoyance of fellow players, I had the last laugh : the trophy offerings that year were diabolicallly few (one for the winner - Dreyer - and one each for the members of the 3-a-side winning team). Alongside Bruno Giraudon and Tomas Larsson (French & Swede), I claimed the only trophy won by a British player that year. Unfair really because Ivan Woodward was far more deserving with his 3rd place in the individual tournament. Even so, heading back for the Eurostar, it was too good an opportunity to miss .... I had to zip the base of my new trophy in the holdall, with the cup part gleaming out .... right under the noses of the other Brits :-)
Anyways, next week is the 2001 WDC in Paris. Time to relieve Mr Bouton of his burdenous crown and, hopefully, add to the trophy collection with that ever-elusive World Championship title. Just hope I don't have to wait until I'm Richard Sharp's age to win it ;-)"

[Tom] You go to Paris... and play games!? There must be better things to do in Paris than play games? On the other hand, everything I can think of costs a lot of money. :-(
There's not much I can add to this, but thanks for filling us in re the World Tournament game [and most of the UK PBM hobby history]. So, you still owe Paul Simpkins 10p, eh? I'm surprised he's let you live so long.

Mark Boyle [19/07/01] re the Sopwith game inventor Dave Dyer writes -
"Just a small message to Dave Dyer. For the 15 years of fun your masterpiece has brought me (as well as countless others), tapadh leibh agus deagh dhùrachd!"

[Tom] I have to agree with Mark here about the 15 years of fun... but that Welsh is double Dutch to me, Mark... I hope you haven't sworn at him.

Brian Frew [15/07/01] writes -
"There comes a time in the life of a man when one finds oneself agreeing with Richard Sharp. It has come to me!
Guy Fraser-Sampson's comments in the letter column with regard to "systems which give points for places" revives an old argument - as I am sure you are aware. Let me be blunt. There are no such thing as "places" in a Diplomacy game. The original rules have no truck with this concept. There are only three possible outcomes when you start a Dip game...a) you win outright with 18 or more centres; b) you are part of an agreed draw with all remaining survivors; c) you lose.
Now this may seem (and indeed is) a trifle harsh on the noble chap who battles on until the end against all adversity. However, if he is left on one centre and someone else has 18 he has lost. Just as much a loser is the man on 15. Now, this chap may console himself all he likes that he came "2nd", but the fact is that he is just as much a loser as the first player eliminated in the game. If someone has won then the rest have lost. I think that scoring systems should reflect this as it adheres to the rules of the game.
Of course, in the wider world, things have become blurred. Face-to-face tournaments have been running scoring systems based on places for donkey's years. The "Worldmasters" tournament I am currently playing in has a similar system. However this is done for convenience due to time pressure. This is not the case in Dip2000 games which can be played to a natural conclusion as per the rules. Therefore there is no need for a scoring system which takes account of places. "

[Tom] I have to agree with you entirely, Brian - I've always played and seen the game this way. This is one of the reasons why I'm not bothered about chasing my name up the board. And you're quite right, there is no need for a dip2000 scoring system. But as Paul Simpkins pointed out when he first started, all his stats were done for fun. I think that's the way the others are treating them as well; they're fun; they're enjoying it; and they are stat fanatics. Leave them to it I say. It still gains a lot of interest for a lot of players. :-)

Dave Dyer [09/07/01] inventor of the original Sopwith boardgame writes -
"Dear Tom,
Came across your web-page http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/other_games/sopwith.htm and am glad to see Sopwith still being played (it's now 25 years since it originally appeared!). Couldn't resist the urge to comment on a few of your remarks on the history of the game -
I came up with the idea for the game after playing some drearily complex air warfare games that were around at the time (particularly SPI's Airwar - if I remember correctly). The simultaneous move aspect of the game was probably inspired by 'Diplomacy', and I think the idea for the control panels came from 'Formula One'.
Several American companies considered producing the game - Milton Bradley kept a prototype for some time but eventually decided it was a little too complex for children (particularly ones who had trouble telling left from right) - although MB later 'borrowed' the game- mechanism (on a square grid) for one of their ill-fated Microvision hand-held electronic games. The original version of the game was not really marketed as a wargame - Gametime Games (who were a division of Heritage Models) marketed a set of six games in the same series as 'beer & pretzel' games. The production was exactly the same as my prototype game apart from replacing metal control-panels and magnetic pieces with cardboard equivalents. The game sold reasonably well, but Gametime went bust after about 18 months (taking most of my royalty payments with them).
You're right that the second (English version) was inferior - this version came about because I happened to meet some people who were setting up a game distribution company and had contacts with toy retailers (Toys'R' Us etc). Only 2000 of this version were made - more or less as an experiment to see whether there was any demand for this type of game; the 'screens' were an economy measure to save on the cost of producing control-panels and I was never very happy with them. The rules were identical, the 'silly' rules you mention were optional add- ins and were really there to encourage players to invent their own modifications for the game.
Anyway, glad to know the game's still providing some amusement."

[Tom] Hello Dave!
My god, it has been I few years. I think the last time I talked to you you were working in your games shop, somewhere in Brighton I think [that WAS you, wasn't it?]. I was asking for your permission to run the game postally, and to see if you were re-releasing the boardgame again.
As I said in the 'article' - I bought the last 10 or 20 copies and they sold like hotcakes. It's a shame that original set died out, as it became fairly popular in the Play By Mail Hobby. It was perfect for postal game play - and is just as good for the internet.
Of course I'm not sure how popular boardgames actually are in today's hi-tech computer orientated world of internet and electronic gaming. But I do know that the Diplomacy game is still bought because the players need to get their hands on the rules. That's why we put as rule #1 "RULES: Rules will be as per the Sopwith [or Diplomacy] rule book..."
It's a shame to hear you were ripped off from getting your royalties though. Do you still own the rights to the game?
Thanks for getting in touch though Dave with the Sopwith game history. I think perhaps I should update Steve's article - it was done quite a dew years ago now.

Paul Simpkins [25/06/01] regarding Dan Martin's letter on 'Susan' points writes -
"This is easily done but the last time I tried something like this an individual who didn't have a very good record objected in quite a nasty way (you were copied in on the discussion) so I took it out. I'm not sure if it would be very popular.
On the stats front I now have JWO and Tim Sweeney who have expressed an interest so I'll be putting a couple of buttons on my stats main page which will lead to their stats pages. They have a free hand at present and access to the Excel spreadsheet so I've no idea what they'll come up with. In time I might ask them to do specific tasks like keep Calhamer table up to date. "

[Tom] I'm surprised someone would actually turn nasty regarding anything on the states. After all they join a public site, all moves are recorded, and everyone know the games/players are rated. Strange.
Nice to see a couple of others are getting involved in the stats. Well done, fellahs.

Guy Fraser-Sampson [24/06/01] writes -
"I was interested to see Dan Martin's latter re the Stats pages. I'm sure Paul won't mind me revealing that this is a discussion I have already had with him privately by email. Like you, Tom, I find it hard that players like Jon Hucknall who battle on with one unit should be treated in the same way as someone who stops submitting orders after 1901.
Originally on this site Paul had two systems up and running, one of which gave credit for survival as well as winning. I can quite understand how this may be too much to maintain given the incredible number and variety of outcomes as more games come to an end, but it does seem a little sad that both systems which Paul now uses (Wilman and Calhammer) should reward only wins (or draws). In the old days,we used various systems which gave points for "places", and in the event of a draw shared out the available points (e.g. for a three way draw you got an equal share of the sum of the points available for the first three places). This is obviously open to the argument that it encourages "alliance" play, but isn't this one valid way (out of many) to play the game? It also gives points for survival, which rewards the honourable player and penalises the drop-out. With at least one measure already being used to reward wins and draws, maybe this would be a valid alternative table? However, I can quite understand Paul's position that doing something like this in your spare time would require an impossible number of hours. He's already doing an amazing job as it is! So please treat this as idle musing, Paul, and not as any sort of criticism. I for one really admire the stats page and applaud it as a great piece of work."

[Tom] I think drop-out are penalised well enough anyway, Guy - we no longer allow them to play further games on dip2000. But I'll let Paul answer some of this in his letter above.

Dan Martin [22/06/01] writes -
"Whilst I unfortunately do not have the excel skills (nor time to be honest) apply for the Sorcerer's apprentice position in assiting with the stats pages, I did notice one interesting point.
In the games that I have participated and finished (and its only Geranium, Nettle, Boreas and Saltwater), managed to come "runner up" 3 times and joint winner of Boreas.
I was wondering, out of idle curiostity and hopefully to flag my sagging ego, if this is a good return ?
This led me on to consider whether a League Table for Failures (or Near Misses) is worthwhile ? Maybe it would be called something less grand than the Wilman or Calhamer - perhaps the Susan points system, to reflect that it should not carry as much weight as the others....
Is this idea simply reflecting my relative inexperience in diplomacy, or does someone managing to wade through an entire game with Turkey and finish with the second highest number of units actually deserve anything ?
Any thoughts would be much appreciated.
Thanks to you and all the other GMs etc for providing a great site and fine service to all us diplomers who cannot hope to find 6 friends/family interested enough to play a face to face game"

[Tom] Many thanks for the kind words Dan - we do our best. Certainly I couldn't do all this without my GMs. Trouble is they KNOW all this now, so my berating them as slackers and miscreants of the lowest water doesn't seem to faze them anymore. I can't have them believing they're indispensable though now, can I?
As for a 'Susan' table in the stats... it's not something I can comment on really - it's Paul who does all the diplomacy stats for the site. He does have a survivors table though.
One thing I CAN say though [and I think Paul will agree with me here], the REAL heroes on this site are the players who stick it out until the very end of their games. Players like Jon Hucknall, and many others with just one unit, playing on knowing they can never win, but not wanting to spoil the game for the others. Thanks fellahs, we don't give you credit enough.

Paul Simpkins [14/06/01] writes -
"I've looked at the final game in the world dip tourney where Lee Simpson won and it's clear that he did remarkably well. BUT you have to ask yourself why Toby Harris - who I gather to be an excellent Dip player - resigned and also why he took North Sea in 1901 yet moved back to England and allowed Germany to occupy it unopposed.
I cannot imagine any England who gains the North Sea allowing Germany to take it. It is the german dream to take NTH. Even if you build a second fleet in Kiel it's several moves to take the North Sea yet Germany did so unopposed. And why did England make the pathetic move back to England - there was no threat! Obviously there is more to this situation than meets the eye. Whatever the situation Lee did brilliantly to recover it.
Incidentally it's disappointing to see only part of the game posted on the site. For such an important game I'd expect the entire game."

[Tom] Yes, you are so right, Paul. I did mention to Lee that it was a shame this game [and games like it] wouldn't be archived. I mentioned also that it was a shame his press would be lost as well - good stuff, reminded me of Richard Sharp's Bedbug Island series.
And like yourself, I did wonder what Toby Harries was trying to achieve. My thoughts were perhaps he had a falling out with France, got really peed off with him and tried to sabotage the game by letting Germany have an easy time of it. Unusual tactic for Toby though. I think Lee did astonishingly well to claw his way back in to a win.

Andrew Lane [03/06/01] writes -
"I know Lee having played against him in the semi-finals of the 99 World Masters. I'm afraid it was not a distinquished game for me - it is the only game in which I've been eliminated in since returning to the hobby. I was Turkey, Lee was Austria. I agreed a Juggernaught with a strong Russia (Jim Mahoney), misordered in F01 so earning his scorn and then set myself up for a devastating stab from him in 1903. Lee and I talked several times as I tried to persuade him to come to my aid. In a game full of strong players (most had won solos in the first round - Lee seemed one of the strongest and most persistant and patient in his Diplomacy.
His E mail is leesimpson147@supanet.com . Like me he is again in the 2nd round of the WM00 so with luck we will play again in the semi's or finals.
One final thing - he is a journalist and writes excellent witty press commentary on the progress of the game - the only highlight for me of that game."

[Tom] Ouch! How do you misorder in F01 in a quality game like that? Scorn? I'm not surprised. :-)

Lee Simpson [02/06/01] when asked about his winning game wrote -
"It was somewhat marred by a lot of acrimony amongst certain players, which is sad for the world final. But I sure thought it was interesting. I actually took over in S02 when the illustrious Toby Harris dropped out from the position of an England beset by a concerted F, G, R blitz against him. Under the rules of the Tournament a replacement player by S02 was still eligible for the Championship if he won the game (and I was the 8th highest scoring player at the end of the semis, so eligible for the vacant seat at the top table) but nobody much, including myself, felt that my place in the final was otherwise going to be anything but short lived. But everything went like a dream.
By F03 France was dead. By F04 I had Swe and no Russian naval force in the north. F05 I took Bel and Den from Germany and persuaded him to disband both his fleets. From that point it was starting to look like an English theme park. F06 I put the cork in the bottle by taking Stp and launched a fleet into Mid, breaking my dmz with Italy and his hopes for a win. Faced with the choice of either fighting me and ending up squeezed and eliminated between England and Turkey, Italy bit his lip and made favourable peace terms with me on the hopes that he could still come second, and by F07 it was looking certain I would board-top by F12, which the game was deadlined to. F08 everybody was willing to concede that I couldn't be stopped from board-topping. F09 and it was certain that I couldn't be stopped from achieving an outright victory and in F10 I ended it on 18 dots.
I don't know if you are familiar with the Worldmasters site.
The homepage for the current tournament (in which I'm not doing very well) is:
http://worldmasters2000.diplomacy.org.uk/ Although the M99 Final is covered more fully on the bulletin board at:
http://webforum.cloud-nine.com/~worldmasters99/login"

Steve Turner [01/06/01] writes -
"E-MAIL GAME CHAMPION The Bucks Examiner - 01/06/01 "A talent for tactics has clinched an Amersham man European domination. Lee Simpson, of Leywood Close, has become reigning world champion in the Worldmasters E-mail Diplomacy Tournament.

The 49-year-old interviewer with the Office for National Statistics said: "This made me first replacement when the finalist playing England dropped out after the first two turns from what had quickly deteriorated into a dire posiion.

"But, I was able to turn this around and, with the game only two-thirds through, I secured a position which all conceded was unbeatable."

....this sounds incredible."

[Tom] I have to admit Steve, from that scenario it does sound impressive.

Tom Craig [25/05/01] writes -
"I have just have visited the Letters page for the first time in a while and noticed with interest how you expressed in your reply to Nick Shears' most recent e-mail your wonder at how people find the site "as [you] haven't submitted it to any search engines, and don't advertise it."
Well, I have been sad enough to investigate this phenomenon and think I have found out part of the secret behind our popularity (besides our inherent brilliance, naturally)... Have you tried typing "diplomacy" into AltaVista.co.uk? We have three pages in the top six. NorthernLight.com? Dip2000 sits proudly at #2. Excite.co.uk? We're #4. Google.com? #20. Lycos.co.uk? We dominate the listings with six pages in the top ten. I didn't try any others but given these I would expect similar results. Not bad for a site that hasn't been submitted to any search engines!
What with word of mouth as well, I think you're fighting a losing battle! :-)"

[Tom] Oh hell... I think you're right TC. It must be because I submitted my Dalmatian site to the engines - the bloody spiders must have crawled right though *all* my sites! :-(
But how, I wonder - there's no actual link between the three sites.

Nick Shears [22/05/01] writes -
"Martin and I have now exchanged a couple of emails and re-established our acquaintance after a gap of nearly 30 years. Thanks for making that possible.
You ask what I've been up to ... well, I moved into IT around 1987 and have been happy there ever since. I moved up to Nottingham four years, where I work as an IT manager for a blind manufacturing company.
Audrey and I have a twelve year old daughter named Thembi, and whilst I've maintained my passion for music (especially African and other forms of roots and folk music, as well as various forms of rock) I've not been involved in gaming of any sort for many years. I spent some time working for the local National Childbirth Trust, and did some fanzine publishing for a small music-focused apa. I never did write the novel for which I gave up publishing DAS - perhaps I was more in love with the idea of having written than I was with actually writing! I spent a while as a member of the Green Party until disillusionment set in, and haven't been actively involved in politics for a long time.
The web site www.nickshears.com doesn't have anything worth looking at yet, but I intend to change that.
I'm glad you were driven out retirement, Tom. Perhaps in a few years I'll draw breath and sign up for a game, but I don't think that's likely in the near future.
Funnily enough, I made contact with Brian Creese again the other day, whom I haven't seen for about 11 years. Good game, this Internet."

[Tom] Yes I heard from Brian last year when he wanted me [dip2000] to advertise BAYCON [which I did]. Haven't heard from him since then though.
What I cannot understand is how you found dip2000 and Martin's letter in the first place! Especially as you haven't played the game for years. I often wonder how people find the site anyway, as I haven't submitted it to any search engines, and I don't advertise it.

Edi Birsan [19/05/01] writes -
"I was interested in your sites summary of the opening and found it strange how rarely Germany opens to the Baltic and the bias indicated in the Turkish moves as I would have thought there would be more cases of Fleet Ankara to Con."

[Tom] Actually I hadn't seen that until you pointed it out, Edi [been too busy catching up on emails and updating the site after my deadline weekend]. It's a new addition to the stats - and yes, you're right, it is quite interesting. I have to admit though, I have nothing to do with it - Paul Simpkins is our statsman [though I believe Steve Turner had a hand in this particular list - well done guys!].

Edi continued -
"On a separate subject I would like to get a hold of the Argentinian player since I have just come back from Brazil and they are going to have another regional tournament in Sao Palo which is easily reached from Argentina."

[Tom] Yes, his name is Francisco Rodriguez Daniel and his address is lepibe@yahoo.com
He still playing in TRAFALGAR, GMd by John Gidman.

Edi again -
"By the way, you have no easy way to email the web master on any of your pages and I only got this address from the bio page.
Will any of you be going to Paris in July or the EDC in Oct?"

[Tom] I won't be that's for sure [no money!]. I don't know how you 'jet-setting' types manage it myself. But I can't answer for anyone else on the dip2000 team or site.
As for my email link... I used to have my name and link under the logo as webmaster when I first started the site, but as I gained more and more GMs I felt they were just as much webmasters to the site as I was, so I put all our names down at the bottom of the front/home page as the dip2000 team. I thought it easier.

Steve Russell [15/05/01] writes -
"I've been playing wargames and boardgames for around 35yrs now, often as a solo player. The periods I've covered are from Ancients to Ultra modern and Fantasy to Sci-Fi. My main Period however is Colonial, W.W.I and W.W.II and thus the interest in Diplomacy.
The biggest problem I've found in all my years in playing games, is how hard it is to get involved in various groups, if you're a new player. Or new to the area.
Many groups and clubs seem to have their regular players and seem to see outsiders as an invasion of their hobby and thier game. and that's the reason I play solo most of the time. I've wanted to be involved in Diplomacy for a number of years. But have found it quite hard to get a game going with the various Zines and email service's.
I seemed to be waiting for ages to get involved, there seemed to be a hard core of gamers, that were playing all the time. I tried Diplomatic Pouch, which I think is a great website, But It is still not a very friendly site in a way, and the Judges not very personnal.
So I just wanted to say, when I found your site, it was like a breath of fresh air. Friendly and personal, and I'm already in a game with one of your GMs, Jan [[JW]], who seems a nice fellow. I've been waiting ages for other games to start. But with your service I already feel part of the team. I like your website the best of all the others I have tried, I'm looking forward to many games, and making new friends (and enemies). Well done indeed."

[Tom] Thanks for the kind words, Steve - but don't let anyone else hear you say JW is a nice bloke [especially JW himself], we'd never hear the end of it, and you may even make a lot of quick enemies! Mind you, as you say, we do try to keep this site friendly. :-)
You don't say which zines you've tried - whether UK zines, American or European. Waiting lists in some UK zines seem to take a long time, that's for sure. But a lot are now linked to their own websites and offer email games as well. Mike Deans' Psychopath for a start [see 'Links' Page].

Ken Marten [13/05/01] writes -
"Quite by coincidence, I've had the opportunity to chat with a number of Dip 2000 players who have experienced solo wins. In discussing the games, it's become apparent that a anarchies play no small part in quite a few solos. I know NMRs and anarchies are concerns frequently addressed. There is nothing I hate more in a game than witnessing an NMR, and holding my breath to see if it will be followed by another. I'm currently in Waterloo, GMed by John Gidman. We've had four powers go into anarchy.
Most players put a lot of stock into solo wins, and it's easy to see who has them as the games and statistics are recorded. In the games in which I'm playing, it hasn't been uncommon to receive emails along these lines: "Look out for that guy playing Germany. He has a solo win under his belt. He must be a real mastermind." Instead, the truth about the solo win can often in part be attributed to neighbors going into anarchy, allowing the winner to have an easy time of it.
So, is it possible in the game results information to include something about powers going into anarchy? It would more accurately explain how players obtained their solo wins. Just a thought."

[Tom] Actually what Ken says here is quite true - some games have had as much as 4 or 5 drop-outs/anarchies. Who COULDN'T win a game with only three players when one side of the board may be standing still?

Nick Shears [06/05/01] writes -
"Hi, Tom, here's a blast from the past, to quote your own words. You had a letter from Martin Green which mentioned my name as starting the Diplomacy hobby in South Africa in the 70's. Actually that was an honour which belonged to Bernie Ackermann, but I'm honoured to have been remembered! Martin and I were at school together, but I don't think we've been in touch since we left school in 1973. If you have an email address for him, I'd love to get back in contact with him.
The zine Martin remembers was "Down Alien Skies", which I published in SA in 1973. I actually started publishing it again in the UK in about 1979, when it lasted for a year or two. That was when you and I "met". In fact, Janet was kind enough to help me move a couple of storage heaters from a friend's house in Aylesbury with Brian Crease.
I haven't played Diplomacy for years and years, and had assumed it was all Internet based these days. Glad to see you're still involved and going strong."

[Tom] Hello Nick! Stone the bloody crows! It's like seeing a ghost, you turning up after all these years. My god, my site is turning into an old codger's reunion centre... it'll turn into an online meeting place for relatives and ex- lovers next! Yes, Martin's address is: famgreen@iafrica.com
He's playing in quite a few games on the site. You could have found him by clicking on the 'search' button and typing his name [player's addresses are all at the bottom of each game].
As for me 'going strong' in the diplomacy world... it's not my doing! You can blame Agar, Turner and Hucknall for dragging me kicking and screaming out of a 20 year retirement - Agar for starting me on the road to this nightmare, and Turner and Hucknall for keeping my nose to the grindstone. Hey! You don't want to take over dip2000 do you Nick? It'll look good as DAS 2000, don't you think? :-)

Letters that I think of interest to you [if and when I get them] will be included here.

Archived Letters [199KB]