Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)
http://www.diplom.org/Zine/S1995M/Dreier/NoTheory.html
Now for the second reason, a less obvious one. Allan Calhamer,
Diplomacy's
creator, said that there is no luck in Diplomacy after the initial
random
assignment of powers. He was mistaken. Diplomacy does have lots of luck
in it.
Let's see why.
Jamie Dreier
Brown University
from Spring 1995 Movement
================================================================================
Hi,
Within this news group, rec.games.diplomacy, there does exist an
article on
chance written sometime since the beginning of 2002 which contains
many, many
responses. Given the length of that thread, I have only had a chance
to glance
at some of the responses within it. So, what I may say may be a
repetition of
what was said before.
Above, is a quote from an article at the given web site address written
by
Jamie Dreier in 1995.
In this hopefully short article to the news group, I will touch upon
the issue
of luck in a small way as concerns the playing of the game, Diplomacy.
As pointed out in the above article at www.diplom.org, sometimes the
attacker is
faced with a situation where the probability of the success of an
attack of a
particular supply center is dependent upon what the defender does;
and, since
you don't know what the defender will do (unless you have good
intelligence, and
we will assume for this article that you never have reliable
intelligence), your
best strategy is to flip a coin.
Small point number 1. Actually, the article says that you may flip a
coin or
flip a weighted coin. Question: if you want to take any supply center
of the
enemy, and you want to take it as soon as possible, should the coin be
fair or
should it be weighted? Answer (in my opinion, welcoming other points
of view
if I am mistaken): the most efficient way to capture a supply center
of
opportunity is to flip an evenly weighted coin to determine how the
actual
orders will be written that turn (i.e., to determine which one of the
supply
centers will attempt to be taken that turn). This is true regardless
of any
strategy or any changing strategy used by the defender (I have not had
a chance
prove this very last point, but I feel that it is probably true).
Small point number 2: I think that the following can be said about the
situation when you are flipping a coin to decide how to grab one supply
center
of opportunity when there are two to choose from and the defender is
putting up
a fight. The probability of not capturing it by the first turn's
attempt
is 1/2. The probability of not capturing it by the second turn's
attempt is
1/4. The probability of not capturing it the third turn's attempt is
1/8. And
so one. However, keep in mind that these probabilities are determined
before
your first turn's attempt. Every time you make an attempt, the
probability of
success is always fifty percent. I guess my subtle point here is that
even
though things are not totally determinant for this situation (you don't
know
for certain if you will capture one of the supply centers of
opportunity), the
only question, really, is when you will capture one of the supply
centers. The
fact that this information can be determined probabilistically can most
likely
be leveraged into a decision matrix. In short, chance is involved, but
it
places you within the realm of the science of probability and you can
potentially base decisions upon information derived from this science.
The same
would be true if you redefined the movement of the military units in
the game
and decided to use dice to determine which units held and which
retreated. The
beauty of diplomacy, and this is another topic, is that in many
situations, if
you cooporate with another major power, you don't have to worry so much
about
these probabilities! That is, I believe, not having yet played
Diplomacy, one
of the true beauties of the game! And it clearly separates the game
from a
game where battles are resolved by throwing dice. [For instance, in a
dice game,
two major powers most probably will overcome an isolated power; but,
in
Diplomacy, two major powers cooperating will with certainty overcome an
isolated power (of course, these are general comments to make my point
that
a dice game always contains chance, but cooperating major powers that
reliably
trust one another can drastically reduce the play of chance for those
powers
cooperating).
Thanks
http://www.diplom.org/Zine/S1995M/Dreier/NoTheory.html
Now for the second reason, a less obvious one. Allan Calhamer,
Diplomacy's
creator, said that there is no luck in Diplomacy after the initial
random
assignment of powers. He was mistaken. Diplomacy does have lots of luck
in it.
Let's see why.
Jamie Dreier
Brown University
from Spring 1995 Movement
================================================================================
Hi,
Within this news group, rec.games.diplomacy, there does exist an
article on
chance written sometime since the beginning of 2002 which contains
many, many
responses. Given the length of that thread, I have only had a chance
to glance
at some of the responses within it. So, what I may say may be a
repetition of
what was said before.
Above, is a quote from an article at the given web site address written
by
Jamie Dreier in 1995.
In this hopefully short article to the news group, I will touch upon
the issue
of luck in a small way as concerns the playing of the game, Diplomacy.
As pointed out in the above article at www.diplom.org, sometimes the
attacker is
faced with a situation where the probability of the success of an
attack of a
particular supply center is dependent upon what the defender does;
and, since
you don't know what the defender will do (unless you have good
intelligence, and
we will assume for this article that you never have reliable
intelligence), your
best strategy is to flip a coin.
Small point number 1. Actually, the article says that you may flip a
coin or
flip a weighted coin. Question: if you want to take any supply center
of the
enemy, and you want to take it as soon as possible, should the coin be
fair or
should it be weighted? Answer (in my opinion, welcoming other points
of view
if I am mistaken): the most efficient way to capture a supply center
of
opportunity is to flip an evenly weighted coin to determine how the
actual
orders will be written that turn (i.e., to determine which one of the
supply
centers will attempt to be taken that turn). This is true regardless
of any
strategy or any changing strategy used by the defender (I have not had
a chance
prove this very last point, but I feel that it is probably true).
Small point number 2: I think that the following can be said about the
situation when you are flipping a coin to decide how to grab one supply
center
of opportunity when there are two to choose from and the defender is
putting up
a fight. The probability of not capturing it by the first turn's
attempt
is 1/2. The probability of not capturing it by the second turn's
attempt is
1/4. The probability of not capturing it the third turn's attempt is
1/8. And
so one. However, keep in mind that these probabilities are determined
before
your first turn's attempt. Every time you make an attempt, the
probability of
success is always fifty percent. I guess my subtle point here is that
even
though things are not totally determinant for this situation (you don't
know
for certain if you will capture one of the supply centers of
opportunity), the
only question, really, is when you will capture one of the supply
centers. The
fact that this information can be determined probabilistically can most
likely
be leveraged into a decision matrix. In short, chance is involved, but
it
places you within the realm of the science of probability and you can
potentially base decisions upon information derived from this science.
The same
would be true if you redefined the movement of the military units in
the game
and decided to use dice to determine which units held and which
retreated. The
beauty of diplomacy, and this is another topic, is that in many
situations, if
you cooporate with another major power, you don't have to worry so much
about
these probabilities! That is, I believe, not having yet played
Diplomacy, one
of the true beauties of the game! And it clearly separates the game
from a
game where battles are resolved by throwing dice. [For instance, in a
dice game,
two major powers most probably will overcome an isolated power; but,
in
Diplomacy, two major powers cooperating will with certainty overcome an
isolated power (of course, these are general comments to make my point
that
a dice game always contains chance, but cooperating major powers that
reliably
trust one another can drastically reduce the play of chance for those
powers
cooperating).
Thanks
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram