While others here are more familiar with the interface than I am, the actual rules (the 2000 edition, which is most recent) are extremely subtle here. To the OP’s example, if you have an army you wish to swap, and it is your own fleet doing the convoying, you can just issue the order. When it is you...

http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/strategy/articles/lapland_lurch.htm Other than the last sentence, this sums up my views. GoB is correct the vast majority of the time but there exist circumstances where Fin is valid. Still an extreme fringe case. (Note: I don’t play gunboat so can’t speak ...

No. Those are not on the same level. Your belief that Kie-Den is automatic is a belief; that belief is not shared by many Diplomacy players, including but not limited to me. Con-Bul is the most automatic move in the game. In my opinion, it goes: 1. Con-Bul. There is no valid alternative. 2. StP-GoB....

Turkey has at least 4 openings that make sense—possibly more if you don’t group together equivalent sets of moves.

Russia builds an army somewhere else, not Sev. The exact builds are dependent on Russia’s other diplomacy. Arm can be convoyed anywhere. The most common is to convoy to Bul while Bul moves to Ser with support from Rum. This could theoretically be stopped but the point is to fool Austria into not bei...

Again, I don’t play gunboat, and I personally have never played this opening. I’m just pointing out that it’s not strictly inferior to a different opening—it’s for German players who want to keep Munich occupied and Kiel open. Whether you want to do that in gunboat is beyond my ability to answer wit...

Indeed. My initial thought was that Germany was gunning for Burgundy, but that's so much worse than Holland that it can't be right. I guess this opening makes sense in a meta where France would sometimes go for Ruhr in Autumn? It discourages that move. Otherwise I can't make much sense of it. I don...

I'd be interested in hearing your suggestions for alternate scoring systems that eliminate draw-whittling without changing the other incentives that DSS does a good job creating—encouraging solos and discouraging focus on how many centers you have in a draw. I don't have time for a long reply right...

The WDC system was not strictly center-based. It was very close but not quite. And it was non-zero-sum. I think it was something like: -Loss before (or at) 1910 is worth one-tenth of a point per year survived. -Draw at 1910 is worth 1 point per center plus a flat 3 extra points. -Board top is worth ...

The idea that a well-played game should usually end in a 2way is ludicrous. It happens sometimes, but I’d say that most games (played with draw-based scoring) that are well-played will end in a 3way, a solo, or a 4way. 2ways should be rare.

I will note that the language about "still having units on the board" to be allowed to participate in a draw is probably antiquated. In older versions of the rules, the victory criterion was listed as 18 units, not 18 centers. That is a potentially big difference, and it was changed. Similarly, I ha...

So instead of going down the poker rabbit hole about what exactly “soft play” means, I’ll just remark to the OP what I said originally: all you can do is to understand the mentality of these drawmongers so that you can beat them over the board. There is nothing unethical, in Diplomacy ethics, about ...

Jay: my poker analogy isn't about bad players. I agree, you can't complain about bad play, you just have to beat it. My poker analogy was about soft-playing or chip-dumping -- an agreement for one player to take it easy on another, or to lose on purpose to another -- both of which are illegal in po...

OP has gotten some good perspectives so far but I’ll add mine because like the OP, I am a serious poker player (though I’ve been a serious Diplomacy player for longer). To the OP: I would say you’re looking at this wrong from a “mental game” perspective. In both poker and Diplomacy, when someone is ...

This is a controversial topic and you are likely to get some disagreement.

I for one believe that having no units on the board while also not owning any of your own home centers should count as an elimination.

For anyone who may have been interested, the original article has been revised.

Mostly articles, not books. Diplomatic Pouch has some good stuff. diplomacy-archive.com is good too. It also contains the only full-length strategy book I know of: The Game of Diplomacy, by Richard Sharp. But unlike a game such as chess, most expert players will not follow the texts to the letter (t...

Not sure why this is counterintuitive. You moved out of the Black Sea. When you order your unit to leave a space and it succeeds, the unit doesn't defend the space it left. Any unit is free to follow behind it. The fleet moving from Sev is different because--intuitively--it "ran into" the attacking ...

The actual rule from the rulebook is as follows: " A convoyed Army does not cut the support of a unit supporting an attack against one of the Fleets necessary of the Army to convoy. This is a tricky and rare situation, but without this rule (Using Diagram 30 as an example), a paradox may occur." No...

Not a paradox. There is a specific rule that covers this. The support is not cut, and the convoy fails. It would be a paradox if there were two other fleets, such as Den and Hol, that were also attacking Nth. In that case, a ruling that the convoy fails means the fleet should not be dislodged, but r...