Worst starting country

[Spartaculous]

Due to Germany encompassing multiple different climates, its geography allows it to support multiple different industries, allowing it to get an early game advantage in its economy. Although terrain is important, it is key to remember the economical implications of other countries.

Arggh. I have to consider terrain *and* economy? No wonder I am doing so poorly.

[Pengwinja]

Due to Germany encompassing multiple different climates, its geography allows it to support multiple different industries, allowing it to get an early game advantage in its economy. Although terrain is important, it is key to remember the economical implications of other countries.

Arggh. I have to consider terrain *and* economy? No wonder I am doing so poorly.

And that’s not even getting into internal politics and citizen moral.

[JustAGuyNamedWill]

Due to Germany encompassing multiple different climates, its geography allows it to support multiple different industries, allowing it to get an early game advantage in its economy. Although terrain is important, it is key to remember the economical implications of other countries.

Arggh. I have to consider terrain *and* economy? No wonder I am doing so poorly.

Wait until he hears about the stock exchange.

[Pengwinja]

Sorry, I almost forgot about climate. Russia is a good starting country, because its cold climate allows it to be impervious to invasion. Always remember to equip your troops with winter gear, or they may succumb to the cold environment. (Looking at you, Napoleonic France).

[DrFidelis]

I do wonder how this will affect the World Diplomacy meta, I imagine the American powers will have a good economy even without globalization.

[JustAGuyNamedWill]

Wait, why does a Diplomacy game with outside factors sound fun? Board game idea? Lol

[CaptainFritz28]

Wait, why does a Diplomacy game with outside factors sound fun? Board game idea? Lol

Look up "War Room" by Larry Harris (same guy who designed Axis and Allies). While it does have dice, it does a better job conveying the importance of some territories for resources, the impact of battles on homeland morale, etc.

[Pengwinja]

Wait, why does a Diplomacy game with outside factors sound fun? Board game idea? Lol

Look up "War Room" by Larry Harris (same guy who designed Axis and Allies). While it does have dice, it does a better job conveying the importance of some territories for resources, the impact of battles on homeland morale, etc.

I have a fear of dice, which is why I play diplomacy.

[JECE]

Wait, why does a Diplomacy game with outside factors sound fun? Board game idea? Lol

https://diplomacyzines.co.uk/home/contents/the-arda-classification-system/r-rules-revisions-using-the-regular-board-no-or-minor-map-changes/

https://diplomacyzines.co.uk/home/contents/the-arda-classification-system/y-diplomacy-related-games-non-variants/

[Diplomacy&Warfare]

From the game's designer (although that doesn't mean it's automatically true):
https://diplomacyzines.co.uk/strategy-tactics/articles-by-alan-b-calhamer/across-the-whole-board/

"As Diplomacy progressed from its initial form to its final market form, it was played frequently by a group of good players who steadily progressed in their understanding of the game against steadily improving opponents. The strength of the countries as determined by experience within this group ran from Turkey at the strongest down through Britain, France, Italy, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and lastly, Germany. We note the close correspondence of that list to the list of countries in reverse order of the number of neighbours, as read off the network: Turkey, 2; England, France and Italy, 3; Russia and Austria-Hungary, 4; Germany 5."

Indeed, this is not automatically true, and is probably entirely false. Turkey should be way lower, Germany a lot higher, and why is Italy tied for 2nd?

[Pengwinja]

From the game's designer (although that doesn't mean it's automatically true):
https://diplomacyzines.co.uk/strategy-tactics/articles-by-alan-b-calhamer/across-the-whole-board/

"As Diplomacy progressed from its initial form to its final market form, it was played frequently by a group of good players who steadily progressed in their understanding of the game against steadily improving opponents. The strength of the countries as determined by experience within this group ran from Turkey at the strongest down through Britain, France, Italy, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and lastly, Germany. We note the close correspondence of that list to the list of countries in reverse order of the number of neighbours, as read off the network: Turkey, 2; England, France and Italy, 3; Russia and Austria-Hungary, 4; Germany 5."

Indeed, this is not automatically true, and is probably entirely false. Turkey should be way lower, Germany a lot higher, and why is Italy tied for 2nd?

Because terrain, obviously.

In all honesty, i have no idea what this is saying. Is it saying that the ones at the highest of the list are the most avoided, or the ones at the bottom?

[CaptainFritz28]

Calhamer's list is based off of the amount of connections that each nation has. Germany has five neigbors, thus they are on the bottom of the list. Turkey only has two, so they're at the top.

I'm not saying I agree with it, just that it's an interesting perspective.

[Aristocrat]

It's worth noting that the Calhamer list is so old it predates the Lepanto (the article does discuss the Lepanto as a "development" that may change Diplomacy game theory, but the above list does not incorporate it). I was not alive back then, but by all accounts Diplomacy was a very different game in the 50s/60s/70s.

Edit: It also would not surprise me if there was a substantial unconscious bias towards a England-France alliance among UK/US players in the early days of the game, for obvious reasons. That would also help account for England being seen as substantially stronger than it is now.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Diplomacy is so weird in this regard.

I play several 2-player board games that feature asymmetric competition (War of the Ring, Undaunted: North Africa, Watergate), but these games are so thoroughly playtested that win rates for experienced players almost always conform to 50/50 for either role.

Diplomacy just said screw it, let's make a game that is blatantly unbalanced and allow press + playgroup culture to bring things back towards balance.

However, many decades later, classic Diplomacy remains extremely unbalanced in most play groups even though there are more data, articles, and videos about Diplomacy strategy than ever. Common knowledge about, say, Austria's on-average weakness could be an advantage for Austria (e.g., Austria can credibly claim not to be a threat in the early game), but it also ends up being a deficit (e.g., since Austria's weak, other players should conspire to just take them out early).

No doubt different playgroups will settle on different meta strategies. Excellent press play can theoretically get one out of any pickle. But for press players on a site like WebDip, which I assume has similar play statistics to those found on VDip, it is undeniably disadvantageous to start as some nations (especially Austria and Italy). This disadvantage seems to persist even though most players know that these nations are the hardest to win with.

I don't find this aspect of Diplomacy particularly charming. If a new board game came out in 2024 with these balance issues, I wouldn't hesitate to call it poor game design. The combination of poor balance and permanent elimination are why my IRL box of Diplomacy will almost never get used.

[Pengwinja]

I, personally, believe that there is no worst starting country for press games.

The reason being is because the main aspect of diplomacy do not change from country, and that main aspect is, you guessed it, diplomacy. Sure, from country to country, position changes, but their ability to manipulate others and to work with each other does NOT change. Some people may be natural enemies, but that doesn’t mean there is an uneven balance in their ability to make alliances. When a game that is mostly played off the board, you cannot use just the board to try and determine which country is better.

Non-press games have a difference, because you don’t make alliances verbally. It must be an understanding. For example, Austria and Turkey are almost NEVER going to make an alliance, but if they can talk each other into it, they could make an alliance. If they can no longer talk to each other, the chance that was already slim goes to practically none, because they are natural enemies. Both of the countries may want to be allies, but, if they think the other country doesn’t, they will not. In that case, the game is played off of strategies.

Essentially, Non-press games are based off of already existing strategies, and press is based off of diplomatic relations. This doesn’t mean that press games don’t have any strategy, but if you are smooth talker, you can throw other peoples strategies out the window.

This is what I think is true. Please feel free to make corrections and ask question.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I, personally, believe that there is no worst starting country for press games.

The reason being is because the main aspect of diplomacy do not change from country, and that main aspect is, you guessed it, diplomacy. Sure, from country to country, position changes, but their ability to manipulate others and to work with each other does NOT change. Some people may be natural enemies, but that doesn’t mean there is an uneven balance in their ability to make alliances. When a game that is mostly played off the board, you cannot use just the board to try and determine which country is better.

Non-press games have a difference, because you don’t make alliances verbally. It must be an understanding. For example, Austria and Turkey are almost NEVER going to make an alliance, but if they can talk each other into it, they could make an alliance. If they can no longer talk to each other, the chance that was already slim goes to practically none, because they are natural enemies. Both of the countries may want to be allies, but, if they think the other country doesn’t, they will not. In that case, the game is played off of strategies.

Essentially, Non-press games are based off of already existing strategies, and press is based off of diplomatic relations. This doesn’t mean that press games don’t have any strategy, but if you are smooth talker, you can throw other peoples strategies out the window.

This is what I think is true. Please feel free to make corrections and ask question.

I agree that press/diplomacy could, in theory, equalize all nations.

In practice, however, there is overwhelming evidence that it does not.

Any real game data I've looked at suggests that some nations are quite strongly disadvantaged.

[Pengwinja]

I, personally, believe that there is no worst starting country for press games.

The reason being is because the main aspect of diplomacy do not change from country, and that main aspect is, you guessed it, diplomacy. Sure, from country to country, position changes, but their ability to manipulate others and to work with each other does NOT change. Some people may be natural enemies, but that doesn’t mean there is an uneven balance in their ability to make alliances. When a game that is mostly played off the board, you cannot use just the board to try and determine which country is better.

Non-press games have a difference, because you don’t make alliances verbally. It must be an understanding. For example, Austria and Turkey are almost NEVER going to make an alliance, but if they can talk each other into it, they could make an alliance. If they can no longer talk to each other, the chance that was already slim goes to practically none, because they are natural enemies. Both of the countries may want to be allies, but, if they think the other country doesn’t, they will not. In that case, the game is played off of strategies.

Essentially, Non-press games are based off of already existing strategies, and press is based off of diplomatic relations. This doesn’t mean that press games don’t have any strategy, but if you are smooth talker, you can throw other peoples strategies out the window.

This is what I think is true. Please feel free to make corrections and ask question.

I agree that press/diplomacy could, in theory, equalize all nations.

In practice, however, there is overwhelming evidence that it does not.

Any real game data I've looked at suggests that some nations are quite strongly disadvantaged.

Diplomacy is a balancing mechanic, but yes, data shows that there are countries that have a disadvantage. Data can be incorrect if not interpreted correctly though. Could you tell me what data you are using, and how you are interpreting it?

[Pengwinja]

I’m mainly asking because almost all the arguments for the worst country in diplomacy are opinionated, and i prefer to stand by the facts.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Thinking about this more, it makes sense that press can't totally overwhelm the strategic reality of the board.

If players are rational they can't just be talked into anything.

Moreover, press is itself competitive. If I'm in a ranked game with players who are just as good as me at press, then the board disadvantage really does matter.

If we made some extremely weak new playable nation on the Classic map (say, a one-unit Switzerland), I wouldn't expect that nation to have an equal chance of getting into the final draw in a genuinely competitive game.

[Aristocrat]

I’m mainly asking because almost all the arguments for the worst country in diplomacy are opinionated, and i prefer to stand by the facts.

There are various articles around, https://diplom.org/Zine/F2006M/Burton/DP_F2006M_best_powers.htm for one example. I know this site's sister site (vdip) also has stats.

I think the above link follows what is pretty consistently stated over time - that France/Russia tends to be the strongest country in press, and Italy/Austria the worst. And the stats are not super close (France is in a win or draw in the above stats about 45% more than Austria is; Russia's solo rate is about 80% above Italy's).