How about it takes 1 year for an army to march from Edinburgh to London, or from Edinburgh to St Pete? Or a fleet takes the same amount of time to go from Smyrna to Greece or North Africa to Brest, though the distances are vastly different.

I think it might be the lack of supply chains and the length of time an army stays away from home. A turkish army can go all the way to england, walking, with no problem. (plus one convoy.)

The speed and ease with which people accept their new leaders and even build them new tanks. This can happen several times...

I wouldn't change it but the way a unit can be convoyed across multiple sea's in a single turn. Convoys are the closest thing in the game to ballistic missiles.

Some of the people why play it :)

The lack of military ability. If it were realistic for WWI standards, one German army would beat one Russian army any day. Obviously, there's no way to replicate this in a strategy game, it just bothers me sometimes. Mostly when I'm losing.

"The speed and ease with which people accept their new leaders and even build them new tanks. This can happen several times..."

Conquered countries don't build them new tanks. The invading forces takes over the industrial processes, ship raw materials back home to build new tanks in the home country.

Well, for that matter, the fact that a German or British fleet is the same as a Turkish or Russian fleet is ludicrous.

I agree with the distances...it takes longer to get from London to Paris than it does to get from St. Petersburg to Sevastopol.

Correction: same time, as an army could convoy across the channel and move to Paris in the fall.

That British Isles is known as England, then they choose to paint the Clyde/Edinburgh pink..... bloody sassenachs ;)

I see now that Diplomacy is a very silly game.

I'm still trying to figure out how a fleet can convoy an army of equal size across a body of water...the damn thing would sink! :)

The fact that a march from Kiel to Venice takes less time than sailing there.

I think it is interesting the way an army can be convoyed via multiple routes at the same time - very quantum physics.

The way the seven powers are assumed to be the only military powers in play ever.
Resistances, foreign power, and native militias are not considered at all. I mean... Spain did have an army you know.

And America.... don't even get me started.
When we play face to face and teach someone new how to play... we joke that if the game makes it Spring 1918 it just ends, because the US just comes in and takes over the board regardless of who was winning.

I guess with the moving distances you need to think about whats involved. its not really an army marching from edi to london that takes a year, its moving the division HQ, equipment, setting up new suppliers for the soliders needs , families moving(in some cases), setting up forward defence outposts, building barracks and settling in so you are grounded in the new location and equal to beating off an invading army.

The fact that a fleet in the Barents could cover St.P, which is at the south coast. How can a fleet support a hold over a few hundred miles?

Most has been mentioned already... but so far I missed the fact that only one unit can be in a certain province at the time... I think the southeast of France is big enough for a fleet (in Marseilles) and an army (in any other place in the same province). Hell... even the actual city of Marseilles would be big enough for both.

Needless to say, I'm not proposing to change the rules of the game ;)

The fact that Turkey is playable is unrealistic! The Sick Man of Europe could never have even taken back Bulgaria, let alone hold its own against the Russians in the Black Sea or stand up to the Italians and Austrians.

But the reason Diplomacy is so good is the DIPLOMACY involved. Otherwise it's just dumbed down Risk rules.

That you can convoy from Brest to Smyrna in half a year, yet to walk would take many many more. Surely that's the most notable "error"?

New post Sent from: youradhere (204 ) Sent: 02:16 AM
The lack of military ability. If it were realistic for WWI standards, one German army would beat one Russian army any day. Obviously, there's no way to replicate this in a strategy game, it just bothers me sometimes. Mostly when I'm losing.
--------
Not if they were in Russia. Based on your point, its unrealistic that *any* unit can beat the Russian's in the Russian winter.
The fact all units are the same strength and aren't reinforced/weakened

I must correct the first Post. The UK (and the US by the way) did invade StPetersburg North Coast (Murmansk or Archangle) in 1918 and stayed as I recall my history to 1919.

via norway? or convoy?

It is driven by numbers, whilst in real life it often doesn't.
As said, an English fleet should be far superior than a Russian fleet, and battles are decided upon the number of fleets/armies, whilst history tells us that many great battles are won with the smaller number defeating the greater number.

Diplomacy units represent equal force not equal numbers.
A British Task Force may be equal to an Austrian Fleet, a
German Corps may be equal to an Italian army,
the game is not a military simulation but a reflection of the 'Diplomacy' of the period.

I agree that Turkey shouldnt be in it.
They were REALLY weak around 1900

Countries seem to have an almost unlimited supply of new recruits.
No technological advance, almost all wars that last more than a year see different weapons used in the end than in the beginning.
No homeland politics to worry about.

Armenia only belongs to Turkey. In real life Armenia was controlled by both Eastern powers. In fact, a Turkish army of 90,000 was virtually wiped out invading Russian Armenia.