The fact that each power has a viable chance of winning does not negate the fact that some powers can be stronger or weaker than others intrinsically.

This sort of argument comes up in any and every game with asymmetric play and I am sick of this (frankly) vapid argument that because players have a great effect on the results of the game, the asymmetries' creation of gameplay imbalance is irrelevant.

In fighting games, for instance, or real-time strategy games, even slight advantages to one character or faction can cause gameplay to become completely lopsided in favor of that choice. I'm not suggesting that Diplomacy is imbalanced like a fighting game where only one character is a viable choice, but the game is *definitely* affected by the same issue.

In 1 on 1 pure-strategy perfect-information games like Chess and Go, players have a very strong idea of how much of an advantage it is to play one of the colors. They try to rectify this a lot of ways, such as playing multiple matches with the players alternating colors. In Go, for instance, one solution is to have the player bid for the weaker color, the bid representing how little of a handicap bonus they are willing to consider enough to play the weaker color. The lower bidder wins.
This is also a system commonly used in Axis and Allies, another asymmetric game. [although that game has a lot of luck in it, I think the point still applies.]

MANY other games with asymmetric play deliberately rectify the imbalance. Videogames usually have updates to improve the weaker side or worsen the stronger side. With board games players use ad-hoc systems to counter the advantages and disadvantages.

The reason I bring this up is to counter the argument that players need to accept asymmetric gameplay imbalances as just "part of the game." Yeah, Black wins sometimes in Chess. That is not responsive to the objective fact that White is a stronger color.
Serious players of other serious games that have been played for higher stakes and for longer periods of time than Diplomacy (some games with LESS imbalances than diplomacy) have tried to come up with some kind of solution to the imbalances. That indicates to me that the problem is real and universally applies to asymmetric games. Therefore I think, at a *bare minimum* players who take Diplomacy seriously need to acknowledge this issue. Maybe nobody will ever come up with a way to rectify it, but don't just shrug your shoulders and dismiss the problem.

A solution might be to actually change the game - to give two fleets to Italy, for instance, or to make North Africa a supply center. That might be a bit too radical, but those ideas have been used and taken seriously by players before and at the very least we should have some reasons as to why those changes would be *bad*.

Another solution could be to create a bidding system where players would bid on which power they want to play (convenient for a website like this where everyone has points, in one-shot games that solution wouldn't make much sense). This would counteract the disadvantages that players get from playing weaker powers by not having to put as much at stake when playing in the first place. That system would also be useful because it would be reactive to changes in opinions of the strengths of powers and because it would give players a way to impute their personal preferences into the power selection.
Also it would encourage players to devote more efforts to strategizing for the weaker powers because there would be an incentive to deliberately take on the challenge of playing those powers.

If some truly good and objective evidence allowed us to compute precisely how much different powers were advantaged over each other, some other solutions might be viable as well.

@swordsman:

Perhaps, the asymmetries of diplomacy creates an imbalance that cannot be overcome through strategic compensation even by perfect players. Perhaps, with 7 players executing perfect play, some powers are able to obtain a higher win/draw % than others. Whether or not this is the case, and if so, the degree of the imbalance, are certainly open questions that won't be settled by just game statistics.

However, given that players do not play perfectly and that even very good players have quite different playing styles, I am inclined to believe that the success of a player with a particular power has less to do with game imbalance but rather the compatibility of that power's asymmetric position with the personal style and strategy of that player. I back up this belief with the observation that across many good players, the most successful power widely varies. There are certainly biases in this preference (i.e. more players seem to prefer France over Italy), but I don't think that one can conclude that everyone will be more successful with one power as oppose to another.
In that sense, I mean to say that there is no "*universally* best power".

I'm certainly *not* denying the asymmetry of the game. In fact, part of my conjecture is that different players will be better or worse suited for the asymmetric positions of each power.

I think you are looking at it from the wrong point of view. With diplomacy the problem is not that there is one superpower but that one power is at a distinct disadvantage: Italy.

Normally in a game with multiple side choices, you can just refuse to pick a side you think is terrible. There are fighting games where a character is considered unplayable.

I'm not saying Italy is THAT bad off, but I think nearly every player with a desire to win would choose another power over Italy.

France is my personal favorite for winning games.

I disagree with swordsman. There are differences among the countries and each has its own play style and some tend to be more relaxed than others. France, Russia and some others have an easier or broader play style that leads to success for a greater variety of players while Italy and Austria have narrower styles.

To illustrate, I've won as Italy in a tournament as have other players and I tend to do really well with Italy but concerning Turkey, I tend to do awful.

i agree, a number of Italian openings are very cool.

Of the, Rocky lepanto is my favourite, and i've done well and badly with it.

And though you may have a lower chance of solo-ing with Italy, it is also more satisfying when you do.

two fleets for italy really changes the game, and giving italy a 4th would probably make it far too strong (maybe make ven neutral, then?). In fact, the 3 fleet opening for italy makes it quite the power player if I/A can pull it off.

Fleet Rome is a terrible variant. Italy has even fewer options than before: Italy's first build will almost certainly have to be an army because it can't afford to leave its homeland unguarded (in which case, what was the point of the variant?). If Italy does throw caution to the wind and get three fleets by 1902, it often does so at the price of Venice returning to its 1800s masters, the Austrians, with still-grim prospects if an invasion of France is undertaken. The invasion of Turkey actually goes by just as quickly in standard as in Fleet Rome, and since Italy can only bring two fleets to bear on Turkish shores anyway (and will in standard) Fleet Rome leaves no options. The only thing Fleet Rome does is make Austria stronger by making the Italian attack on Austria virtually impossible.

@ Tru Ninja
Your argument is nonresponsive.
"There are differences among the countries" - right. That's my point.
"Each has its own play style" - right. The problem is that some of those styles are weaker or stronger.
Then you say France and Russia have more success because they are possibly "easier" [which is another way of admitting that they are more powerful] or "broader" [which I take to mean they have more strategic options, which is another way of admitting that they are more powerful], and that they lead to more success [which is another way of admitting that they are more powerful].
You say you disagree with me...and then restate exactly what it is that makes the game imbalanced.
If you are ADVOCATING imbalance, which you might be (it's hard to tell), then you should be making different arguments than a mere restatement of what the causes of imbalance are.
I agree, it's possible the reason Russia and France are so strong is that they have a higher number of total possible strategic options. It might also be that the countries are constructed in such a way as to make them more power [or "easier" if you prefer].

By "narrower" play styles for Italy and Austria, I take it you mean that they have few strategic options. That might be part of it, but Turkey also has very "narrow" options - most games played by Turkish players start and progress the same way. In fact I'm always very surprised when a Turkish player doesn't open by moving into bulgaria with con and black sea with the fleet. So maybe there's something more important to look at than a country being "narrow" or "broad" because one of the "narrowest" countries, Turkey, is considered very strong.

Also, I already pre-empted your argument that "I have personally won as Italy a few times, and other people have too!" - that in no way negates the fact that Italy, specifically, is a statistically far weaker power than the others due to inherent differences.

I have won games of Chess as black. White is still more powerful and all Chess players of any worth agree with that statement. The fact that I have won before as Black doesn't mean White isn't the most powerful color.
At no point have I ever said it is *IMPOSSIBLE* to win as Italy - just that it is more difficult to do so than with other powers. Therefore, your argument that Italy sometimes wins isn't responsive because it argues against the straw man position that "Italy never wins," which I never stated.

In *no* other serious boardgame community do they refuse to acknowledge imbalance. Furthermore, in the majority of serious game communities, they try to find solutions to rectify it. Italy is inherently weaker and this has been understood for nearly half a century. It's at least worth CONSIDERING solutions (such as bidding systems) to account for the weaknesses and strengths of powers.

@2 Fleet italy discussion

You all are probably right. I've never played the 2 fleet variant so I didn't know if it was any good or not. The point I made in bringing it up was that there as small changes to the game that people in the past have considered in an attempt to improve the balance in the game, and that 2 fleet italy is merely an example. Based on your arguments it doesn't seem viable to me.

One solution I've tried a few times with my friends feels like it has potential.
When we play Face to Face, each player puts $10 in the pot.

The whole pot goes to the winner if there is one, and is split equally between members of a draw.

Each player simultaneously writes down a bid for each power, in dollars. The amounts represent how much that player is willing to add to the pot to receive that power. Nobody can bid below zero and an individual player's bids can't be the same amount (if you want to bid the same for two powers, add .01$ to break a tie)

Each player gets to play the power for which they won the bid (had the highest bid of all the players). Bids are resolved in order of how high the bid is, so if, for example, you won 3 bids, the one you get to play is the one you bid the most for.

The trick is that you only have to actually add to the pot whatever the SECOND highest bid was for the power that you get to play, not your actual bid.

This system monetizes the collective opinions of the players as to how much stronger or weaker the different powers are, because they have to put up more stakes to play a power that is more likely to win - as adjusted for by how much the other players believe the same thing.

This system also incentivizes each player to bid EXACTLY how much more they think playing that power is worth, because if they bid too high, they may be forced to play that power for an amount that it wasn't really worth paying, and if they bid too low, they may be allowing another player to gain the advantages of playing that power without putting up extra stakes.

Continuing onto PE's slamming of Fleet Rome, it makes the traditionally strong France watch his shore for an Italian attack. As stated a coordinated attack on Austria with Russia (Wintergree, anyone?) would not be profitable at all for Italy. More likely than not, at best Italy will have two armies, one in Trieste and one in Tyrolia, and Italy will have gained more enemies than friends--Russia has more power or land, France's watchful eye in the Med, and likely Turkey being attacked as Italy's fleets shouldn't be stagnant. Sure, in 01 an attack on France is nice, but it doesn't get you anywhere if you don't have an ally. A bounce in Greece is nice, but you've served yourself up on a platter for Austria's dinner.

@swordsman: I agree with you that some powers do better than others in pretty much any sample of games, but that is because people play badly. A little history: Austria and Italy used to be considered literally unplayable because the only viable strategy for Italy that was considered was attacking Austria, which meant that Austria basically had to hedgehog (move to Venice, Galicia, and Rumania) just to survive the first few turns, and both Italy and Austria were screwed. But now there are twelve different ways to Lepanto, the general feeling among game-players is that Italy and Austria should work together, and tactically people are much better as Italy at boxing Turkey in and coming out on top with Russia.

I think that France is the best power, pretty indisputably. No power has such a strong defensive position, growth potential, natural allies, and an easy solo path (Tunis plus the "top half" of the major stalemate line). I do think that saying France isn't better is naive.

But after that, I think it is really, really close (except I think Russia is bad, but I also think that is because I have never figured it out, since everyone else says it is good), probably going: E/G/I/A/R, but it is really a matter of style among those.

The argument that the strength of the powers depended on the style of the players would hold a lot more weight if players *selected* which power they got to play, because they could choose the one that suited the way they play. That's how it is in fighting games and most asymmetrical videogames.

However, the fact that players' positions are randomized means that getting the power that suits their style becomes a matter of luck. Further, it's not "coincidence" that the playstyles most players use work better with the powers that are intrinsically stronger. For instance, no matter how you play, it is a *fact* based on the way the game is tactically play that is it extremely difficult, if not the MOST difficult, to eliminate Turkey from the game.

ALL players' playstyles (obviously) involve not being eliminated, so ALL players are benefited from that inherent strength of Turkey.

I understand that people have come up with more interesting Italian openings in the last few decades, but opening strategy isn't what makes Italy weak per se. Yeah, the lack of openings made Italy virtually unplayable back in the day. But the addition of some Lepanto moves for attacking Turkey doesn't fix the long-term strategic problems facing Italy. It bumps Italy from an "unplayable" tier but not much else.

All I am saying is that except for France, you can't objectively say that any one power is better than another.

Also, selecting powers is irrelevant. Also, I would argue that whether people who are not good at diplomacy are better at Turkey than Austria is also irrelevant. I am in a hurry, so I am not gonna think of a good example, but here is a decent one: If you are playing Monopoly with people who don't know what they are doing, everyone goes for Boardwalk and Park Place and the person who gets it wins. If you are playing with people who do know what they are doing, though, that is probably the worst strategy: It might get preempted by early light-blues, and certainly will get beat by oranges or reds.

I've been thinking about it more, and one thing that strikes me as a reason why Italy is weak, even from the start, is that it really only has one natural neutral while the other powers have two. France has Portugal and Spain, England has Belgium and Norway, Germany has Holland and Denmark, Russia has Sweden [and an extra unit to start] / Rumania, Austria has Serbia and Greece / Rumania, and Turkey has Bulgaria and Greece / Rumania.

If you add those up, that's 30 centers. The other 4 are Italy + Tunis. To get up to parity with the other powers, Italy has to attack somebody else, or get them to trade away Greece, and that puts him at an immediate strategic disadvantage from a quantitative point of view. Yes, a good player can OVERCOME this disadvantage with shrewd moves and negotiation, but that doesn't negate the fact that it exists.

How does Turkey have 2 natural neutrals at all? Or England?

SC parity is not that important.
Fall 1901:
4 SC Italy, England, Turkey - standard
4 SC Austria - tough
8 SC Russia - dead

You most certainly can, because you can use objective, empirical, statistical analysis of games to observe which powers win the most. While I agree that France is the strongest, I believe this to be the case not because of your opinions about France's strategic position, but based on actual results. Someone could just as easily claim Russia is the strongest for a reason that can't really be confirmed or denied in and of itself, like that Russia has 1 more center to start. That seems like a pretty big advantage, but in the scheme of things really isn't. So the reasons why France is strong do not necessarily have to be the reasons you specified. [In fact I think your reasons are very good, but it is objective analysis of results that shows what power is stronger, not armchair arguments].

The REASON one can say that France is objectively better isn't because of some subjective analysis of France's position. The objective reason is the objective results from matches.

And that same basis can be used to evaluate the other powers.

Selecting powers is very much relevant in terms of gameplay balance. If you wish to defend the asymmetries of the game as negated by the playstyles of the players, then there has to be some way for players to ensure they can select the power that suits their playstyle. My argument isn't relevant to the discussion as a whole but it is VERY relevant as a response to your statement about playstyles.

What if 90% of players have a playstyle that is best suited for a traditionally strong power like France? That would EXACERBATE the problem of imbalance, because the games would be even *more* dependent on which player was lucky enough to get France. The fact that seat selection is random is terribly relevant if players, or their playstyles, converge on the same power or several powers as being strong.

In fact, explaining my argument further has caused me to realize that it is in fact a counter-argument to the idea that any power is inherently strong - it could actually be that France being really strong in the statistical results is actually a result of France being suited to the majority of players' playstyls and not really based on an inherent attribute of the country. I'm going to chew on that.

However, even if that is the cause of imbalance, it's still possible to solve with something like the bidding system I've been playing with the last year or so.

I never made an argument based on bad players, so I agree that it's irrelevant, but you're the one who brought it up.

If you mean to talk about my argument that Turkey is strong defensively, which is not premised on players being good or bad, but in having different "play styles", then it is very much relevant. In order to win, a player has to first ensure that he is not *eliminated*. The whole game and all powers' strategies are premised upon that. The longer and harder it is to be eliminated, the more chances for a diplomatic coup, the more chances for forcing a draw, and the more chances for error by opponents that can be turned in a victory or at least a stronger draw. That is an advantage for Turkey that has to be seriously evaluated, and MIGHT be (though I can't prove it to be) the reason for Turkey being so successful.

This whole monopoly argument doesn't respond to what I'm talking about, because I'm not premising any of my arguments on the idea that players are idiots. I'm only discussing high-level play.

However, if I were to analogize to Monopoly myself (a game which....bears little resemblance to diplomacy, but I digress) I would say this: what if Monopoly didn't have players trade for and bid on properties, but the monopolies were distributed at flat-out random? Sure, good players would be able to increase their chances of winning by a lot against bad players by knowing when to build up and when to store chash, but you and I both know that Light Blue has early game advantages that can snowball, and that in the long run the free parking corner is the most profitable. Assuming all players are very good and not apt to make many mistakes, it becomes a GIGANTIC advantage to be dealt the stronger monopolies.

Diplomacy has that problem.

I'm just tabulating the amount of SCs and saying that hypothetically they can be distributed evenly and still leave Italy with the short end of the stick. You're quite right - they don't usually get split up evenly, and I think what makes the weaker countries "weak" is in no small part their lack of ability to fight for an even distribution of SCs if they want them, and indeed in some cases to have any say at all [like Italy].

Turkey has the possibility of negotiating for taking two natural neutrals in 1901. For italy, it is straight up impossible. Italy cannot take 2 natural neutrals in 1901 no matter what.

I would have thought a natural neutral is a SC noone else can deny for it's natural owner if said owner decides to take it in 1901. Negotiating for a close neutral means it is contestable, not natural. At best, it can be regarded as semi-natural, when the consensus dictates that certain countriy gets that SC in 1901 when a corresponding alliance forms (England Belgium when there's no Sealion, for instance).

My apologies then, ulytau, I am using the phraseology completely wrong. I (incorrectly, I checked and I was wrong) presumed that a natural neutral was one a power could hope to have in 1901.

We need to define "natural neutral" for this discussion. I am going to define "natural neutral" as "any neutral supply center which one power can take no matter what the other six powers do." Natural neutrals are outright conceded to the power which can seize them precisely because the power can take them no matter what happens; thus, no one bothers contesting them, because it's a waste of units.

By this definition, only France and Germany have two natural neutrals: France has Iberia, Germany has Holland and Denmark. Austria, Italy, England and Turkey have one -- Serbia, Tunisia, Norway, and Bulgaria, respectively. Russia has none. The contestable neutrals, then, are Belgium, Sweden, Greece, and Rumania. Russia's fourth unit makes up for the natural neutral gap, so in practice everyone has at least 4 centers assured to them; Germany and France have five.

That explains France's inherent strength. Germany's would-be advantage is somewhat neutralized by its central position, which weakens it somewhat and sets it back toward the middle of the pack. Russia's strength comes from the fact that it has a solid claim to 2/4 contested neutrals (Sweden and Rumania); Germany has two lesser claims to contested neutrals (Belgium and Sweden); France has a lesser claim to one contested neutral (Belgium); England has an iffy claim to one (Belgium); Austria has a strong claim to a second, Greece; Turkey has minor claims to 2/4; and Italy has the weakest claim to one contested neutral.

So in first is France, with 5 + weak claim to 6; Russia is next with 4 + strong claim to six; Germany is next with 5 + weak claim to 7; Austria then has 4 + strong claim to one; Turkey has 4 + weak 6, England 4 + middle 5, and Italy 4 + weak 1. England is better than it shows because it is very defensible. So yeah, Italy is clearly sitting back.

I should rephrase my original point to say that there the number of *potential 1901 neutrals* available to each power is objectively lower in the case of Italy.

President Eden your analysis is excellent, and I agree with it completely. I also apologize for using the phrases wrong, I learned to play Diplomacy Face to Face and continue to play the majority of my games that way, and I think I picked up on some odd vocabulary from it.

I think the neutrals analysis does have at least SOME bearing on how strong the powers are, and I think the defensive strength of Turkey makes up for it's lack of neutral claims to some degree, possibly explaining Turkey's strong performance in the results.

It's worth remembering that since draws don't take into account how many SCs a country had at the end of a game, Turkey only has to *not die* to share in the many draws that it achieves.

Let's assume for the sake of the argument that Turkey is the least likely country to be first eliminated. If a large number of games end in 3-6 player draws, Turkey's strong performance can be explained almost purely on the basis that it is difficult to eliminate.

*Italy has 4 + weak 5.

Also, to clarify:

*A strong claim means that the power can really only be denied a center if multiple neighbors collaborate to stop it. Neither Austria nor Turkey can on their own prevent Russia from taking Rumania, and while Germany can block Sweden, Germany can't take it for itself, either. Perhaps reassessing the Sweden claim would be wise.
*A middle claim is simply a weak claim (see below) that "seems" more correct. England "seems" to deserve Belgium more since France and Germany get two natural neutrals to England's one. (Subjective, I admit.)
* A weak claim is simply "This power CAN touch this center!" and nothing else. Italy can't make itself get Greece, for instance.