For one, it's a strategy game where nothing is left up to luck. A player's individual fortunes might not be entirely within his control, but he has the power to influence every aspect of his own destiny through conducting diplomacy and, in theory, governs his own fortunes to a significant extent. There is no "chance" factor.

For two, it's extremely alinear. You decide what to do. You have a win condition, yes, and an if-you-can't-win condition, but how you go about meeting them is entirely your business.

Being a bastard is encouraged and most likely mandatory.

It's second best - Speedball 2 multiplayer rules forever.

Like many great games, Diplomacy is simple but also deep.

When Avalon Hill updates the game to make Italy viable, I'll consider it the best game ever.

War! that mad game the world so loves to play. ~Jonathan Swift

@StraT

Italy is super viable. It's my favorite country.

Italy only gets to 6 supply centers if Austria disconnects, and even then Russia/Turkey will take him down faster and/or sweep right over you. You can try to be cute and stab two countries in 1901 or something, but there's no way a board of 6 competent players will let you live to 1905 if that succeeds. Italy has the least expansive capability of all at any stage of the game, and they only exist to pick someone and support them into an allied victory.

If Italy started with two fleets (F Rom and F Nap) then maybe they'd be capable of deciding games.

two fleets is worse since you are weak against Austria and you can't rush him.

Italy is hard to defeat in the early game : most of the time France don't want to focus on you, Austria can't hardly beat you...

Two fleets means you have offensive options on both sides of the Med early on. And what's so "weak" about having both Tunisia and the Adriatic by 1901, while Austria is struggling with his own triangle in the Balkans?

For me, personally:

Because it's like chess--only with 7 players.
Because it's like poker--only with ALL OF EUROPE (or tabletop bragging rights) at stake!
Because it's like Risk--only the only rolls of the dice are mental and emotional ones.

And so on...oh--

And because the discussions the game can raise--especially if you have an online site devoted to the game--are just great...aren't they? ;)

The reason Italy is hard to defeat in the early game is that Austria is the only one with a Mediterranean fleet in 1901 and he and France have more menacing neighbors that they need to compete with and defend against. By 1903 all the southern neutral SCs are taken and France has a Mediterranean presence. Italy can't effectively defend anything they might have taken from Austria in the first two years and the expanding eastern powers will roll right through them once Austria is out of the way. On the other hand, if Austria does well, has pro-Italian intentions, and Turkey falls, Austria STILL outexpands Italy and when Italy wants to stab, he doesn't have a lot of targets unless he can secure Tyrolia and multiple Turkish regions. And if Russia is still alive, he benefits much more from the stab because he has a much stronger offensive against Austrian holdings than Italy does.

I love Diplomacy because it's like chess that's much more maneuverable, the added aspect of having 6 other people to devise strategies that require team work, and the ability to play your opponents against each other.

But as you know, Italy was always the weak power in Europe...

+1 Gobbledygook.. Personally I'm a fan of this game because it's *not* perfectly balanced, and what's more we all know that. Austria and Russia are screwed in 1901, Germany and Italy are screwed in 1903, England's screwed in 1906 and everybody's screwed in 1910. But you know what? You can change that. That's what I love about diplomacy.

the best game is Go, but it lack of social and psychological dimension, that is why I play Diplomacy.

because on a bad day you can just stab everyone! then you feel better.

StraT^, it sounds like you're just doing it wrong... For example, why would Russia choose Turkey as an ally over Italy after steamrolling Austria? At that point eliminating Turkey gives the RI alliance the same advantage of not being geographically outflanked by anyone that the RT alliance has, except Russia gets more centers out of it in the south and Italy is much closer to the Atlantic with new builds -- and neither of them is a year away from each other's home centers! Italy should easily be able to split the East between itself and Russia.

The convenient thing about Italy is that all four of its readily-available targets can be ganged up upon by 2+ people. Italy can jump on a massacre very easily, and except in the case of Germany the massacre either gives Italy a steady wave of expansion (if the target is Austria, you push on a steady stream east; if Turkey, you have Austria outflanked and can collapse the center) or a very secure power base (southern France, which is extremely rarely fought over by Germany or England after France dies) from which to fuel further gains elsewhere.

If you're doing bad as Italy, play a Key Lepanto! Austria won't like it, but when you offer him the choice between that and total annihilation...

As Italy, you can just screw arouns the first couple of turns, because no one is headed your way. But you shouldn't! Be active from the start, both diplomatically and tactically. Try to set up either a central triple, or a Russian-French-Italian alliance.

@President Eden In my limited experience, a Russian-Italian alliance, being extremely powerful, is a runaway victory for Russia unless Russia has lost everything in the north by the time Turkey falls. Russia does not need more than one fleet to take Austria and everything near it, and Italy doesn't have any stalemate lines to defend while Russia shows them why he's the best expander in the game. Unless Germany and England can dispatch France by the time Austria dies, and thus agree to keep Russia in check instead of turning on each other, RI can turn out favorably for the Italian player.

Yes, that is the convenient thing about Italy, the fact that they can support another player all the way to the 18 supply centers goal. They can annihilate Austria or Turkey and become the dominant Mediterranean force if they ever get their 5th-6th supply center and stock up 2-3 fleets to bring their armies around, so long Russia never gets aggressive and takes the spoils (which are more readily available to him than to Italy) first. Sadly, Italy has virtually no influence over whether that happens, and England and Germany seem to prefer France or one another as targets over Northern Russia by the time Austria or Turkey goes under.

@basvano You're right, of course, that Italy needs to be active. They're desperate for a more favorable position early on. My preferred opening is the Obriani, since it gives Italy a chance at 5 SC in 1901 and a more normal presence in both the east and west.

Just a brief point, the reasons Dip is the greatest game in the world (Some are better for some reasons, but is better all around) are many. First, when Calhamer invented it(Not AH), he designed it exactly right. The same as the perfection of 90 feet between bases. The game is unchanged though 3 publishers and doesn't need changes now. Italy with two fleets is a differnt game and, to be honest, less effective or interesting. The reason it's called Diplomacy is that any country, given an effective diplomat can beat all the others in any game and no country, given effective diplomats on the other side, can help but lose. Tactics helps, but diplomacy matters. Second is bridge, as it requires communication, tactics, brains, and skill.

I like Bridge, but there is still an element of randomness to it. Aftera ll, it is a card game. No, second for me is poker, preferrably No-Limit Texas Hold-Em.

Should have said Contract Bridge.

Duplicate, Contract Bridge.

I also love Contract Bridge.

I've played bridge only once or twice. It sounds like a very interesting game.

However, I was put off by the numerous conventions one has to follow. It looks like it severely hampers creativity. Is that true, or have I just been playnig with less creative players?

It really depends on the level of play and you and your partner. When paired with someone you don't know, you absolutely should follow convention. When paired with someone you do know, it's fair to come up with your own ways of informing each other what you have (through bids). That said, the conventions are conventions for a reason. Much like well-known Diplomacy openings, they tend to be effective, even if the other party sees it coming. Plus, you can get an idea of how to play your opponents based on what they say.

Diplomacy is the best game ever because it makes you more effective at life. It's astounding how easy it is to influence people once you get some practice at it through this game.

because it is almost complately decided by the skill of the players. it's almost like chess like that, but it has more than one person. also because you have to talk to other people to win. other than maybe risk, which it's not necessary you talk to other people, i don't actually know a game where that is true. and Because you don't have to do anything you say you're going to do. which makes it sooooo awesome. and one final thing; there are so many different versions of it.

+1 obi

you really sharpen up your skills are convincing people. i actually convinced my prof to give me an extension...

but for me, i see moves in diplomacy much better than chess. i can look at chess board and come up with nothing.

and one other thing about diplomacy: it forces you to make a decision (with the deadline), and sometimes, you realize that you have to stab someone regardless of how much you don't. it quite so reflects our reality, despite our honest attempts to deny such

Idealist +1 - "but for me, i see moves in diplomacy much better than chess. i can look at chess board and come up with nothing"

I'm the same way. I just can't see the moves in advance in chess, but I can see moves and counter moves and retreats in Dip.

Avalon Hill board games are better than other games because of their strategy, their replayability, and their focus on tactical skills and strategic decision making. In most games, you can recover from a mistake or two, but not from too many. On the other hand, unlike Settlers of Catan, you still can recover and win from behind, especially in Diplomacy. Also once you've played Settlers four or five times, you are just repeating games, which is why they had to come up with so many new rules and scenarios. In Diplomacy, I've rarely replayed the same game, and even so the diplomatic field is always different.
Back to Avalon Hill games though. Diplomacy is still better than the other Avalon Hill based board games I like play (Third Reich/ATR/AWAW and Squad Leader/ASL) because
1. It's easier to find players.
2. The rules are simpler so, well, it's easier to find players.
3. Webdiplomacy exists and has a huge player base so, it's easy to find players.
4. Everything everyone else said (no dice/cards, no turns, your destiny is to some extent in your own hands, and if it's not, the destiny of other players who robbed you of yours is often in your hands.) thus it's easy to find players.

The only reason I keep going back to the Squad Leader and Third Reich genre games is that they are so much deeper strategically and tactically than Diplomacy, but their biggest downfall is the lack of players.. And nothing beats the fleet combat system in AWAW.

Where's that edit function??

Clarification: In most Avalon Hill games (that I've played) you can recover from a mistake or two, but not too many. And unlike many other games, like Settlers of Catan, you can win from behind, especially in Diplomacy.

Oh and btw, there is even an axis and allies mod based on diplomacy.. what does that say about this game?!!

Three damned good reasons for the obvious superiority of this game:-

1) It's free!
2) It is one of the few great games that can be played whilst doing other things like watching the football, eating, pretending to work &c.
3) It has the Smug factor (i.e. people see you playing it, and automatically assume you're some sort of intellectual and all round smart arse).

...and I guess it's sort of fun as well ;)

because some of us have 250 MB of usage left on their wireless account - to last the next 9 days! I'll miss you youtube :(

@StraT^ -- Maybe it's just my experience, but I find that unless Russia is actively doubledealing with the initial target of Russia-Italy to screw Italy out of gains, Italy gets a *lot* more than 5-6 SCs in all. More like 5-6 SCs from Austria/Turkey/Balkans alone. Italy becomes quite a force in the RI. Additionally, while you're right that a runaway northern victory for Russia would doom Italy to second or worse place, I have honestly never seen this happen in the course of an RI that I can recall. And I generally find that if Russia is concentrating on the north (as would be necessary for such a breakout) that the south is inadequately defended from an Italian stab and the Russian fortune can quickly be reversed.

And besides, even if all that's wrong, you're kind of making the point by saying that Russia has a relatively easy win by allying with Italy over Turkey. If you can't get Russia to break a Juggernaut after killing Austria with THAT kind of an argument...

Shameless self-promotion: gameID=39970.

Yes, a Russian-Italian alliance can lead to a Russian solo, but it is by no means a runaway victory. Besides, when Russia is growing strong, he'll attract attention (even more so if you alert the others), thus leaving you with a nice position and relatively few enemies, if at all.

Actually, I should revise: when I'm Italy I've never seen that happen. lol. Not shameless self-promotion, I just remembered pulling it off as Russia in a game not too long ago.

Essentially, the battle boils down to who stabs first, unless (as in basvan's example) the eventual victor had overwhelming superiority in numbers, in which case it doesn't matter who stabs first, the one with the mostest beats the one there firstest.

Draug: "'m the same way. I just can't see the moves in advance in chess, but I can see moves and counter moves and retreats in Dip. "

The secret to being good at chess is playing a lot of games. Great chess have an enormous library of past games in their heads that they draw on (thousands of hours of play). Its pattern recognition. If you don't play much, even if you are very intelligent, you won't recognize the patterns.
Tactics are easier in Diplomacy - you don't don't have so many pieces to move, and the real skill is being able to convince other people to help you. Thus while it helpful to be a tactical genius it is not vital.

typo... Great chess *players have an enormous library of past games